Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

Should this event be characterized as terrorism? 00:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Transcluded discussion from other talk page

Support

• Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." "terrorism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000". web.archive.org. 20 June 2006. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: clearly described as such by reliable sources and by influential people across the political spectrum. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes similarly in The Oxford English Dictionary - 2a "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". This event is literally the definition of terrorism. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, by the definition of terrorism by the FBI: "Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives." https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 Dobekofcas (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per my comments at Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States. We aren't smarter than numerous reliable sources, the President-elect, and a multitude of other leaders. This isn't complicated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Soft Yes IF sufficient RSes in support of calling it terrorism can be established, AND consensus is established that there is enough RS publication for it to be in Wikipedia's voice. If the first but not the second happens, then support maintaining current section: "The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." Builder018 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, applicable to all articles that mention this event., per Bongwarrior's reasoning. Jdphenix (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment Let’s see... they attempted to “overthrow” the results of the election with violent insurrection. They attacked law enforcement with lead pipes in the process of breaking and entering the government’s legislative building. There was a stand-off inside the building with guns drawn. A woman in this so-called mob was shot and killed trying to climb through a window. They ransacked offices and defiantly sat in officials’ seats with their fists raised. If it were in any other country what would you consider calling this? So yes, because that was their intention even if the dramatic irony befalls them. Trillfendi (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Well ... MSNBC in its self-ad, refers to coverage of "domestic terrorism" as part of their purpose. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: the RNC and DNC pipe bombs are terrorism alone, nonetheless breaking into the nation's capitol. ɱ (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: It has to be. They stormed the U.S. Capitol for the purpose of wanting to alter the election in favor of Trump instead of Biden. That's just as political as it can get. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: Echoing everyone else above. Strongest possible yes. Brad (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: I wouldn't object to the article being renamed to "2021 terrorist attack of the United States Capitol". -- RobLa (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - per sources [3]. And they did terrorize members of Congress. Pipe bombs were found. BTW, taking over parliaments is not anything new, even recently. The Crimean parliament was taken by the green men, but the most similar incident was probably Armenian parliament shooting. It is only through sheer luck that the members of the Congress were not harmed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously Per User:Nfitz this fits the definition as clearly as you can get, widely supported by many RSes. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - it checkes all boxes of terrorism, there wer bombing attempts aswell. and CNN as well as polititians call it terrorism Norschweden (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The events were an unlawful use of violence and intimidation for the advancement of political goals. Plus, there were multiple IEDs found. Bravetheif (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The intention of the rioters was clear, and that was to terrorize lawmakers and shut down the United States Government. That fits the definition of terrorism. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – their intention was to overthrow the joint session of Congress in order to change the results of a democratic election. That is a coup. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (sparingly) This was an act of domestic terrorism. A lot of sources frame it in these terms. However, it's important we don't overuse the term in an NPOV way. We must use this term in a reliable-sourced, explicitly-defined way. Provided the reliable sources characterize it this way, there should be no issue to the proper use of the term. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support: Clearly yes as per intent, reliable sources, evidence, definitions and the leading comments above. I would suggest its a No Brainer. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes open and shut pre-meditated anti-democratic political violence intended to control using fear. What could the objections be? GPinkerton (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  GPinkerton, What could the objections be? Below there is a section with a few objections explained. Mainly the lack of wide usage of terrorism in reliable sources. Most mentions of terrorism in RS are quotes of declarations of certain people. MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Reliable sources use it, it fits the definition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — A number of officials including President-elect Joe Biden have referred to this event as an act of domestic terrorism. Courier (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - This easily fits the official FBI/DOJ definition of terrorism: "Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Verumregium (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — It's pretty simple: These individuals used violence to attempt to further their political views. Terrorism is the use of violence as a tool for political and social change. -- Phyzome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Undoubtebly Yes - This event was the textbook definition of terrorism. It was politically motivated and was aimed to instill fear into the U.S. government as well as the American people. It is pretty clear cut. The rioters also had zip ties ready for the capture of government officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football3434 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. They caused nothing but violence and destruction. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes We need not to use such terms wildly however causing congress to evacuate and causing an immense amount of damage with the intent of terror is undoubtedly constitutes an act of terrorism. Using the dictionary definition without the lounge of national definitions it fits the universal term. Des Vallee (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Maile above.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - People who are being arrested in connection to the event are being prosecuted by the Counterterrorism Section of the DOJ’s National Security Division with assistance from various U.S. and District Attorneys. If they're being prosecuted as terrorists, the event was terrorism. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:RS and U.S. prosecutors have described the event as an act of domestic terrorism. Zazpot (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Domestic terrorism — "At least 25 domestic terrorism cases have been opened after US Capitol breach, congressman says Army secretary told him" Paul LeBlanc, CNN.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes there was domestic terrorism; The Guardian reported that "Two pipe bombs had been found at Republican and Democratic party offices near Congress"
• Yes - it meets the definition of terrorism, however I think there should be a section on the various phrases used to describe this event since there isn't a clear consensus among the general population. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It meets the definition of domestic terrorism, and terrorism charges are being drawn up. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable Sources such as the AP have already characterized it as so. Auntieanneslover123 (talk) 2:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Many reliable source can be giving for saying this. 4X the Nation Guard are being deployed to D.C. for the inauguration as we have in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, reliable sources are almost never used in Wikipedia when it comes to Trump, it is all editor voted false spin. Twitter is way ahead of Wikipedia when it comes to banning spin doctors inciting violence. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The definition, in the article, reads, "...attacks by violent non-state actors for political motives." This appears to match exactly what happened. This is not a !vote on the politics of the riot, simply that it meets the definition of terrorism. Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a sure case of domestic terrorism, there is a bunch of RS saying this, and there is official investigation of these storming as terrorism. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes individuals were clearly engaging in terrorism, destruction of the electoral college ballots was their goal, they used violence and intimidation to stifle due process, and all fueled by a white nationalist political agenda. Acousmana (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per William Allen Simpson. It has been called domestic terrorism by Biden and various other officials, and the FBI seems to be treating it as such.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it has been prominently and repeatedly described as terrorism by reliable sources and government officials. The event itself is terrorism regardless of what kind of charges that are brought against individuals for their part in it. --Tataral (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, FBI, Homeland Security, former Department of Defense and military, as well as federal government officials are all referring to it as a terrorist incident. Domestic terrorists used "average" people at the rally as a cover to do what they want to do, just like the 9/11 hijackers pretended to be airplane passengers. The next president has called it domestic terrorism. Etc. Teammm ^talk
  _email 01:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per above, with an emphasis on Royal Autumn Crest's comment about needing a section that goes over the terms used to describe the event. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The Wikipedia article on Terrorism defines terrorism as follows: 'Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes.' The insurrection/riot at the US Capital clearly involved violence and there was also a clear political motive behind it. Edouard d'Erasme (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Then certainly the riots of the 60's and those of last summer were "terrorism" as well, no? The George Floyd Protests article makes clear their purpose was to extract political concessions. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, as per what is directly above. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes WP:RS call it terrorism. WP: What happened at the Capitol ‘was domestic terrorism,’ lawmakers and experts say As such, we should follow. Casprings (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per various WP:RS provided above by many users. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I believe this fits the definition of Domestic terrorism. At least some of them went there and had the attack planned before Trump gave his speech. There were reports of reconnaissance tours. There is a video of a woman giving coordinating instructions to people inside the building. There is a photo of an invader climbing over seats holding handcuff-zipties implying he intended to take hostages and came prepared to do so.--Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, FBI, Homeland Security, former Department of Defense and military, as well as federal government officials are all referring to it as a terrorist incident. Domestic terrorists used "average" people at the rally as a cover to do what they want to do, just like the 9/11 hijackers pretended to be airplane passengers. The next president has called it domestic terrorism. Etc. Not to mention the numerous citations of RS referring to it as such. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the USG is widely referring to it as a terrorist incident. When the media talk about whether it was a terrorist incident, many find it it was. And they are cautious about referring to any incident as such. At first I thought No - not in WPVOICE but yes if attributed. But as I looked through the comments, I found the No vote comments to be misses: Whataboutism, fiction, even gibberish, but mostly non sequiturs. While the Yes comments- well, not a wall of granite, but at least solid and coherent. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - clearly meets the definition of terrorism - violence in order to achieve a political end. A violent mob wanted to stop the counting of electoral votes, and successfully (if temporarily) did so. That's what the sources say, and that's what we should say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is definitely terrorism. Rioters stormed into the Capitol, many wanting to kill lawmakers, to stop a "stolen" election. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as violence or threats of violence used as a weapon of coercion or intimidation. The rioters wanted to coerce and intimidate lawmakers with violence and threats of violence (numerous threats were made, not to mention the pipe bombs). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 12:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes YES. While we are at it we can correctly modify the BLM and Antifa groups as terrorists. All that burning... California hung in smoke for weeks.--MrMikeMike (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes seems abundantly clear that a wide swath of reliable sources characterize it as such. ValarianB (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes if there are reliable sources that describe the incident this way. Benicio2020 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Oppose

• No. Otherwise BLM riots last year would also count as 'terrorism'. NPOV must be retained.ExplosiveResults (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference between a group of people infiltrating a government building thinking they can threaten politicians into not voting (symbolicly as it were) for something and a group of people protesting against *checks notes* human rights violations while being tear gassed, is that the latter group of people weren’t threatening the action of democracy. Trillfendi (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with that either. Many of the BLM/Antifa riots were far more violent than the Capitol Hill Storming and tactics used certainly checked the boxes for terrorism. Similarly, there were certainly participants of the storming who had terroristic intentions at very least. I would be supportive of both this, and the BLM/Antifa riots being categorized as terrorism. History Man1812 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Again, NPOV must be maintained and your views of motivation behind two different rioting mobs do not decide whether it constitutes terrorism.ExplosiveResults (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism is a method, the idealistic motivators of an action are irrelevant to whether it's "terrorism" or not.PailSimon (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The definition(s) of terrorism include the political purpose. Breaking into a house in order to steal something is not terrorism, but breaking into a house in order to intimidate someone to vote a specific way is. Sjö (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter were people protesting unarmed African Americans getting killed by police; the Capitol Insurrection was primarily white supremacists upset they lost an election and tried to change the result by force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the people identified at the Capitol were already on FBI watchlists, there is no such things as BLM riots, BLM doesn't organize riots, they conduct protests, which isn't terrorism, and have permits from the city to do so. White supremacists at the Capitol had weapons and handcuffs, used flag poles, fire extinguishers, and stun guns to attack police and others, used mob force to crush and rip of the badges and weapons of law enforcement, prevent them from leaving, caused Congress members and staff to go into hiding in fear for their lives, wore anti-semitic clothing and carried white nationalist symbols, and went on a search to find the Vice President of the United States and Speaker of the House of Representatives. They also planted bombs nearby. One sounds like terrorism to me, the other sounds like protesting as allowed under the Constitution. Oh, and all rioting isn't terrorism. It involves more. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by BLM riots, ExplosiveResults - which doesn't seem notable - do you have a reference?. There have been protests on many things (like sports games) that have descended into rioting after extended period. That doesn't make it terrorism. This storming appeared to have been the plan of the "protesters" ... and happened almost immediately. As far as I know the vast majority of BLM protests were entirely peaceful, and the worst offence was blocking traffic, or noise violations - certainly around here. Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

BLM and/or Antifa protests have done more than "blocking traffic". They have burned down police stations, repeated attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland, set up "autonomous zones" in several cities, and don't even get me started on the five police officers killed in Dallas in 2016 during a BLM protest.96.241.129.33 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

BLM protests were scheduled ahead of time, coordinated with local law enforcement and the media. The fact that looters and other opportunistic types showed up to create chaos was not the goal of BLM. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Breaking past capitol security, causing minor property damage to the building, and walking around inside for a little while in response to an allegedly stolen election is terrorism, but killing civilians and burning down cities because a few criminals got killed isn't? How absurd. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course! That's why they were there. They just wanted to have a little walk around the place. Very fine people, I'm sure. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorists are usually armed though. Pipe bombs found outside the building notwithstanding, I don't think any of the rioters were armed. Otherwise, just refer to RS, not POV. Including mine. RandomGnome (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the rioters absolutely were armed. You are correct, though, that we should go with RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Checking the article, I found mention of an 'armed standoff' and 'chemical sprays'. You are correct that some of the rioters were armed, but these appear to be more isolated events within a highly disorganized and opportunist riot by a disparate group that managed to gain access to the building, rather than a concerted, armed terrorist siege. But as you say, we defer to RS. I would urge editors to find sufficient high quality RS before RfCing for 'terrorism'. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed several extensive discussions on this talk page and others related to terrorism, with edit warring. I've seen reasonable RS arguments for both. I opened this to get discussion in (hopefully) one spot. Jdphenix (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Holy strawman Batman! "minor property damage" and "walking around inside"? That's a funny way of describing violently breaking into a federal building and planting not one but two IEDs in an attempt to overthrow an election. Bravetheif (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Most WP:RS most sources do not call it terrorism most national and International media coverage of this crisis does not call it Terrorism.There is no consenus is WP:RS and most WP:RS do not call it a terrorist attack.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No As said above, most if not all reliable sources call this a riot, at most it is referred to as an insurrection, which is a dubious claim in it of itself JazzClam (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No This is a malformed RfC, and probably going to end up as a snowball again, as declaring it to be ex post facto terrorism by interpreting it as "Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." would clearly be wp:OR. Let's chill on the RfCs for a while. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow consensus on “facts”...could this be anymore intellectually dishonest...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.229.135 (talk • contribs)

• No Terrorism as a word is obviously biased and is pretty much incoherent at this point as it is used in so many inconsistent ways.PailSimon (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how, User:PailSimon, that identification of event is a biased issue, with Republicans and (former) Trump supporters calling this terrorism. How is this article from a local newspaper (Washington Post) not a reliable source? It even identifies some of the white nationalist terror groups involved. Nfitz (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Not until sufficient, high quality RS describe it as such. It doesn't matter what we think. People seem to lose sight of this very quickly. RandomGnome (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No-It was an unlawful protest, but not violent enough to be described as terrorism. The protesters weren't out to kill anyone. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The last part of this argument is demonstrably false. Lin Wood; "The time has come Patriots. This is our time. Time to take back our country. Time to fight for our freedom" [BusinessInsider]. His Parler post; "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." [Washington Post]. The bombs. Violent intent isn't debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Unless there are people involved in this event charged with committing acts of terrorism. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I concur with Rreagan007, no one has been charged with domestic terrorism or legally labeled as such Anon0098 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Most reliable sources are not characterizing it as a terrorist attack, even if they report declarations of this or that politician that calls it domestic terrorism, they usually do it clear in-text attribution. If you have followed media coverage of actual terrorist attacks, you probably know the difference between most reliable sources calling something terrorism, as opposed to some politicians calling names. --MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No It can't be "terrorism" and a "coup" and an "insurrection" all at the same time. Some of you are trying to throw mud to see what will stick. 96.241.129.33 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

......why the hell not? You either don't know what those words mean, or you're hoping that people who read your comment won't. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. As has been noted many times, terrorism is an official term with a specific legal definition and we cannot use words like that until a court finds it as such. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm against the terrorism label on principle: "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." ImTheIP (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No for now. Wait until more RSs start using the term and then return to the proposal. — Czello 14:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. Neutral. I don't see any reason to characterize this event as a terrorist act. Alalch Emis (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I do see the reason now after all the news. In some aspects, seeing how terror tactics were used, despite the event not being a terrorist attack, terrorism was involved. But this aspect is not the most prominent one, as the desired political end was primarily not indirect, through terror (which is the defining element of terrorism), but direct and immediate, through intimidation of members of Congress etc. — Alalch Emis 22:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, soft wait. All reporting shows this to have been a protest turned riot. There is little proof of any planned attack besides the pipe bombs (Have they been linked yet to the riot?). The pipes bombs themselves are the only thing that could be labeled domestic terrorism. Also as others noted we would have label riots from last year as being "domestic terrorism" https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/portland-man-charged-july-28-2020-arson-mark-o-hatfield-us-courthouse. Which would not fit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. I went through all sources cited in this discussion, and none call it terrorism in their own voice, so as best I can tell it fails verification. Moreoever, "terrorism" is a contentious label that requires wide use by reliable sources. If anyone can establish such wide use, then please ping me and I will reevaluate my position. R2 (bleep) 07:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No/Wait Most reliable sources of international reputation — including progressive ones such as the New York Times or The Washington Post — are not classifying it as terrorism. Some people in the "Yes" section argue that the have reliable sources, but either don't provide them or provide sources that are not that straightforward on this subject. Others argue that this falls into their preferred definition of terrorism, but that looks like original research to me.--JBchrch (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. 1) It's a lazy catch-all that conflates very different types of acts. 2) Reliable sources are not using it. 3) There will be a better description (though which term has not yet been resolved. It might end up being called a failed coup, maybe an insurrection.) Jd2718 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously no. Even the question of this RFC is ridiculous, terrorism is milestones to the power of infinity far cry away of this event. I heavily agree as well what is coined on the top of this thread about NPOV and double measure, on the other hand quite sad political soapboxing became so widespread in WP, seeing the number of votes to support, incredible! Not knowing/understanding what terrorism really is raises a huge concerns. Btw. I am not watching or editing this page, just by coincidence I saw this RFC, so without any ping will ignore any further here, I hope sane thoughts will trial here, not political interests/propaganda/agenda.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

• No. FOR NOW. Demonstrations which lead to occupations of public buildings aren't usually defined as terrorism in reliable sources. But we have to follow if the historical consensus uses that term down the line.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, they were a protest that evolved into unlawful actions of serious caliber, but that's it. Even if a couple of protestors may turn out to have had terrorist intentions in my opinion it should not represent the whole event.Forich (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• No That is ridiculous. Terrorism is conducted by a terrorist organisation, it's usually a violent act to cause fear in a populous - ie it causes "terror". This was simply a mob attacking a building, and at the heart of it, there is no "terrorist" act that causes "terror" (ie a bombing, or the taking of hostages, or someone being killed). I don't think the public are particularly afraid of these protestors, in the terror sense. The motivation of the crowd wasn't to cause terror in the public for a political cause, - essentially the protestors were pissed off at the government and wanted to vent their frustration. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• No A no opinion does not mean support for the riot. Vowvo (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• No I know this was an insurrection I wouldn't compliment the insurrectionists by calling them rioters and the Department of Defense and CNN agree with me. [4] Caffoti (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hell no - They have to kill a LOT more people to be considered "terrorism" --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an incorrect assertion, because an act of terrorism does not necessitate "a LOT more people" being killed; for instance, in 1985'a incident involving TWA Flight 847 there was 1 fatality. In fact, an act of terrorism can occur without any casualties, like in Japan Airlines Flight 351. In the Capitol, there was an officer of the law killed, and The Guardian reported that "Two pipe bombs had been found at Republican and Democratic party offices near Congress" Tortillovsky (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The legal definition of terrorism varies from country to country - in some countries a certain level of seriousness/damage is required. In most Anglo-Saxon countries 'intent' rather than outcome is the defining factor. IRA actions in London often did no actual harm but caused massive economic disruption simply by threatening acts such as planting multiole small incendiary devices on the transport system, thengiving an ambiguous warning. But yes, there is not generally a minimum 'body count'. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - not in WPVOICE although attributed claims in the form "politicians/sources X+Y" described it as domestic terrorism would be apt. Terrorism has a precise legal definition in each country and it is exremely unlikely that anyone is going to be charged with any directly 'terrorist' offences. Riot, trespass, assault, damage or theft, threatening behaviour, possibly insurrection and possibly manslaughter iro a few individuals are all that are being spoken of as possible charges at the moment. You can't have terrorism without a terrorist, just as you cannot have murder without a murderer, and despite many of the perps being filmed, directly 'terrorist' - and probably even directly 'political' charges, such as insurrection, for the mob itself - are extremely unlikely AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - Just because it fits the definition of terrorism does not mean it should be classified as such. By definition all riots that ever happened would have been classified as terrorism. While it may feel good to label this as a terrorist act, using a technicality is not the way to do it. Orangewarning (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all RS calls it terrorism. Others call it coup. Others call it insurrection. Others call it storming. Others call it riots. Others call it rape. Others call it concert. Others call is anarchy. Others call it apocalypse. Others call it judgement. Others call it doomsday. Others call it massacre. Others call it flood. Others call it noisy. Others call it bad. Others call it stupid. Others call it violent. Others call it discredited. Others call it hate. Others call it hatred. Others call it killings. Others call it event. Others call it earthquake. Others call it tsunami. Others call it impeachment. Others call it pedophilia. Others call it breach. Others call it vandalism. Others call it edit war. Others call it war. Others call it World War 3. Others call is Donald Biden. Others call it looting. Others call it protests. Others call it BLM2. Others call it Just Some American Stuff. Others call it The Simpsons. Others call it Capitol Disaster. Others call it evening. Others call it day. Others call it January. Others call it 2021. Others call it something. We can't fit everything to one. Thus, they can be redirects and Wikipedia can give itself its own name (the current). GeraldWL 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As per above. I would honestly support a renaming to 2021 United States Capitol Incident, even, but that's somewhat irrelevant. I feel like storming is about as neutral as we can get without people from either side protesting the decision.SkynetPR (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Feel free to create 2001 World Trade Center incident with the appropriate content - be bold! →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Σ LOL. Great response. Made me laugh. That said, I must admit I was somewhat surprised to discover that September 11 attacks did not have the word "terrorism" in it, despite the coverage seeming to almost universally call it that. Before I saw that title, I might have been inclined to support "terrorist" in the title to this article--if that word was associated with the event as much as it is with 9/11--which it certainly isn't yet. I'm still waiting to see a stronger list of RS that calls it "terrorism" before I would join your yes vote. It still looks more like a coup attempt or insurrection to me than attempting to scare or intimidate civilians. I see it as trying to intimidate lawmakers and police, but it's up to the RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - I'm pretty vehemently against the actions of the rioters and what they stand for, but that said, calling this "terrorism" would seem to raise a lot of WP:NPOV issues. It also doesn't seem to be reflective of the verbiage that a majority of reliable sources are using. Most definitions generally call terrorism violence directed at civilians, which doesn't entirely fit in this instance. We can certainly make qualified statements that use "terrorism" (e.g. "Several news outlets referred to the incident as terrorism"), but we shouldn't use "terrorism" in narrative voice. Remember that "terrorism" is a word to watch. We should only apply it if we're confident. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – we didn't call the BLM protests terrorism; therefore, it's a violation of NPOV to call this incident terrorism. Firstly, terrorism is a strong word that carries many legal connotations, and not everyone there will likely be charged with terrorism. So it may not be the most accurate and neutral thing to mention (even if it's true). Also, not all references are calling it terrorism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• No — hard to believe this is even a question. If this was "terrorism" then so is virtually every riot, including those of last summer. Enough with the trying to call what was clearly a riot a "storming", "insurrection", "coup attempt", etc.—it's just embarrassingly POV and 100% inaccurate. These "debates" are pure partisan political hackery and a disgrace to Wikipedia. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - no evidence that this was a terrorist's plot. We should use WP:RS reliable sources. There's no frequent mention of "the terror attack on the Capitol". True, some may cite terror in the same line as if you don't have Medicaid assistance, it's terrifying if you're sick, but that's not the mainstream definition of terrorism. That is not to say that the riots were good. They were not. Vowvo (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• No — This whole talk page is filled with echo-chambered "fact checks" and so is the article. This was barely even a riot. It was a protest. Remember in Seattle when armed militants took over government buildings and temporarily seceded from the USA to create their own "Autonomous Zone?" That is labeled an "occupation protest" on wikipedia. The same place where in only a handful of days, there were multiple murders, several shootings, rapes, robberies; and yet that whole debacle is considered a "occupation protest." At least 26 people were killed during the George Floyd BLM uprisings/riots and wikipedia calls all of them "protests." Let's stop from making Wikipedia an echo-chamber from one side and back to the free and fair place to learn about things without bias. There is CLEAR bias on several political related pages that misrepresent reality with fiction citing non-credible articles that are only allow because they are posted on "credible mainstream news sites"; Keep WikiPedia written with unbias facts. ChaseF (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• No (and wait) To my knowledge there is insufficient sources, and no official US government sources that call it terrorism (correct me if I'm wrong). Labelling this event as terrorism reeks of political bias and opportunism. There's a severe desire from very leftist Americans to label this as everything bad they can come up with. To my knowledge, as one witness and participant said, everything got emotional and they got carried away. And as others also have pointed out, if this event is labelled as terrorism, then we should label the Antifa/BLM "mostly peaceful protests"/riots as terrorism too. And if this event was terrorism, then it surely was the most lame and weird act of terrorism ever. The damage was absolutely minimal, and I don't recall seeing people smashing stuff en masse on purpose. Lukan27 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Other

• Wait. If individual rioters receive charges of terrorism, terrorism-related charges, or charges of sedition - we should refer to this act as "terrorism". Until then, I propose that we simply wait. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. I would prefer to wait until there has been news of individuals or organizations being referred doing "terrorist" behavior. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per Mt.FijiBoiz. This seems reasonable and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait I would wait until such individuals are charged with terrorism-related charges, once they are I will be in support. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait While the definition of terrorism has been expanded significantly in recent decades, it's looking like a very few of those involved were prepared for terroristic acts. When this is clarified we can have a suitable section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Wait Personally these seem to be acts of terrorism to me, but I agree with the above that we should wait for charges or expert opinions. Ziko (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per above. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and as this isn't classified as terrorism (yet?), we should wait until it is classified as such. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Per WP:LABEL, value-laden labels should be treated cautiously even if used by reliable sources. Sources will begin to describe the event more neutrally as it leaves the realm of news and enters the realm of history.Jancarcu (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Wait a bit and see what RS converge on, and we get a clearer picture of motivations, who the leaders were, who planted the bombs, how they organized, et cetera. Terrorism isn't really well-defined, so I'm opposed to an appeal to definitions. DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if there are charges of "terrorism" for people involved I'll consider it, but I don't see the support for that label as-of-yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait Too soon, but if a majority of reliable sources begin using the term, so can Wikipedia. Usage in RS will probably be influenced by what kind of charges will be brought (i.e. terrorism-related or not). Sjö (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until a consensus is reached within our sources. -- ToE 11:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per everyone else. Some people were there to protest, some were clearly rioting, some were clearly there to commit assassinations and acts of terror... It's a very complicated, multifaceted event, and we should just wait to see what a majority of experts and officials say, all across the board. Love of Corey (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per most above. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait for reliable sources to converge on descriptors, per Sjö. GAB^gab 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until, as mentioned above, news on if those arrested have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hold on - While organizations such a QAnon and Proud Boys might be characterized as terrorist due to their plottings of assassinations and such, Wikipedia shouldn't characterize the attack that way in Wikipedia's voice. The article can include examples of reliable sources, properly attributed, that characterize the attacks that way. The only class of topics I know of where it's permissible (even required) to use a value-laden WP:LABEL in Wikipedia's narrative voice is WP:FRINGE topics, and this isn't one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, someone made a good point. - OK, so before I continue with my justification, let it be clear that none of the following sentences shall show either political support or political opposition to either of the events mentioned herein. If we are going to classify the event at the Capitol as terrorism, then (as some users above mentioned) there have been other events last year, most notably BLM/Antifa riots, that must also be classified as terrorism. My reasoning: Categorizing something as terrorism requires 1) political motivation to cause a desired change 2) targeting of noncombatant persons (usually civilian) 3) intention to (preferably quickly) instill fear into noncombatant targets 4) at least one person present, virtually or physically, to do something destructive through the use of violence or intimidation. So, the event at the Capitol hits the first (obviously). The targeting is hard to pin because it was not specific, but the third one is a hit, as is the fourth one. At best it hits 4/4, at worst, 3/4. But note, however, that this "checklist" applies only to the people who are actually committing to #4. I can't add this to the article without sourcing because WP:OR but it was clear from footage that most people were not interested in violence, only a portion of them. Because other people were present in large numbers that fit #1 but not #4, the validity of classifying this as terrorism is debatable. Compare this to the various riots in 2020 by BLM/Antifa. They hit #1, obviously. They targeted stores and other buildings, so #2 is a hit. And all of the riots involved their burning, so #4 is also a hit. #3 is debatable, but because at least one person of clear political opposition who were in their way was beaten (to death iirc), I tend to lean toward the affirmative. So at best, this gets 4/4, at worst 3/4. And unlike the event at the Capitol, this one does apply to almost every single person involved. So, my stance: if we classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots must also be classified as terrorism, but (to avoid affirming the consequent) if the BLM/Antifa riots are classified as terrorism, the event at the Capitol need not necessarily be classified as terrorism. Inversely, if we do not classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots may still be classified as terrorism, but (again, a.t.c.) if the BLM/Antifa riots are not classified as terrorism, then this act must also not be classified as terrorism. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until the Biden administration makes a statement either way. That some of the insurrectionists have been charged with domestic terrorism is not sufficient to make the entire insurrection a singular act of terrorism. Forklift17 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if anything. In a "reactions" section or similar, it may be appropriate to say "some sources have referred to [the acts/list specific parts of the events here] as [domestic] terrorism". But until reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the act as a whole as terrorism, it is inappropriate to call it such in WP voice. We are still within a charged time in the political environment - and until the dust settles, it is inappropriate to even be considering this. There is absolutely no rush to call it terrorism, even if it eventually can be determined to be the correct thing to do here. That being said, the trajectory of news coverage of these events has been decreasingly calling it terrorism/insurrection/related words in recent days - possibly to try to avoid polarizing the situation further and any "repeat" or "copycats" based on the use of that language. We will see what coverage over the next few months/year(s) calls it - but until then, it's not appropriate to call it that in WP voice. I'll note that even some participants being charged with/convicted of offenses called terrorism does not mean the event as a whole can be called a terrorist attack. It would be appropriate in such a case to discuss the charges/convictions that resulted, but the event as a whole is not determined by a few charges/convictions. TLDR: potentially the word has a place qualified by specific sources/individuals/charges/etc - but not as a whole yet, if ever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait We must wait for more evidence to come out that it was a coordinated and planned attack between "most" of the people who stormed the capitol building. Current evidence (already cited in discussed article) shows maybe a few hundred people stormed the capitol while the protest had tens of thousands of people attend. We do not know if the majority that did storm were coordinated and planned or if some of them were just opportunistic. If the evidence does come out that the above is true and every intention was to stop democracy from continuing and a planned and organized attack took place then I am all in favor of calling it what it would be, a domestic terrorism attack. For now the process and trials have not concluded and I am very skeptical to call it Domestic Terrorism as we can label many events over the past decades and even as recent as 2020 as Domestic Terrorism. The article already has holes and biases I'm sure will be edited once more information is received. The best part of the discussion is seeing everyone who voted Yes get no feedback or flack for their opinion yet almost everyone who voted no has a comment from another user challenging their opinion. It's honestly sad.
• Wait until at least a few of the participants are charged with terrorism or sedition. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Some articles, categories and lists that are relevant to this RfC: Domestic terrorism in the United States, List of terrorist incidents in 2021, Category:Terrorist incidents in 2021, Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States. --MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm on the fence between "yes" and "wait". Per WP:NOR, the question is not whether we think the events fall under a dictionary definition of "terrorism", but whether reliable, secondary sources think so. On the other hand, I do see there are already some secondary sources trickling in (e.g. this WaPo article mentioned by My very best wishes above), so if the answer here is "wait", I don't think we'll have to wait long. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  We could always add a sentence right now citing the WaPo article and giving in-text attribution, e.g. "The event was described as domestic terrorism by various lawmakers and national security experts." I don't think the WaPo article alone is enough to support calling the event terrorism in, say, the first sentence of the article. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Mz7, that sounds good. Most reliable sources are not calling it a terrorist attack, but they are definitely covering declarations by lawmakers describing it as such. MarioGom (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I saw someone added the following sentence to the lead, which 3Kingdoms just removed:

  This violence against innocent people to further a political ideology is consistent with the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.

  We cannot use the FBI primary sources to support this sentence because of WP:SYNTH: the sources themselves do not directly come to the conclusion that these specific riots fall under its definition of domestic terrorism. On the other hand, the WaPo article that I linked earlier does come to this conclusion directly ("National security experts agreed with that assessment, comparing the aggressive takeover of the federal landmark to the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism"). I would probably support adding a tweaked version of the sentence to the lead, citing the WaPo article instead of the FBI primary sources. Mz7 (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Mz7, indeed, it seems a sizeable amount of !voters here are relying on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based on FBI and dictionary definitions. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because it seems that it is terrorism does not mean it is. We need sources. All the "Yes's" are all opinion. Whenever we have made big decisions, such as on the Taiwan article and referring to it as a country, (That was a good day Wikipedia!) sources have been used. The primary reason the "Taiwan as a country" campaign won was because nearly all reliable sources refer to it as a country. This is no different. We cannot refer to them as terrorists because we don't like them, I don't like them either, that was a dark day, but that's no excuse to lose our moral high ground. JazzClam (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

if the article on terrorism has enough info to answer this question, then let it answer it. If it doesn't, improve or remove it-thanks

No, this was not domestic terrorism. This was a case of heightened emotions that lead to a riot. The pipe bombs that were left around the Capitol did not detonate and there is no proof that a pro-Trump supporter placed the pipe bomb around the premise. The individual that placed the pipebombs could Possibly be classified as a terrorist, but those that stormed the Capitol should not be placed in that category unless there is a premeditated plan to break into the Capitol building. The media outlets like to use words that draw in their viewers. Also, if we go by what President-Elect Biden calls it, then we should follow the same guidelines with BLM or Antifa because Trump has called those entities terrorists. MissBehaving (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Occasionally repressive regimes attempt to stretch the definition of "terrorism" to include political protest of lesser or greater degrees of violence, we could perhaps include the Bolivian coup government of 2019-2020 in this, or the government of Belarus. However, terrorism is generally viewed as a military operation conducted by covert non-state actors whose goal is not to control territory or further some tactical or strategic aim within the context of traditional warfare, but to make a political point. I don't see any military aspect in this action, not were the participants behaving covertly. The violent demonstration in Washington was possibly, in the minds of some of its participants, an attempted coup, but even then, a failed coup attempt is not usually classed as terrorism. However, if by some miracle the balance of reliable sources in future (things like encyclopaedias and history books) refer to it as "terrorism" then I suppose it's ok. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I see a large number--if not most editors--have answered giving their personal opinion and analysis about whether this is or is not "terrorism." Isn't that WP:OR? How about we follow our most basic rules of Wikipedia and call it terrorism if and only if the WP:RS calls it that? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@David TornheimI think the problem here is that we have an event so prominent that we can find RS that call it a massive variety of things including "terrorism", "insurrection" and a "coup attempt". However, on balance the majority of RS won't take that position. This is why people feel free to wade in. I think we should just exclude terrorism for now, as it pretty clearly isn't from any neutral standpoint (and if it is, I've done terrorism on several occasions), and wait to see if a historical consensus calling it "terrorism" emerges in academic sources rather than news media. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• So how long is this staying open? It should close soon, otherwise it's like Wait won although having not the majority Norschweden (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Requested move 23 January 2021

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol riot – Improved title per WP:NCE and WP:COMMONNAME

• WP:NCE — "2021 United States Capitol riot" is a "when", "where" and "what" title
• WP:COMMONNAME — Of the most common descriptors (protest, storming, riot, attack, insurrection) riot is overwhelmingly the riot and attack are names that are most commonly used.

JaredHWood💬 21:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To the RM closer: Please consider the #Survey of proposed titles for proposed and discussed titles for the article, along with the discussion when determining consensus. JaredHWood💬 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (requested move 23 January 2021)

• Comment Of all the other name changes proposed, this would be acceptable, but unsure whether a change now would be too early or too late. Qexigator (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's neither too early or too late, this is the ideal time to improve on the current title. — Alalch Emis 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Time will tell better than any sources to date or opinions on this page (including archived). What is the length of the string to measure the time in units of weeks or months, expecting up to five more years for historical perspectives to consolidate, and perhaps a further five for revisionism to take up the baton? Meantime, the ever-changing tabulating - Survey of proposed titles,[5] not yet closed- (adding, shifting, hiding, meta-stasing) is more muddling than helpful, in ways that others have already remarked, but may have helped to demonstrate the divergent range of views of !voters.[6] Qexigator 09:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC) revised) 10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC), Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question to @Jared.h.wood:, can you demonstrate this is the WP:COMMONNAME? — Czello 22:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Czello: I guess it depends on what you mean by "demonstrate", but WP:COMMONNAME says: "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". There's lots of data (e.g. in Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021) showing that riot is currently the most common term. Another data point: In the titles of our sources for this article, riot occurs over 100 times, 70 times of which in Capitol riot – much more often than attack, insurrection, etc. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: The information given by Chrisahn is what I based my assertion on. I would add these counts of occurrences in the article itself.

• • riot: 245 mentions with "capitol riot" 69 times
  • storm: 105 mentions with "storming of the capitol"^{(and derivations)} 32 times
  • attack: 58 mentions with "capitol attack" 11 times

The exact search term "Capitol riot" is the most common name for the January 6th event at the US Capitol. JaredHWood💬 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Another approach yields basically the same results: Set region to US and language to English in a search for "capitol" on Bing news search or Google news search and count the terms used for the event in the headlines of the first 50 search results: "Capitol riot(s)": 70-80%; "Capitol attack": 20-25%; others (e.g. "Capitol insurrection"): less than 5% each. (I didn't count terms for perpetrators, but "Capitol rioters" is clearly most common.) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is what I have thought all along the article should be called. It is straightforward and easily understood; everybody knows what a "riot" is. Much preferable to "insurrection" or "storming," which could be challenging to those without fluent and well-educated English. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Beat me to it. I would support the current suggestion. However, I would suggest United States Capital Attack is better. First, I think we need to understand what is actually WP:COMMONNAME. Doing a google news search and searching for the terms in title combined with Capital gives us, Riot used 67,700 times, attack is used 193,000 times, insurrection is used 15,400 times and storming is used 6,340 times. That is extremely strong evidence that the current title is not aligned with WP:COMMONNAME and we should use attack. Next we must weigh precision and disambiguation. I think what gets you there is United States Capital Attack. I don’t think you need a year, as what occurred isn’t common enough to confuse people. I do think you need to clue the reader into the country. I would argue that this title meets Wikipedia standards for a title far better then the current and, even through we just had a move discussion, we take the time to look at this again. As noted in the orginal move, this was a temporary solution.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your search is not convincing. You misspelled "Capitol", and for some reason you used "Capitol Hill" instead of Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That is sad. Give me a second and I will fix it.Casprings (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And fixed. It’s the same results. Google is smart. That said, no one likes typos.Casprings (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also updated to be Capital versus Capital Hill. I would note, the overall result is the same. Attack is the the common name.Casprings (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your results are still totally weird. Maybe it's because you are still misspelling Capitol. Here's what I get, searching for each of the four words together with (quote marks) "U.S. Capitol". The result: Riot 84,300,000. Attack 82,700,000. Insurrecton 42,000,000. Storming 23,600,000. Riot and attack are the most common, but riot is slightly more used than attack. To the extent that Google searching means anything (debatable), riot is the common name. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is spelled right, if you click the links. What you are seeing is that I am searching to see if it is used in the title. That gives you a better idea of journalist are using it as a name.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you for explaining that you were searching for the word in the title. I missed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Was originally just going to comment but as I typed my feelings became more clear. My concern is that the term "riot" doesn't really encompass the breaching of the building, or the specific political aims of those who did so. This wasn't just destruction of property, those leading the group were specifically searching for congresspeople to, seemingly, take captive or even execute, or at the very least to stop the electoral certification. The current title, "storming", shows more of that intent. "Attack" might also work. I like "insurrection", but I feel like that's unlikely to win an RM in any form given the last one. I guess I'll back "2021 United States Capitol attack" or variants for an RM per WP:COMMONNAME. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously this was simply a riot—"storming" is laughably NPOV and clearly designed for dramatic effect. Equally important: the "riot" article ought not to include the speeches, marches, etc. that included many thousands of people. Now that we know that only about 800 people entered the Capitol,[7] and that the vast majority of those were peaceful and committed no crime at all, it's high time to put the numbers in perspective. These were the actions of what's likely less than 150 bad actors—out of tens of thousands of people in DC on January 6 for a day of peaceful marches, speeches, and protests. Lumping this together with the larger events of the day completely distorts the truth of what happened. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The primary topic of this article is the violent attack on the capital by white supremacist extremists and other far-right actors. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to minimize that, or the culpability of those involved in the day's events. Given your talk page admonitions regarding edits at Race and intelligence, I would discourage other editors from taking your attempts to do so in good faith. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If more such comments appear, it will mean that "riot" is trending as a revisionist term. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The primary topic of this article is not a violent attack on Washington DC (as had happened several times 2015-2016 and at the time of Trump's inauguration[8]} but a riotous intrusion on the Congress building and its debating chambers so as to disrupt the proceedings of the Senate and House while in session. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current title is OK and so is "2021 United States Capitol attack". Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close is not appropriate, as the embargo was only on "insurrection" nominations. The closer specifically says "Other move requests (like "Riots," etc.) may be launched immediately.". BlackholeWA (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Irregardless of the previous RM closer opinion, it is MY opinion that the previous RM discussion stand for 30 days. We cannot keep junking up the article with RM tags and perpetual RM discussions -- it's disruptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair, although I think(?) that procedural closures only apply to processes closed because the process itself violates a given rule/procedure rather than due to editor consensus. Maybe there'll be basis for a snow close, but too early for that I think. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. 1. "Capitol riot" is closer to WP:COMMONNAME than any other term, as lots of data about usage in WP:RS provided during Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021 has shown. 2. It's true that "riot" isn't very specific and doesn't encompass all aspects of the event – in particular the political goals of the perpetrators – but other terms (e.g. "attack", "storming", "insurrection") would be slightly off in other ways. 3. It's probably best to keep the year in the title for now. "Capitol riot" is close to a WP:COMMONNAME, but it's not yet the name for the events of January 6, 2021. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose come on. the current title is fine and more descriptive of what is the most well-known facet of the attack. We should move-protect this page. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 23:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is already move-protected. It won't be moved unless and until consensus is reached here, and then an admin will have to move it. That does not prevent discussion, since a lot of people don't think the current title is "fine". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Descriptive is not the right adjective here. In general, the title needs to convey "what", not "what did it look like". and if there's a real and specific word for that "what", that is sufficiently common – that is the best choice for the name. — Alalch Emis 01:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support for now, because it's better than Storming ... but it was an Attack, on the Capitol, on the Government; using the term Riot doesn't encapsulate the most important feature of that day. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment would it be possible to run a simultaneous RfC on "2021 United States Capitol attack", or would editors prefer we see this one through first? The "attack" phrasing seems to be more encompassing, and is a good WP:COMMONNAME candidate per the stats upthread. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging MelanieN; I don't know the procedure on 2 RfC's. Also, should "attack" be capitalized? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That could have been done in the form of Option A/B (Support A / Support B / Oppose (both)), Somedifferentstuff. I don't think it's a good idea, but that's how it can be done. — Alalch Emis 00:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: See this RM as an example of how to suggest and maintain a table of proposed titles all users can vote for. -> Talk:List_of_works_similar_to_the_2020_Utah_monolith#Proposed_Titles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be a worthwhile approach, although it makes me wish we'd taken it in the last RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As for whether "attack" should be capitalized, no it shouldn't. As for whether it is allowable to run more than one RfC at a time, I can't answer that one. My hunch (speaking as just another editor, not an admin) is that it would be best to finish with one before starting another. And that there is no ban on starting another right away unless the closer imposes a moratorium - which they specifically didn't in this case. As Alalch Emis suggests, it is not uncommon to have RMs with more than one choice, but in my experience they rarely result in consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: since there is so much diversity of opinion it may be impossible to hold an up-or-down vote on any single choice. Maybe something like the below table, where all the choices are presented and people can register themselves as "prefer", "accept", and "oppose", would be the best way to narrow down the community's actual preferences. Just a thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Riot" is an unspecific and simply inadequate descriptor. The specific and truly adequate descriptor is "insurrection", and is common enough. Per my and others' arguments in the previous RM, I support Insurrection at the United States Capitol. I also oppose the current title. I am neutral to "attack" (rationale diff). — Alalch Emis 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Insurrection was discussed. It is known that it will not gain consensus. There was storming, there was rioting, there was attacking, and there was insurrection, but the title has to be set based on Wikipedia policies. I urge you to support this title based on NCE and COMMONNAME. Perfect is the enemy of good. JaredHWood💬 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus against "insurrection" there just wasn't enough consensus for "insurrection". Per my calculations, in the future this article will bear "insurrection" in the title, there's a way to go. — Alalch Emis 00:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as others comments, "riots" doesn't cover it. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ribbet32, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Riot" does not convey that the Capitol building was breached. It might just have been a rioting mob in the grounds. I support options like "storming" or "attack" which convey the violent breach of the building. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

WWGB, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table below will not represent "consensus", it is just a bank of votes. That table has no relevance to this RM, which is purely about ONE requested change. The table just serves to cloud this standalone issue. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support riot, then attack, then protests in that order. Oppose any charged language such as storming or insurrection or infiltration or anything else charged someone may come up with. I have no strong preference for the year being included or not, but I feel that it should likely be omitted if possible - i.e. if "riot" is chosen, to my knowledge, no other event could potentially qualify as a Capitol riot, thus omit - but attack would require the year as the Capitol was attacked prior - same with protests. My !vote for is based on WP:COMMONNAME - as those three seem to be equally prevalent in my view. My !vote against is per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME - we cannot use charged words such as storming, and in fact none of the "charged" language being proposed are even remotely near common name. I'll point out to all that this is not a vote - the table is useless, as just as the admin who closed the last move discussion brought up - it's not even necessary to count votes and any such counts may be wholly ignored if there are stronger policy reasons on one side. I also feel that any vote for "insurrection" specifically (without any other options) should be struck - the admin who closed the last RM made it clear that there is a discretionary arbitration sanction on this article for at least one month for moving it to that title - thus this discussion, by definition, cannot even remotely entertain the title "insurrection". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to fact that "riot" is more a plural word "riots" rather than singular instead. Many sources like The Daily Telegraph and Hindustan Times refers it as "riots" (plural) instead "riot" (singular). Most riots article have standardized word (XXXX [city or place] riots) such as 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 England riots, etc. Aside from this, the current title is till better for now. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support but 2021 Riots at the United States Capitol would be better.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. (Given that COMMONNAME is use by the requester, I will explain with quotes.) Under COMMONNAME, Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Use commonly recognizable names, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The issue with 2021 United States Capitol riot is using the word riot. It fails WP:CONSISTENT of CRITERIA, The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. Using riot would not be consistent with events like King-assassination riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots which were events that mostly took place of city streets. By contrast, this event occurred on the grounds and inside the Capitol. Additionally, there are sources that question what we should call the event: 1, 2, 3, 4. This seems to go against there being a single, common description for what happened. However, using a description that waters down what happened does not seem to be the best way forward. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Update: Oppose using Attack as well - Honestly, this proposal has fallen apart with the removal of options from the table below. I believe that using attack is trying to water down what happened along with counting sources like "Attack on the Capitol", "attack on Capitol", and "in attack on Capitol" as equal to the proposed "Capitol Attack". If anything, I believe that using attack would violate WP:CONSISTENT as riot does above, in addition to WP:Precision as it is ambiguous over what attack refers to. It also isn't made clear how using attack would follow WP:NCE: When the incident happened is 2021, Where the incident happened is the United States Capitol, What happened is attack. What attack happened though isn't clear by the title. At least riot incorrectly tried to explain what the event was. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But it's a step up from storming. Attack is the genus for insurrection (obv. the right term), and even though incredibly imprecise, still correct. Storming is not correct (omits crucial facts and aspects that fall outside of what is generally understood by "storming"). I completely share your rationale for opposing "attack", but the same rationale in my case renders a "neutral" position. — Alalch Emis 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not easy to see how using 'attack' in the article's name could be NPOV acceptable here (that is, outside contentious political or media lanuage). Templates at the pagetop use the words 'personal attacks'. The link mentions that There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack, but some types of comments are never acceptable. Much the same could be said of 'attack' relating to the violently riotous conduct that has occurred at the federal and other Capitols. So let us look and see whether Wikipedia's Attack helps. Top of the list is 'Warfare and combat', and the others are not relevant here. Of the six W&C, the nearest is Offensive (military), while 'Offensive' links to 'Fighting words'. None of that seems to be better suited to renaming this article. Use of 'attack' in the name would be literary overkill, unsuited to an encyclopedia, except as a redirect. Qexigator (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion as I feel it is a step down. I don't like using storming, but it is more accurate to what happened than the vague and unclear 'attack' being used. The only reason we should use attack is if there is no COMMONNAME like with September 11 attacks. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The proposer, User:Jared.h.wood, posted an update to the proposal above that changed the discussion from Riot to Attack. Said update is no longer in the proposal, but this should remain due to the table listed below as for my discussion as to why I opposed Attack. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support breach, Oppose incident I don't like using breach, but it is descriptive of what happened and there is sources using breach. I can support a move from Storming to Breach. Incident has almost the problems as Attack does, being vague and not following WP:NCE. The one problem it might not gave is WP:CONSISTENT as there are articles with the name that describe events, though with no explanation for why incident was used. I do believe that Incident being just as vague as Attack is a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Added two.... riot or attack is fine... but it hasn’t occurred twice. We don’t need the date, in my opinion.Casprings (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I again would make the point above. Look at what WP:RS are using in their title of their articles. This is using google news search and looking at articles titles.

• Riot used 67,700 times,
• attack is used 193,000 times,
• insurrection is used 15,400 times
• storming is used 6,340 times.

That is a very good logic to use attack. Moreover, this is one of the most important events to occur. I think we can drop the year.Casprings (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is better than the proposed one. "Riot" vs "protest" are both more subjective terms, while "storming" is a more objective and descriptive term. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word "riot" does not fully capture what happened. It strikes me that riots tend to be more spontaneous, often without any planning or direct incitement, and can sometimes be relatively trivial (such as riots that follow sporting events). My experience of watching lots of TV news over the past two weeks is that this event is not being described by reliable sources as a riot. I would rather we waited to change the name of the article until a term asserts itself beyond Wikipedia by public consensus -- much in the way that the US terrorist attacks of September 2001 were not right away called "9/11" but only coalesced as that name after some time had passed. (Yes, before anyone asks, I do know that's not the title of the Wikipedia article about 9/11.) In the meantime, I think "storming" is an apt (or apt enough for now) description of what occurred. Moncrief (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the comment above. "Riot" is not an all-encompassing description and fully-accurate description of what happened. Also there is precedent on Wikipedia for the use of the word storming. See: 2020 storming of the Kurdistan Democratic Party headquarters, Storming of the Bastille among others. - kyyl0 :) (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. A riot - as defined by Oxford Languages - is "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." This was more than a riot, this was an organized assault on a seat of government. Whether or not the majority of the mob intended to breach the Capitol is immaterial, the breach happened, people died, legislators and their staff and various police & security personnel on site were in serious fear of life and limb. Guns were drawn on the floor of the House Chamber - this was a much more serious event than "a riot". Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Moncrief. Love of Corey (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A "riot" could mean anything from an unruly protest to an armed coup. "Storming" is a more descriptive term that describes what happened (the building was breached and people unlawfully stormed it). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, storming of the Capitol is factually what happened, riot is an inadequate description of the breach of a government building.Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 'The Table for consensus' that has now been posted is more likely to add confusion than otherwise. It shows that so far there is little agreement for any other title, and the comments on this page, and as archived, show that support for any other title is based on divergent thoughts about the meaning of any of the proposed alternatives. it is quite clear that riots can be more severe and deadly than 2021 at the federal Capitol, such as the Gordon Riots, the March Unrest and many others, such as those mentioned in 11 of history’s biggest riots and why they happened.[9]Support While still unsure But in the case of 2021 at the Capitol, 'storming' is also acceptable, and at least second best or maybe first equal of any so far proposed. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC) revised Qexigator (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title is certainly better supported than the current title. Protesters storm the capitol a lot. BLM did it back in June. It wasn't even that big a news story at the time. 5440orSleep (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

BlackholeWA "Protesters storm the capitol a lot" ... another comment of the said type. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support A riot is what it was, and its supported by numerous RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that most or all of the above discussion occurred when the proposed move was to "riot". I don't know what to make of the "update" which now proposes a move to "attack", or when exactly it was added. Adding a new proposed title in the middle of the discussion has completely muddled the discussion. It means that when people above talk about "the proposed title" it may be unclear what proposal they are talking about. Bottom line, this RM is probably now confused beyond repair. The "table" below is also misleading if not worthless - because we don't know in what context people were responding, when they posted the comment they are tallied as making. For most of the above discussion this was presented as a two-fold choice, either "riot" or the existing "storming". "Attack" was suggested by multiple people but was never discussed as a support-or-oppose proposal, so its popularity, or lack thereof, cannot be evaluated by the above discussion or the below table. (For my own part, I would accept "attack", still prefer "riot", and oppose "insurrection". But I don't think any decision can be made on the basis of this constantly-changing RM.) BTW I think the table idea may be a helpful approach, but it would have to be started from scratch and not as part of an existing RM. Also it should have three columns: "prefer", "accept", and "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Update has been removed as too many people have already commented when it was just discussing riot. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Somedifferentstuff! I agree with 99% of what MelanieN said. But since only one comment has been added after Jared.h.wood added the "attack" option and it clearly supports "riot" (Slatersteven above), I think we have repaired this RM and can finish it the usual way. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good Chrisahn -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The RM may be salvageable. The table below is still a good concept, but it would have to be started over from scratch - since it currently tallies what people said in a "storming vs. riot" discussion, it does not reliably evaluate people's opinions about all the possible titles. But it could be a good general survey of people's opinions. It should only ask about what NOUN to use (riot, storming, attack, insurrection, etc.). Once the appropriate noun is chosen we can decide about details like including the year or not. It would not have to be a table; it might be more readable as a text sentence where people rank the choices, or describe the various options as "prefer", "accept", or "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree 100% with MelanieN and Chrisahn, substantive support for "attack" can be drawn from this and the previous RMs. The table covers everything needing covering at this stage (including year and phrasing detail). This RM should result in a move as there is consensus to move away from storming. This was better discussed in meta subsections below. — Alalch Emis 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Maybe whoever closes the discussion will agree with you. As I said, this RM might be salvageable. The outcome here will be decided, not by my opinion or yours, but by an uninvolved closer. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there would need to be a group of closers to decide this, especially with the mess involved with the table. (Good idea, but the execution didn't work) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I dunno. Something besides "storming". GMG^talk 16:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close this mess of an RM, and trout whoever came up with the voting table below. I think the idea of a RfC to establish a rough consensus for the best candidate for a RM target is a good idea. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Agreed. This should be put out of its misery as soon as possible. Someday when I have more time, I'd like to try and figure out why there has been such a push to change the title of this article. What's so terrible about "storming"? Moncrief (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What's bad about storming is that there is consensus to move away from it to a different name. Amazingly, that's why there is a push to change the title. Asking why storming is bad now after thousands of words of prior discussion where it was argued how it's bad (you don't have to agree but the answer is out there) is kinda bad form. — Alalch Emis 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, someday when I have more time, I'll try to read through the many thousands of words on this page to piece together the rationale. I didn't say the discussion wasn't out there; I said I didn't have time to try and figure it out right now. Moncrief (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Both this discussion and the table below are proving useful for gauging where editors are at regarding a title change. Many editors are sharing their thoughts/opinions, both here and below. Give it a chance, there's no rush on our way to eventually gaining a general consensus on an appropriate title for this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: But there's no reason to have a discussion about a better title within the context of a RM, which has prescriptive timelines and is formatted to establish if there is consensus for a specific move. If you want to do a straw poll, call it a straw poll and stop trying to shoehorn it where it doesn't fit. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr:, that's a good point. Shall we separate the straw poll into a new section? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: Removing the table would be OK, but moving it would be wrong. The table was filled by various users with data gleaned from this discussion. To avoid misrepresenting users' opinions, we would have to start from scratch. If we do that, we should take into account these three suggestions. But I think we shouldn't start another kind of vote. We have this messy RM, we've had that table, now we have an RfC (that more or less tries to achieve the same thing as the table)... a new table would only exacerbate the chaos. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a straw poll to separate. We have a table that represents a mix of votes and user names added to sections against their wishes. It should be tossed because it is not and will not be usable for anything. The RfC below fulfills the actual need. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A separate straw poll should've been started before, super useful when done correctly, but the fact that names were added to the table by other users is hilariously depressing. The RfC below is a hot mess that isn't going anywhere (unsurprisingly), but that's another story. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: as Bill Watterson said, a good compromise leaves everyone mad. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is equally a little mad for a brief while, and then everyone is generally happy. :) — Alalch Emis 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. "Riot" is a word that fails to convey the fact that the building was breached and invaded. "Storming" is adequate. "Coup attempt" and "insurrection" are plausible, indeed very plausible, interpretations of the intentions of those who stormed the Capitol, but then we enter into the realm of legal characterization and qualification of what happened (domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition, coup attemp, violent protest). Those qualifications are better discussed within the article and not as its title. So "storming" is better, and it is a word that does convey the gravity of what happened. Antonio Basto (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Vastly oppose: "Riot" is a common word, a crowd of people behave violently in a public place, for example they fight, throw stones, or damage buildings and vehicles. They behave violently in a public place.
  An insurrection is violent action, rebellion, or revolt by a large group of people against the government and/or an established authority of their country, usually in order to remove them from office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  "The Trump insurrection".... that literally made me laugh.... that is so biased.
• Strong oppose. As per above, riot is non-specific, storming is far more accurate. Riot implies disordered chaos in public; Capitol was significantly more ordered in that it was a large number of people with a common goal, rather than wanton violence in the streets. Also, storming doesn't necessarily mean violence, it is near synonymous with overrun. Also, regardless of if protestors were peaceful, police officers were hurt in order for them to gain entrance, and they were trespassing; I'd say this warrants "storming". The article title is by no means perfect, but storming is about as good as we're going to get. Editor/123 21:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Where do I comment? Here or somewhere else? Here's my comment. The entirety of the event was not the storming. That is only part of it. A riot is more encompassing. So that is the 2nd choice. The best choice is protest because there were lots of people protesting, some of which didn't even enter the Capitol. If we look at BLM protest articles, they are deemed protests even if some had a component of looting. On the other hand, it is possible that some people may accuses anyone who supports "protests" as being a Trump suppporter, which is not true. Vowvo (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Vowvo: Sorry, the structure of this move request has become a bit confusing. I moved your comment here. To make clearly visible whether you support or oppose this request, please add a prefix like Support, Oppose or Comment. See the comments above yours for examples. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Move to "attack" title. I supported "riot" in the previous RM, and still prefer it to both "storm" and "insurrection" (which are less common and/or more POV), but this above discussion has convinced me that "attack" is the best as being clearer and more comprehensive, while still being relatively common. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've warmed on the idea of moving the page now.Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment How many times have there been riots at the US Capitol, and/or how many times has the Capitol been stormed? In other words, it seems that the year in the article title may not be in line with article naming policy – that it may be excessively precise? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: a year is recommended per WP:NCE. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr:I think WP:NOYEAR applies here.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It only applies to insurrection, as these things already happened at least once: attack, storming, riot — Alalch Emis 03:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This event could be commonly referred to a year from now as the "January 6 [blank]," with no mention of the year but rather the month and day, à la the September 11 attacks. I wish we could wait to rename until some more time has passed and a national media naming consensus has emerged. Moncrief (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose riot. I was originally in favour, but Casprings has convinced me that it is not the common name. I support "Attack", as per the argument that it emphasizes the systematic intrusion inside the building instead of a rioting outside the building.--LordPeterII (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it is not the common name"? "Capitol riot" is currently the most common name in WP:RS by a large margin. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I was referring to the google search comparison by Casprings above, where "attack" resulted in ~2x as many results as "riot". Of course this is only a quantitative assessment, and cannot tell if the weight of reliable sources might favour riot after a manual count. "Riot" is still the second most common name, so it's a valid consideration. But I'm hesitant because it also gives the impression of a "random" violent outburst, when in fact it seems like this incident was planned beforehand - attack would, imo, better show this. But it's a difficult decision, which probably is why reliable sources could not decide on a single name (riot/insurrection/attack) as well. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose there have been many proposals for a name change since this article was made and all of them failed. Just keep "storming", I don't understand what's wrong with this word. Super Ψ Dro 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose to riot. 'Storming' feels most apt in that it's probably the most consistent, commonly-used term for this incident. 'Attack' works as well. 'Insurrection' may be too heavy-handed, not neutral. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose riot. "Storming" seems good to me as descriptive, I'm also not opposed to "attack". "Insurrection" also feels emotionally laden as "riot" does, there are more neutral words that carry the same meaning without the baggage. --Jayron32 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Insurrection would be the first in WP:RS preponderance. Riot seems to come 2nd that way; "storming" was correct for WP:RS coverage when the last title change occurred, but there have been many WP:RS publications since then. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move and strong support for the current title. The OP says that the article title should describe what the event is, which is what the current title does. It was a storming, which took place on the capitol. It may have been a riot, but that's a more general and less specific term, which doesn't encompass the specifics of what happened here. I would also say anecdotally from my own experience that "riot" implies something a bit less targeted than this. We had riots in London back in 2011, but that was largely mobs going around destroying property and setting fire to things. The events of Jan 6 had a specific goal of entering and perhaps taking control of the capitol by force. Again, attack does describe it, but is less specific than "storming" and I would oppose that too. I tentatively suggest this RM be closed down early, as it seems to be generating a lot of heat without there being much prospect of any consensus forming. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Insurrection is the most appropriate title. It's not a "storming" because most people are interested in staying outside, whether peacefully or not, and of those people, indeed, there are many who have chosen to remain peaceful. Insurrection will not force those who are not being violent to be included with those who are. Call it an insurrection and mention in-article the division, that there are a small group of the "protest" who have turned the effort into an insurrection, though they are just that, a small group within. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:UCRN states that ambiguous or unclear names should not be used even if used by reliable sources, and "Capitol riot" strikes me as ambiguous and unclear. To someone who is unfamiliar with the events, "Capitol riot" can be taken several different ways. The current title is concise and immediately understandable. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment neutral on the status quo title. I think attack is simply too vague. Insurrection and riot both adequately describe the event, insurrection probably better (and it appears just anecdotally on my part to have the highest growth in usage, both irl and in the news media... yeah I know this isn't the best argument but still :) ). --Calthinus (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As a user said above, "riot" does not convey that the Capitol building was breached. So its was more than a simple riot that took place in Washington DC many other times in the past – it was a invasion and ransacking of the Capitol, something that didn't happen since the War of 1812.--MaGioZal (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and wait. "Storming" suggests that this was a military storming like D-Day, which it clearly wasn't. A lot of protestors were also let in by police who opened the/some gate/barricades. These points alone speak against using "storming". However, there were clearly protestors who trespassed the Capitol by moving/forcing themselves inside. I suggest using "occupation", "breach" or "intrusion" instead. Addendum: Please consider PolitiFact's wording. Lukan27 (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't think people are appreciating that "storming" is both an uncommon and hard-to-understand word for non-Native English speakers, and its conventional usage is almost entirely the taking of a location by a professional military or police force. It is very confusing when used to describe this incident. I support attack, breach, or riot as clearer descriptions, and if nothing else, incident is better than storm. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment To date, the table in the section 'Survey of proposed titles' below shows that of the titles listed, the first uses the word 'storming' (the version now current) while the others propose instead the use of one of the following: attack, breach, incident, insurrection, protests, riot, riots. But given that there is no consensus on what to do with the table, and that some contributors think that users should not add others' names to the table while some think the table should be deleted entirely (as noted by another contributor), I am one of an unknown number that, declining to accept the usefulness or validity of the exercise, are continuing to abstain from entering their names anywhere therein. The table was initiated 01:15, 24 January 2021[10] Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC) first sentence addedQexigator (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not the greatest fan of the word choice "storming", but this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support As per say, riot of the united states capital is an extremely descriptive and better term then storming. I opposed the term "Insurrection" but it's clear this is an extremely good title, as oppose to "storming" which could mean a lot of things. We make clear it's a riot it clearly is the best term. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current name uses the terminology I've seen most commonly in mainstream reliable sources. ♟♙ (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think "storming" actually does capture the event most accurately, until an academic/popular consensus builds on what to call the event—which will take much longer. As for the claims that this is an uncommon use of the word or that it implies professional military action, the dictionary definition disagrees. It states that to "storm" is to "to rush about or move impetuously, violently, or angrily" and that it can be used as a transitive verb just fine. Since it was the temporary occupation of the US Capitol that makes this event most notable, I think "storm" remains appropriate for now. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Riot", "Insurrection" or "Attack" in that order. These terms reflect what reliable sources use (riot seems to be most prominent); I rarely come across "storming" and its use by insurrectionists is concerning.

Procedurally, I think it makes sense for editors to just plainly state which names they support or oppose. Adding additional surveys or RfCs isn't going to solve anything. –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support since it's technically a riot around the White House's vicinity rather than storming/raiding the building itself. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 03:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Analysis. I don't have an opinion to express at this time, but I made the table below to show the Google Search result counts of different exact queries in high-quality perennial sources. I hope it serves to inform the discussion here.

Source	"Capitol riot" "riot at the Capitol" "riot at the US Capitol"	"Capitol attack" "attack on the Capitol" "attack on the US Capitol"	"Capitol storming" "storming of the Capitol" "storming of the US Capitol"	"Capitol insurrection" "insurrection at the Capitol" "insurrection at the US Capitol"
AP	786 results 451 results 561 results	449 results 577 results 467 results	7 results 506 results 385 results	310 results 659 results 493 results
BBC	144,000 results 117 results 104 results	2,560 results 4,110 results 4,420 results	7 results 13,400 results 10,700 results	4 results 3 results 4 results
The Guardian	146,000 results 518 results 310 results	153,000 results 25,600 results 31,300 results	6 results 42,100 results 19,000 results	186 results 679 results 836 results
NYTimes	882,000 results 3,170 results 1,070 results	19,900 results 1,100 results 2,170 results	2 results 29,100 results 750 results	10 results 74 results 4 results
Reuters	303,000 results 328 results 353 results	101,000 results 5,790 results 33,100 results	109 results 3,180 results 15,100 results	2 results 547 results 5 results
WashPo	47,100 results 4,580 results 4,900 results	12,000 results 12,200 results 4,420 results	8 results 1,700 results 2,360 results	233 results 852 results 588 results

Feel free to make suggestions and comments. — Goszei (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey of proposed titles

(table meta-discussion is underneath – comments posted under this section title are moved to the bottom of the meta-discussion to keep table visible)

---

Please add your suggestion for each proposed title. Feel free to propose other titles. Please remember this is not a substitute for discussion. You should still discuss your views in the discussion section above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC This section heading is of a purely techical nature (so that the nominator's post could direct to this tally), it doesn't form a topic of discussion unto itself. Critical discussion of the tally is being had underneath. The closing administrator will assess the soundness of the tally method, and it's utility with a critical eye.— Alalch Emis (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WARNING Disobedience to the directive above has incurred a request report for possibly punitive sanction for vandalism[11] [12] Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above post by Qexigator has always, in large part, been a misrepresentation (they would not frankly discuss it, despite a decent attempt at my part), and distortion ("disobedience", "directive"), but particularly now – it's almost certainly no longer even current matter[13]. I don't intend to reply here, so if you wish to reply directly, please do so anywhere else, thanks. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Article Titles

No.	Proposed Title(s)	Support	Oppose
1	2021 storming of the United States Capitol	@Octoberwoodland: @Dylanvt: @Rreagan007: @WWGB: @Antonio Basto: @Jayron32: @Moncrief: @Amakuru: @Bear6811Wiki: @Elijahandskip: @Super Goku V:	@Soibangla: @Alalch Emis: @Somedifferentstuff: @Casprings: @GreenMeansGo: @99.178.127.90: @MelanieN: @StAnselm: @Darryl Kerrigan: @Lukan27: @Jmill1806: @Guy Macon:
2	2021 United States Capitol riot 2021 riots at the United States Capitol – year exclusion to be decided later – word order & riot/s to be decided later	@Jared.h.wood: @MelanieN: @Ekpyros: @Darryl Kerrigan: @Dylanvt: @Berchanhimez: @Casprings: @Bear6811Wiki: @Calthinus: @Jmill1806:	@Octoberwoodland: @BlackholeWA: @777burger: @Soibangla: @Ribbet32: @WWGB: @Alalch Emis: @Somedifferentstuff: @36.65.43.72: @Super Goku V: @Rreagan007: @Shearonink: @Antonio Basto: @99.178.127.90: @Jayron32: @LegendoftheGoldenAges85: @Amakuru: @Gam3: @Guy Macon:
3	2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol – year exclusion to be decided later – note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb	@Soibangla: @Alalch Emis: @Casprings: @Super Goku V: @Darryl Kerrigan: @99.178.127.90: @LegendoftheGoldenAges85: @Calthinus:	@Somedifferentstuff: @Dylanvt: @WWGB: @MelanieN: @IP75: @StAnselm: @Jayron32: @Bear6811Wiki: @Lukan27: @Jmill1806: @Guy Macon:
4	2021 United States Capitol attack 2021 attack on the United States Capitol – year exclusion to be decided later – "domestic" inclusion & word order to be decided later	@BlackholeWA: @Octoberwoodland: @Somedifferentstuff: @Jared.h.wood: @Dylanvt: @Berchanhimez: @Casprings: @WWGB: @Anachronist: @Darryl Kerrigan: @IP75: @StAnselm: @LordPeterII: @Jayron32: @Jmill1806: @Guy Macon:	@Soibangla: @Super Goku V: @Amakuru: @Moncrief: @Calthinus: @Lukan27:
7	2021 United States Capitol breach	@Lukan27: @Jmill1806: @Super Goku V:	@Alalch Emis: @Somedifferentstuff: @MelanieN: @Guy Macon: @Shearonink:
8	2021 United States Capitol incident	@Jmill1806:	@Alalch Emis: @Super Goku V: @Somedifferentstuff: @MelanieN: @Guy Macon: @Calthinus: @Shearonink:

Survey of proposed titles – 24h w/o support

• Note: these options remain valid – table is split for technical reasons
• Per analogy to WP:SNOW, and to make the table smaller and quicker to edit, these options were split after not gaining any support and gaining unanimous (except proposer) opposition during the first 24+ hrs. These are still valid options, and if you support them or oppose them you can put in your name, and give your rationale in the discussion above. — Alalch Emis 05:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

^Who wrote the above? Please, for the nth time, sign your posts. Moncrief (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Moncrief That post was signed, I don't know why the signature disappeared. I assume it got caught in a subsequent collapse/revert/table-coding mishap/whatever. I've restored the missing signature. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Article Titles

No.	Proposed Title(s)	Support	Oppose
5	The Trump insurrection – note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb	@Octoberwoodland:	@Soibangla: @BlackholeWA: @Somedifferentstuff: @Jared.h.wood: @Dylanvt: @Casprings: @WWGB: @Moncrief: @Super Goku V: @Darryl Kerrigan: @99.178.127.90: @Ben8142: @MelanieN: @IP75: @StAnselm: @Jayron32: @Lukan27: @Guy Macon: @Shearonink:
6	2021 United States Capitol protests	@Berchanhimez:	@Casprings: @Somedifferentstuff: @WWGB: @BlackholeWA: @Shearonink: @Alalch Emis: @Super Goku V: @Darryl Kerrigan: @99.178.127.90: @Ben8142: @MelanieN: @IP75: @Jayron32: @Lukan27: @Guy Macon: @Shearonink:

Table meta: similar title consolidation

@Darryl Kerrigan: Please consider removing your proposal from the table, it's too similar to the existing one. It can't be riots (plural) instead of riot, because "riots" means the event lasted multiple days, or there were riots in several locations, and if this is treated as a riot, then it's just a riot – singular. Word order should not form a separate table entry in my opinion (just my opinion). I consolidated my entry with another users' to make the table easier to work with, it's really important. Your preferred exact wording is still listed in your comment, that the closing admin will read. — Alalch Emis 04:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We should allow any editor the freedom to propose any title they wish. They need to have this freedom. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it will work then.

Also admin talked about year exclusion presenting as a (potentially) separate issue — Alalch Emis 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It will work. calm down. Also, don't archive the discussion below this one. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't resist the urge to do it. It's better now. — Alalch Emis 05:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Casprings: Please consider consolidating your "riot" and "attack" proposal with the existing one by adding the "– year exclusion to be decided later" comment like I did for my proposal.

Yes, this would be helpful. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I did it for his "attack" with no oppose and 1 (his) support. — Alalch Emis 05:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

List of consolidated titles

• Insurrection at the United States Capitol Alalch Emis
• United States Capitol Riot Casprings – done by: — Alalch Emis 05:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• United States Capitol Attack Casprings – done by: — Alalch Emis 05:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• 2021 attack at/on the United States Capitol (no supporting comment) – done by: — Alalch Emis 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

returned when "2021 domestic attack on the United States Capitol" was changed to it – still no supporting comment and can be removed

• 2021 domestic attack on the United States Capitol – done by: (?)

Table Meta-discussion

Octoberwoodland VQuakr Berchanhimez It doesn't have to be construed as a vote. The table can be supplementary/consultative and/or a mere aid – there could be a precondition that you must make a substantive comment first. The table is hard to edit because of conflicts however. I think this needs to be discussed more. People posting in it so far have all input their comments first, and everyone seems to like the table, and uses it in good faith. — Alalch Emis 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not collapse the table but I agree with the collapsing. Tables are only useful when there is no policy-based question to answer (i.e. voting on a subjective/arbitrary coloring/etc). The admin (or other person) who eventually closes is free to use a table they create - but having a "running table" encourages people to "pile on" to options which appear to have more !votes, and encourages people to !vote without reading the entire discussion. I am not aware of any policy explicitly prohibiting a table, but the potential negative impact on the discussion is that even if a consensus emerges, the question will always remain: "did the presence of the table unduly influence some people's discussion and/or the close itself" - and beyond that "was the table ever accurate given that anyone can edit". I do not feel that this RM requires a table, nor do I feel it provides any beneficial addition, and I encourage everyone to discuss on their own. I will not be adding my name to any table, and I encourage others who support discussion to also not allow their name to be used in such a table - as the discussion is what's important, not any preliminary/early "vote tallying". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Gonna add as a separate comment that I believe the table was originally created/added to by anyone who did do so in good faith - I simply disagree that it's even useful, and think it may be potentially harmful to have continue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

These reasons are not solid enough. Table should stay for 3 days, and then it can be closed if abused. It's easy to see if people post in it without making a substantive comment first. Table helps determine interest for alternatives. There appears to be consensus to move away from "storming". — Alalch Emis 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• There was absolutely not a consensus to remove the table. It does not have to be taken as a straight vote, but as a manner of measuring support for particular candidate titles. It is a method that has worked well for other RMs and was embraced by the nominator. Why has it been unilaterally closed with no discussion? BlackholeWA (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be consensus, this is firm discretionary terrain. The table is very novel and runs counter to decision of closing admin from previous RM. BUT it's not bad, it should be researched. — Alalch Emis 03:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

At the very least there should be a venue to put forth titles on equal terms instead of RM instigators simply choosing their favourite to headline each RM. The table worked well at that purpose. If people also comment their rationale I see no reason not to include it. This is WP:NOTAVOTE but let's be real - consensus will ultimately fall along the lines where the most editors are convinced and chip in in support. Policy should take precedent over that, but that still gives us several fairly evenly placed options, such as attack, insurrection, and maybe riot, which all have WP:COMMONNAME arguments etc BlackholeWA (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table is useful for determining consensus of multiple titles, which is allowed according to WP RM policy for WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and allows editors to quickly glance over possible titles. It's extremely useful for getting editors to reach consensus quickly with a complex subject which may have many title options. I have used it in other RM discussions and it is extremely useful and it works. It's not a substitute for discussion, but who feels like reading over 500K of confusing and contradictory comments to attempt to glean an editor's viewpoint. WP:RM closing instructions clearly state that multiple titles are required to be considered, and removing the tool which is being used to easily determine that and relegating all of us to RM one title at a time will result in this article being in perpetual RM mode -- which is has been in near continuous RM status since it was created. Editors must be allowed to dialogue on potential titles and not be stifled by a minority who disagree. So please restore the table, it's a valuable tool and we need it to determine the best title. If anything, that table will result in more discussion as new titles are proposed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table is functionally in line with the less novel Option A/B method which was recommended by earlier admin, and we're still in the same process, just a later stage. Yeah, someone with enough authority just needs to add two and two — Alalch Emis 03:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I see too many people giving their own opinions without regard to WP:POLICY. I personally like the table idea, but I see that in an official RM it exacerbates the problem and does not aid in determining consensus based on sound reasoning. Is there a proper channel for the RM to close early? With some users vehemently advocating titles like "The Trump Insurrection" and others accepting nothing but "The Mostly Peaceful Protest" I don't see how anything reasonable can prevail at this time. JaredHWood💬 03:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I advocate for anyone !voting for "insurrection" to have that portion of their comment, or if they only mention "insurrection" the entire comment, struck from this discussion. This is not the place to overturn the prior requested move and discretionary moratorium. I will not be striking those comments myself as I do not feel I am the right person to do so, but I feel that any admin who happens across this discussion should likely do so. I'll also point out that a closers job is to read the entire discussion - not use such a table - and any !votes based on such a table are automatically "less valid" (but not invalid) - as they don't take into account the entire discussion. A table is not a dialogue - you are perfectly allowed to dialogue within the RM itself and the discussion of it - but a table is by definition not "dialogue". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table will help us get consensus on a name. It's useful because it adds another metric, since it allows editors to select more than one choice. It also shows where editors will reject more than one choice. ignore all rules applies here. The opinion of a minority of editors attempting to impose excessive bureaucracy which is contrary to WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and which is preventing us from improving Wikipedia can be overruled by editor consensus. Removal of the table is overruled. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors are more than capable of supporting more than one option, and opposing any/more than one option(s), in a discussion format, while explaining their choices in doing so based on policy/other discussion points. Ignore all rules does not apply here, as the table does not improve the encyclopedia, in fact it helps people violate our core principle of "consensus" for deciding things here. There is no "excessive bureaucracy" by requiring people to participate in a consensus building discussion rather than simply voting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table instructions specifically state it is not a substitute for discussion and editors are still required to discuss their views. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; straw polling is not a problem, as long as it's used responsibly and in conjunction with discussion [14] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoever added my name to the table (against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it) illustrates a prime example of why a table is both unreliable and unhelpful - they added my supports, but not my clear opposition to some of the names that are present there. I won't collapse/uncollapse the table, but I think that it shows clearly that the table could potentially be manipulated by someone who wants to show more/less support/opposition for something, because I don't think most people are going to be checking, and many may not even add their name to begin with. I don't think whoever added me did it in bad faith... but it goes to show how it's less than useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Then change it. There is no rule that an editor may not come along and update it with your clear choices since it is not a vote but an informal tally. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved posts located here (from the instruction area atop the table) — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This table should me removed, because it implies that we have a vote instead of striving to reach a consensus. The problem I see are the names as listed, suggesting what I see a vote count. Consensus, to editors not used reaching it, instead of the brute force of the numbers, is one in which a lonely editor, but with the better argument, gets the many to agree, what ever their initial position was. Any editor should refrain writing lines like "Oppose per other_editor" or "Support per other_editor" which as such are votes. Voting is editing like Committee, i.e. no neutrality, which is bad for a Encyclopedia. --Robertiki (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robertiki:I moved your comment here, because it's the correct section and we're not supposed to write comments in the table section (like someone before you did in bad form). Please read the above "meta" discussion, it's relevant to what you're saying. — Alalch Emis 05:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question In what way does the consolidating Table show !votes against a move to any of those proposed? Qexigator (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator:The status quo option is the first option, which is the current title — Alalch Emis 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Adding others' names @Chrisahn: We can add others to the table. The table uses pings so people can remove their names. It's important to add people soon after they've added their comment, so as not to inconvenience them with pings too long after they've moved on to other things. You didn't do right to revert. — Alalch Emis 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the above discussion of people who actually set the table up, which discussion ended with an uncontested assertion that other's names can be added, I will manually revert your revert. — Alalch Emis 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"uncontested assertion that other's names can be added" — That's bullshit. See e.g. this. But whatever. Add any names you like, I'm not going to revert them. It just means that the table will be completely useless because we don't know if people actually know that their names have been added, whether they know what that means, whether they would have chosen additional options, etc. This is getting silly. Sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well and otherwise you're doing a good job, but it looks you're getting carried away a bit... Well. No big deal. We'll have another RM in three to six days, I guess, and it will hopefully be less chaotic than this one. Take care! — Chrisahn (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You could read a little more carefully. against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it – there is a general presupposition that other's votes are added, and what it takes for a vote not to be added is specific request (and the user whose name you removed did not make such a request). User you quoted did not contest that names are added, just expressed a doubt as to how it will work out in the end. Thanks, you too! — Alalch Emis

The following instructions express the opinion of one user. There is no consensus on what to do with this survey. Several users have argued it should be deleted. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And the instructions are unsigned! Who wrote them? Of all the things to be unsigned! Moncrief (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn Moncrief I moved your comments to the appropriate section. The first paragraph of the instructions was written by whoever put the table in, and the other two paragraphs are written by Chrisahn and me, who reformulated his concern by expanding on the existing instruction. The way I reformulated it is strictly based on the above discussion, so be so kind to look it over. Comments can't be put in that section on top of the table, but below – here. This is to save space and to not actively demotivate people from entering their names. No one has a right to obstruct the current set up. If this keeps being a problem it just means we have a dispute, and we'll resolve it accordingly. — Alalch Emis 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, these other two paragraphs were NOT written by me and you. I had no part in writing them. You deleted what I had written and replaced it (not "reformulated") by something very different. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, and I answer this further below — Alalch Emis 22:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

May we know who wrote the instructions below? It's customary on Wikipedia to sign any post. Moncrief (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moncrief: Looks like multiple editors; OctoberWoodland started it out, and it was expanded by Alalch Emis. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I answered this in the meta discussion below. I "technically" expanded it but it was a logical reformulation of a concern expressed by Chrisahn, and I did it to accomodate his concern but he keeps posting here, as well as Moncrief. I raised the issue regarding comments in this section here. Can you help, Anachronist? Comments posted here cause only more comments to be posted, even such that should be in the pertinent discussion above. I've moved one or two. — Alalch Emis 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, these instructions are NOT "a logical reformulation" of what I had written. I said that several names in this table have been added by others. You replaced that by your ideas of when it's OK to add others' names to the table. That's something very different. But thanks for finally signing your stuff. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's saying that the sky is blue. Of course people have been putting and will be putting others' names in, per the functionality of the table tally method that uses pings; it's already been proofed for this purpose. Your scaremongering comment adds absolutely nothing but erode trust in the process, and doesn't deserve to hold the distinguished spot of being the first thing people see when they arrive to this section, put in their name, and move on with their life. But I still valued your comment in good faith looking for it's best possible meaning – an expression of a relatively valid concern that peoples' names will be entered when it doesn't coincide with their true intent. A logical consequence of this is making sure this doesn't happen by adding clear instructions. — Alalch Emis 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not a logical consequence. I think users should never add others' names to this table. But we obviously disagree here, and that's OK. That's why I didn't add instructions saying "never do that" at the top of the table. But you wrote instructions saying "yes, you can do that", and added some criteria that you thought were OK. The thing is: There is no consensus. You should accept that. You can't decide on your own how the table should be used. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, we remain in disagreement and I have asked for a sanction to protect the area atop the table from intrusive comments. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC) | Update: this is probably no longer current. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

----For that reason, I had already declined to accept the usefulness or validity of the exercise, and continue to abstain from entering my name anywhere therein. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WARNING Disobedience to the directive above has incurred a request for punitive sanction for vandalism[15] [16] Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is an untruth. Although what is happening is clearly vandalism, and has been reported, no such sanction has been requested. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The actions involved of some users do need to be looked into, especially those adding the names of other users to the table. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the line, Critical discussion of the tally is being had underneath. The closing administrator will assess the soundness of the tally method, and it's utility with a critical eye should be crossed out. It seems to go counter to the line above it that the table is not a substitute for discussion and may cause users to misunderstand the purpose of the table. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku V How do you think that line should read? I don't mind at all changing it to something better. What do you think about the other user's line above it? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals

Guys we just had a RM close. This RM should be closed, for the same reason that a 4th revert at 24 hours 5 minutes would still be in violation of the 3RR. Rather than endless churning move proposals, let's focus on the article content and have a RM after a clear name for this event has emerged. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been my view from the get go, but I figured it might be worthwhile to get consensus on a title. It appears we have a winner - "2021 United States Capitol attack". Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If anything, we just learned there is definitely rough consensus to move away from "storming". Hard to simply put a stop on everything now, seeing that people feel there is room for improvement. Incremental progress good. — Alalch Emis 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that, over time, we will settle on "attack" as the action word, but still need to work through alternatives like 2021 attack on the United States capitol, 2021 United States Capitol attack, Attack on the United States Capitol and United States Capitol attack. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Anything with "attack" requires the year, as there have been attacks in history other than this one. That being said, the more concise will always win, thus "attack on the" will fail to "attack" always. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Let's get an admin in here and move the page and close the RM with "2021 United States Capitol attack". After that all of us should agree to a 30 day moratorium on further RM requests. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, despite attack lacking specificity. Better than "storming" after all (bombing? attempted hostage taking?). Insurrection is a more specific form of attack. It has a little bit of bearing here too. Semantically speaking, we're standing on a more common ground. Year issue is neutralized with "attack" which helps a lot, and it's short. — Alalch Emis 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As the nominator is there anything I can do to assist in closing the RM early or making "riot" or "attack" a valid option for support? JaredHWood💬 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We just need to ask an admin to move the page for us. We could request it an WP:AN Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You can do it J.h.wood. Don't alter the original request to retroactively infuse "attack" — Alalch Emis 06:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think any admin will move a page on the outcome of a straw poll. The above RM was about changing storming to riot, nothing else. I think you will need a fresh RM to have the page moved to attack. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

An admin is not going to move the article title based on the very limited discussion here. (Am I reading correctly the request above?) You'd need to do a fresh RM with that specific proposal. Moncrief (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither of these statements conform to what WP:NOGOODOPTIONS says. A closing admin MUST consider other proposed titles and consensus for those titles. We don't need to keep having RM discussions over and over again with this article. Let's put to rest the title for good (at least for the next 30 days). :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't need a new RM. Admin needs to get a feel on the nature of the naming controversy beforehand and read everything (all of the big RMs: the storming one, the insurrection ones /the abortive very early but not insubstantial one too/ and this one). He needs to look at arguments present here, which are ok. Then he needs to look at things in context and understand what caused the lack of consensus-forming in the last RM. He will be able to notice that "attack" is simply a genus proximus for "insurrection" (unlike "riot" which isn't a type of attack). Then, based on the prevailing support (rough consensus) for this agency-driven semantic pole of the naming matter, as opposed to entropy-driven ("riot"; "storming" is in the middle but there is consensus to move away from it) admin can concede there there is a rare window of opportunity for precious incremental progress, and do the move. Then the torrent of RMs stops. Later it could only be a linear issue of whether to go from "attack" to a more specific type of attack, except storming. — Alalch Emis 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say an admin couldn't move the article title without an RM. I said I think that an admin is not going to do so. I say this due to the level of user participation and interest in discussing the title of this article. Moncrief (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I rather have a 6-month moratorium for moving this page in order to prevent any distruptive page move in the future and makes the article more stable. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• This topic is so recent that I'd go less more like 2 weeks if needed. Things can easily change significantly in less than a month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't understand the stress here; just let the process play out and see where we land in a week or so. The straw poll above (Proposed Article Titles) has already been useful in gauging where editors are at regarding titles and it's been up for less than 24 hours. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• There is no reason to stop discussion. Actually get consensus. Pretty clear there isn’t right now. I would suggest move request or RFC with the options of riot, attack and storming.Casprings (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The option to support attack has been added. Thanks for all your innovative ideas and discussion on this. I am hopeful this option will move the discussion toward consensus. JaredHWood💬 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jared.h.wood: I'm afraid that's not going to work. There are dozens of "support" and "oppose" comments already, but they support/oppose "riot", not "attack". Could you remove the option to support "attack"? It's only adding more confusion. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn is correct. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I thought an RFC with options might be a better means to gain consensus here. I opened one at the bottom of the page.Casprings (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• It's great that it looks like we might be able to agree on "attack", but we should try to do it in an at least somewhat orderly fashion. Otherwise we might have a WP:move review soon. Let's find a title that we can live with for at least three to six months. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Maybe it doesn't have to run for the full seven days if it's clear there's not enough support. But I think three days should be the minimum. After that, we can start a new RM for "attack". If it gets enough support, we might be able to finish it sooner than in seven days as well. We've had "storming" for 17 days now. We can live with it for another week or so. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I didn’t start a move request. I started an RFC. Can’t move review an RFC. The point of the RFC is to bring order to this. Need clear votes and options if this will move forward.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you, but to the discussion in this section "Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals" in general. I indented your comment like the ones above it to make that clearer. I hope that's OK. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Make it 6 months and while we're at it, those who propose it should be blocked from editing this page because it does nothing but disrupt. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It needs a six months moratorium in order to ensure that the article was stable. Anyone who have proposed to requested move within 6 months time should be blocked without question from editing this page. 110.137.190.132 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft follow on move request to collaborate on

As an effort to move this process forward, I would ask assistance from editors in making a move request on United States Capitol attack as strong as possible. Below is my draft. I think it is clear that attack has some support, and it is the most likely alternative. I suggest that we work together to make it a strong request and allow this exercise in consensus building to come to a close.

A note for whoever closes this move request. Many editors desire a moratorium on move requests. I would suggest this will short circuit the process to build consensus and is not needed. I intend to offer the move request below, with edits from other editors when the current move request closes. A moratorium simply delays the process of building a lasting consensus.Casprings (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft Move Request for 2021 United States Capitol attack Reasons to use the verb "attack." 1. Attack meets Wikipedia:COMMONNAME better than any other verb. Using a google news search and only looking at the titles, one can see that writers use the term attack in WP:RS news sources more than other words. One note on methodology, I think only searching in the title is the best means to understand what WP:RS are naming the event. ·   attack is used 193,000 times ·   Riot used 67,700 times ·   insurrection used 15,400 times ·   storming used 6,340 times 2. Attack is inherently a neutral word but captures the significance of the event. Attacks can be negative or positive, depending on the circumstances—for example, the Attack on Pearl Harbor versus Art Attack. In sum, attack best meets WP:NPV. Reasons not to use "storm." 1. As the results show, storm is a terrible choice for Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. 2. Storm is not the right choice for WP:NPV. First, I would note the connection of the word storm to QAnon. QAnon believed that the storm was coming. In that, they believed there would be a violent period of arrests of Democratic leaders. Given that, the use of a related word is out of place. Especially when QAnon supports were so involved in the event and seemed to attempt to capture or harm Congress members and the vice President. Second, I would note the links in the media between the event and Storming of the Bastille. For example, a quote from the New York Times, here. It's like the Storming of the Bastille as recreated by the cast of National Lampoon's Animal House. These photos will outlive us all — Ben Sixsmith Given the historical circumstances positive connections with the stroming of the Bastille, this is is not NPV.

Attack is under attack, not favourite see comment above, Revision as of 16:37, 25 January.[17] Qexigator (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I doubt 100% will support, but I think it is the best candidate to gain enough support. Right now, I am just focused on making a good request. It will go where it goes.Casprings (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Re "As the results show": What results? If you are trying to persuade people to join your point of view, please be as transparent as possible. To what results are you referring here? No one, to my knowledge, has suggested the word "storm" to describe these events, so a comparison to the QAnon slogan "The storm is coming" is, frankly, rather absurd. "Storming" is not the same as "storm." Moncrief (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The ing makes storm its inflected form. I think it is still important, given the number of QAnon supporters who took part in the event.Casprings (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

As we all know, one word can have multiple meanings. Even within the same broad category of leisure activities, for example, we get by just fine with pool being used for swimming as well as billiards. Clearly the QAnon "storm" is referring to a metaphorical storm as in a weather phenomenon, whereas storming means to "move angrily or forcefully in a specified direction." Your concern about QAnoners glorifying or relishing in the title of a Wikipedia article containing "storm" is original research or WP:CRYSTAL unless you can provide evidence and explain why we should make our decisions based on such evidence. Anyway, I'll save the rest of my comments for the next move discussion. Moncrief (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The year should definitely be included with the attack wording. Although it was ambiguous with "storming", there have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE. As such I remain in support of the wording "2021 United States Capitol attack", as I originally put forward in the consensus table. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reason that we have no idea how this attack will be described six months or a year from now. No one calls 9/11 "the 2001 attacks." It's very possible that this event will be referred to in the future by its day and month, rather than its year. It's for this reason, among others, that I think the rush to rename this article is short-sighted. Moncrief (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has to have a name, and in lieu of access to a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we must go with the current commonly used names and article naming recommendations that are based on providing a clear, concise, and disambiguated title. If some more appropriate name emerges in the future we can hold a further RM at such a time as that occurs. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And, for the record, people absolutely do call them the "September 2001" attacks, at least in the UK. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Heck, even in the US things like "2001 attack on the World Trade Center" are FAR from unknown. --Khajidha (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, I would put the year in the title. Though I still don't think it is needed.Casprings (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should prepare the next move request together, but our focus must be on the process, not on particular arguments for certain outcomes. The current RM went off the rails because we kept changing the process during the discussion. Here are some quotes from the essay WP:Settle the process first:

Wikipedia has many established rules to help guide discussions towards more productive outcomes. However, in reality editors regularly start discussions that violate these rules ... When these things happen, it creates process questions that can disrupt the discussion and, if left to fester, ultimately undermine confidence in the result. The longer the problems go unaddressed, the messier the situation becomes and the harder it is to resolve. ... Wikipedia has few technical means to enforce discussion rules, so it ultimately falls on human editors to keep everything in line. When process is settled first, discussions work better.

I think the first part describes quite well what happened with the current RM, and the last sentence tells us what we have to do to avoid repeating this mess: agree on the process before we start the discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the process is to wait until the current request is closed before moving to another request. Given how long this discussion has occurred, why not have a decent request ready to go?Casprings (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would point out that you are also quoting an essay not policy. Process is fine. The RM will close in a few days and I will likely open a request based on the discussion here.Casprings (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "process is fine", but the process for the current RM has been anything but fine. A new title option was added and removed in the middle of the discussion. A table was added, and closed, and opened again, etc. Quite a mess. It's important that we avoid making such a mess of the discussion again. We must agree on all options and other features before we start a new RM, and we must agree that we will not change the process after the discussion has started. As we have seen in the last two RMs, the initial text of the RM doesn't have much influence on the discussion. The process is much more important. P.S. I know an essay is not a policy. That's why I wrote "quotes from the essay". :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Casprings: I disagree that WP:NOYEAR applies here; I think that per WP:NCE the year should be included, at least until it is clear with historic perspective (something we don't have yet and will not for years) that this event has the lasting significance that some people think it will. But ultimately I think that boils down to a difference of opinion: I do not think there are strong policy arguments either way. What if you invited feedback on inclusion of the year in the draft RM rather than explicitly supporting either inclusion or exclusion of the year in the RM proposal? VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Based on Google searches, most common short naming seem to be Capitol riot (currently a redirect page). My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to make the move request "as strong as possible" by adding arguments to the initial text is unlikely to have the intended effect. All arguments have already been put forth in the previous move requests. If there is a new move request, it should simply indicate the requested title and link to the previous move requests Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021 and #Requested move 23 January 2021. I'm pretty sure most users who will comment on the move request have already seen all arguments. No need to repeat them. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

RM has closed

Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack". According to the consensus table, this was favoured even over the current title, both by ratio and raw "votes". There was also some fairly strong opinion against the current title from an argumentative perspective, and as such it would make sense to me to open another RM on the attack title, and let people voice their opinions on it directly. Before that happens, however, we should probably settle the question of whether to include the year in the proposal.

I continue to support including the year, for the title 2021 United States Capitol attack. To reiterate my argument above; "there have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE."

However, if there is going to be another RM, we should probably ensure that it is worded in the manner that the most editors agree on, so that we don't devolve into additional option wrangling, and the RM can proceed with the name change that is most agreeable and likely to succeed over the current article title. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack". I actually did take this into account when I closed the RM, but still believe that there wasn't sufficient consensus to move forward with that suggested name. I was torn on whether or not to close the RM procedurally, as not moved, or as no consensus. The difference between any of those options is immaterial, in any case. One thing that I'll add is that this RM was procedurally flawed from the start. If there's a rough consensus for a name before another RM is opened on the topic (a straw poll would be helpful, in that respect), I think that it will have a much better chance at success. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am going to that that review first. There was no policy eval and it is a no consensus at best.Casprings (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Edited the above, per comments in this section. I also put the above close in move review. If there is consensus to post the above more request, lets do it. Move review takes forever.Casprings (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI report that the capitol assault was preplanned

Every media outlet has reported in a statement by the FBI that there is evidence the assault on Capital Hill on January 6th 2021 was pre-planned. Few actors have been revealed. It is misinformation on the part of Wikipedia to publish a blanket statement that this assault was carried out by an angry mob of Donald Trump supporters. One man, John Sullivan, who posted numerous videos on fb and twitter under his moniker "InsurrectionUSA" was instructional videos with specific details on what to do on January 6th. Time. What to wear. What to bring. When and where to meet. He was arrest and charged with inciting something that day, and released without bail. Jillnage (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Breaking news items aren't always incorporated into articles immediately. But we can't report allegations made in indictments as fact, either. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Section above headed "Refs in lead and 'Prior intelligence' section (Oath Keepers)" mentions edits intended to include some reference to this in the lead, including my edit at 23:31, 22 January, with a few words added to the first paragraph, to read "Some rioters had earlier planned aggressive action, [refs] and the riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and five deaths". with the edit summary necessary link in the abbreviated sequence of events. [18]This is still open for discussion. Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? I read something similar on a Politico article but the FBI affidavit it uses as a source doesn't claim that. it says that the Proud Boys planned to attend the demonstration and that some were seen with what seemed to be communication devices (probably cellphones with earbuds). Their leader asked members to wear black according although it's unclear if they actually did. And John Sullivan is a left-wing activist who apparently came alone. His videos were taken at the Capitol not beforehand. TFD (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Article lead is too long

The lead of this article is seven paragraphs. The general rule for lead lengths is no longer than four paragraphs. The main body of text, that is, the lead plus the sections minus the references takes up about 50% of the whole page. The lead is severely bloated compared to how much body there is. The lead is way larger than all the other subsections respectively. A correct size would probably be 2-3 paragraphs. Writing this much in the lead may be motivated by some editors to introduce as much bias as possible where most people (only) read. Lukan27 (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I was with you up until "Writing this much in the lead may be motivated by some editors to introduce as much bias as possible ". We comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I say "may" for a reason. Also please note that I didn't say which kind of bias. Nevertheless, the lead is too long. Lukan27 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

So do you have any concrete suggestions as to what should be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that removing some information about opinion polls about Republican support. Not that it isn't significant (and frankly disturbing) information, but the lead here really should just summarize the event. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The attack was incited not only by D.Trump, but by many his fellow Republicans, including senators who promoted same lies about the results of elections. That should be noted. No wonder, they will now protect Trump from impeachment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the lead is pretty good, but I agree that it should be shortened a bit. In each paragraph there are one or two sentences that we could remove, and after that we could maybe merge some paragraphs. In the end, the lead would probably be 30% to 40% shorter and have maybe five paragraphs instead of seven. But: I think it's too early to do that. More precisely: I considered posting a long list of suggested cuts for each paragraph here, but I expect that would only lead to a heated and uproductive debate. Also, WP:RS still publish new information about the events every day. In conclusion: Yes, the lead should be shortened, but we should do it after things have cooled down (which I guess will take a few more weeks). — Chrisahn (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

In relation to bias, the lead being a summary of the article's body, has to present the bias of the body, that should itself present the bias of reliable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

With a subject this complex, I think having a lead that's a little longer than normal is probably ok. See the edit history of the article Brexit as an example. The brexit article at one time had a very long lead and over time was eventually shortened after continuous review and the article being broken out into sub articles. This article is similar and also deals with a complex subject and as such having a longer lead is necessary to properly address all the issues dealing with the event. Over time and as the article content is broken out into sub-articles or condensed then it will become clearer how to make the lead more concise. For now, the longer lead helps readers summarize the relevant issues raised by the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that a sentence on the end result (the "... and led to" formulation: failure of the aggressors and subsequent orderly transition, plus perhaps impeachment) should be included already at the end of the first paragraph. The first paragraph in articles on historic topics such as large protests, revolutions, wars etc. tends to sound more conclusive, and establish significance more immediately. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Remember that this article is under a 1RR restriction as it deals with American politics and any edits you make can be reverted and you are not allowed to reinstate them unless they have been brought to the talk page and consensus reached. You also are not allowed to revert any editors challenge of your edits. See WP:BRD on how this is done. Since you are a new editor I wanted to respectfully remind you of that. Happy editing. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiments above that it may be too early to have a short lede. Identifying the most salient features of a topic is not easy when that topic is still developing. Premature attempts at optimization will lead to squabbles and headaches more than to clarity, I suspect. XOR'easter (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly concur. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a lead section slightly longer than 4 paragraphs is not necessarily an issue now. I'd like to point out, however, that the lead right now could likely be condensed into 4-5 paragraphs just by reorganizing and combining information into clearly delineated paragraphs. I've tried to do so in my suggestion below - I've done a few things including condensed/shortened some sentences, as well as reorganized it by topic. Please note I've removed references from this to enable it to be more easily viewed on this talkpage - they'd have to be worked in if my suggestion is considered good. The loose organization of my proposed lead is this: overall summary > specific events > response > reaction. The only information/sentences I intentionally left out of this "new lead" are duplication of information - such as the fact that the looting is discussed in three separate points. If I left out any other sentences/information in this reorganization, please feel free to add it or edit as you see fit. My point here is to show that the information in the lead can all be kept while reorganizing allows it to flow better and fit a four paragraph lead - which can be extended to five if people feel necessary. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, while the 117th United States Congress was meeting to certify the electoral college victory of President-elect Joe Biden. Part of a series of wider protests of the 2020 election results, the riot consisted of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president of thee United States, in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the election. Upon outside security being breached, Capitol Police evacuated the Senate and House of Representative chambers, and several other buildings in the complex were also evacuated or locked down. Rioters, who were called to action by Trump by claims the election had been "stolen" from him, stormed the building and occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. Many of the rioters became violent, assaulting Capitol Police officers and reporters, erecting a gallows on the grounds, and attempting to locate lawmakers (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) to take hostage and/or harm.

On the morning of January 6, thousands of Trump's supporters gathered in Washington D.C. for a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, where Trump repeated his false claims of election irregularities and encouraged the crowd to "fight like hell". Rioters, encouraged by Trump, walked to the Capitol in an attempt to encourage Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results of the Electoral College vote, which he lacked the constitutional authority to do. Rioters blamed Mike Pence for not attempting to override the Electoral College votes, and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" during the breach. Once inside the building, the empty Senate chamber was occupied by rioters, and federal law enforcement officers defended the evacuated House floor with handguns. Multiple improvised explosive devices were found near the Capitol grounds, in a nearby vehicle, as well as at the respective offices of the Democratic and Republican national committees. Multiple office spaces within the Capitol building were looted, including that of the House Speaker and other lawmakers. Five people died during the riot and occupation of the Capitol building, including 4 rioters and one police officer.

Trump initially resisted activating the D.C. National Guard to quell the mob of rioters, and in a Twitter video called the rioters "very special" and told them to "go home in peace" while repeating his false claims of a "stolen" election. After several hours, the Capitol was cleared of rioters by mid-evening, and the counting of electoral votes resumed and continued until its completion in the early morning hours of the next day. This was followed by Mike Pence declaring Biden the President-elect and Kamala Harris the Vice President-elect and affirming that the pair would assume office on January 20. After pressure from his administration, including the threat of removal from office and multiple resignations by his cabinet, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a televised statement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation later opened at least 170 investigations into participants in the events, and indicated that many more are likely to be initiated. Members of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government paramilitary group, were indicted on conspiracy charges for their allegedly planning the mission in advance. Dozens more who were involved have been found to be listed in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, most as suspected white supremacists.

The events were widely condemned by political leaders and organizations in the United States and internationally. Mitch McConnell (R–KY), Senate Majority Leader, called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" provoked by the president's "lies" and said that the Senate "will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation". Several social media and technology companies suspended or banned Trump's accounts from their platforms, and many business organizations cut ties with him. A week after the riot, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for "incitement of insurrection", making him the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. Opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans disapproved of the riot and storming, and of Trump's actions prior to, during, and following the event.

Rather than focusing on the lead, at this point I would suggest reviewing where the article can be broken out into sub articles and this should be the first exercise. You are not going to get consensus currently and the current lead is the result of many editors refinement and consensus, and a lone editor will only end up in an edit war with a large number of users. We should first determine which issues would be placed in other articles, then based on that, the lead modified. At the present time I would leave the lead alone until after the second impeachment trial concludes other than minor edits. A wholesale rewriting of the current lead is unnecessary and will result in disruption and edit warring. There is currently no requirement we impose an artificial limit on the article lead and shorten it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed: unproductive discussion

Octoberwoodland, this is not a rewriting, but a reorganization. There is no edit war, because I'm proposing this here and have no intention of editing it into the article without consensus. Your suggestion that "it's impossible now" is just absurd - anything's possible if people actually sit down and look at this. I'll note that you provided no argument against this reorganization - meaning you are part of the problem as to why it's not possible to make the lead more concise and better organized. I'll repeat - I didn't (intentionally) remove any information - and a simple reorganization to make it flow better and meet WP:LEADLENGTH guidelines should not be something you simply oppose to oppose change. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC) It's not for me or you to unilaterally decide to overturn the result of hundreds of editors consensus by a lone editor who disagrees. It's also clear based on the discussion there is no consensus to do what you propose. You are welcome to try it, but the current lead is quite excellent and concise, and I and others will most probably revert and challenge your edits. This is a large and complex issue and having a lead which completely embraces the subject matter of the article is a good thing. If it's not broken don't fix it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Octoberwoodland, excuse me? There has been no discussion on my proposal yet - and I'm not attempting to "overturn the result of hundreds of editors consensus". Again, I did not (intentionally) remove any information from the lead, and I left the wording virtually identical as I could while combining pieces of related information that are currently fragmented/spread across the lead. It is broken - the lead is fragmented, information is duplicated in multiple places, and it could be made more clear and concise by doing what I propose. I'll ask you this bluntly - if you have no actual policy based reason to oppose my proposal, please refrain from attempting to stifle discussion thereof simply because you don't like it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Please just drop it and move on and stop trying to ice skate uphill. There is no requirement the lead be butchered to meet your particular view or your opinion as to whether or not the lead is too long. Even the organization and ordering of the current lead is the result of many editors consensus. The question is this, does what you propose with the lead an improvement of Wikipedia? No. Turn the page, next chapter. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Octoberwoodland, I'll ask you again - in what way is this a "butchering" of the lead? And it's not my opinion - the guideline (agreed upon by a project-wide consensus which overrules any local consensus here) is that a lead should virtually always be no more than 4 paragraphs. Yes, my lead improves it by removing duplicate information and by organizing it in a logical manner that makes it easier to read. Again, if you do not have any objection other than "i don't like it", please let others comment here. I will not "stop" just because you, one editor, seems to dislike the proposal for no concrete reason. I'll note that your attempts to "bully" me into stopping are inappropriate conduct on a talk page, and if you continue I intend to seek an admin to intervene in this bullying behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC) So if someone disagrees with you it's "inappropriate conduct"? There have been concrete responses, you simply ignore them. Like I said, if what you propose is an improvement to Wikipedia, it will stand. If it's not, it will be opposed. Current consensus of this thread is that it is opposed. 1RR on this article which means any two editors can revert your proposed change. I don't think what you are proposing is an improvement, nor is it supported by consensus and I will challenge it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Again, it's supported by MOS:LEADLENGTH, which is a project-wide consensus which overrides any local consensus for a longer lead here, unless there is some exceptional instance which WP:IAR would apply. Again, I have no intent to add this without a consensus here - hence why I proposed it here - and thus your comments as to 1RR and such are not only unwelcome but are chilling in that you're attempting to "warn me" against this when I've already said I'm going to wait for a consensus here. I'll note that in the discussion in this section, at least three editors (including myself) have expressed their view that a reorganization is appropriate, while not removing any information, while a few editors have said that it may be a "headache" but have not directly opposed a reorganization. This will be the third time I've asked you - and I don't intend to reply further if you refuse to discuss this - what exactly do you have a problem with my reorganization - what information is missing/inaccurate/etc? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) If a policy or procedure prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Consensus is that a longer lead with such a complex topic is ok. The current lead is excellent and the result of consensus of hundreds of editors. What you propose is not an improvement of the lead. Please remember why we are all here -- to improve Wikipedia. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation on my watchlist and before reading the thread, I read the lead of the article. I think the current lead does a very good job of summarizing the article and the topic, although the wording can probably be tightened up in a few spots. I do not know when the "four paragraphs" standard was added, and I had thought that six paragraph leads were commonplace for well developed articles on complex and important topics. I think that it is way too soon to cut the lead dramatically. Keep in mind that most people read only the lead of long, detailed articles, and not the entire article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 nothing was "cut" from the lead, it was simply only reorganized to make sure that people can read it and get the information in a concise and organized manner. If you had read my introduction to this proposal, you may have seen that. If you notice some piece of information that was cut in my proposal, please point it out. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, My comment is in reply to the section heading "Article lead is too long" and the earliest comment. I am not criticizing your suggestions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, my apologies if it came across as I felt you were criticizing without a comment - I was a little irritated with the above editor and I appreciate your comments - feel free to move yours (and mine) where you think they best fit, and I'll leave this as a note that my comment in response may not be applicable to wherever you move it (in which case it's my error and forgive me for indenting your comment). I would appreciate your comment on my proposal if you see feit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Future move requests for this page should be multi-move requests

A procedural detail: Since this page has several daughter pages, a move request for this page should be a {{multi-move request}}. See WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages.

For example, if there is a request to move this page to 2021 United States Capitol XYZ, the wikitext for this request should look like this:

{{subst:Requested move|2021 United States Capitol XYZ|reason= ...
|current2 = Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new2 = Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
|current3 = Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new3 = Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
|current4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
|current5 = International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new5 = International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
}}

— Chrisahn (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should take a break on RM requests for at least 30 days. I plan to vote Procedural Close if there are any more. We cannot keep having them over and over again. It's clear there will be no consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on if and when we should have another RM, but if there is one, it should be a multi-move request. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We just did a multi-move request with the Survey table -- it failed. Refactoring the request with an RM template is no different and will have the same result. We need to let the dust settle around this article until after the impeachment trial, then it may have calmed down enough to make some progress. I appreciate your attempt but we just had a multiple title RM. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe there's a misunderstanding. The survey had nothing to do with a multi-move request. A multi-move request means that multiple pages will be moved at once. Please have a look at the daughter pages of this page and WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I got that. So instead of one article which will not get consensus, we are going to propose the same thing with multiple pages which will most probably not gain consensus. Let's try this after the impeachment trial. By that time things will have settled down.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to advocate for a new move request here (just that if there is one, it should take into account the daughter pages), but I realized that the second sentence in this section sounded like I did. I changed it. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: don't bother, we don't need the added complexity. Just focus on the name of this article. The subsequent daughter article moves will be non-contentious afterwards. More generally, we have a fairly consistently-employed process and format for move requests; there is no need to re-invent that wheel. See KISS principle. VQuakr (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not re-inventing anything. I'm all for using established processes. That's why I pointed to {{multi-move request}}. A multi-move request would reduce overall complexity, wouldn't it? It would take care of this page and the four daughter pages in one fell swoop. If we have a successful RM for this page that's not a multi-move, we'd still have to start RMs for the daughter pages, right? Sure, they'd be unlikely to be contested, but what if not? And these RMs would be extra work anyway. When I saw {{multi-move request}}, it looked like it's the established process for a case like this, so I think we should use it. But I don't have much experience with RMs, so maybe I'm mistaken. — Chrisahn (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

change: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss and displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind."

to: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind."

reason: The prior citation improperly stated that during the CNN broadcast Jim Acosta had stated that Trump's displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force was a reason why Trump was out of his mind according to a white house staffer. I have provided the citation to Jim Acosta's original broadcast on CNN to support the rest of the sentence. That broadcast does not include the white house staffer talking about Trump's supporters' attempt to overturn the election result. 65.130.60.135 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Publius V Publicola (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Planned coordinated attack...

The rioting at the Capitol was a planned attack, involving Antifa, involving the Capitol police who were caught on camera directing the "rioters" and opening the fencing so they could enter. This was a planned attack to give the powers to be another fake reason to try and impeach President Donald J Trump. President Trump NEVER said to his supporters to storm the Capitol, that is a lie that he incited the riot. He instructed and asked for a peaceful march showing unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.46.247 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortened overlong heading. Qexigator (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)