Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Military-style parties in infobox?

Both sides are armed, so it may well make sense, but I think the use of the side params should be discussed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be something to discuss at Template talk:Infobox civil conflict, since it's the standard template. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear that that is the right infobox to be using. It is not clear why certain names are included and others aren't. This is breaking news, obviously, and we should not be rushing to fit it into a template. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou. /Julle (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou for two other reasons: (a) it's very unclear how the unrest was coordinated (or whether it was) (b) parties should characterize all parties. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that part of the infobox for now given it's 4:1. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of bringing it back, it was very useful FAISSALOO_(talk) 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflicted. It was a violent confrontation. Adding side complies with standard in other American riot articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Washington,_D.C.,_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement. But generally US violent riot conflict do not use the tag. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties in infobox

Someone removed the sides part of the infobox 'as per weight of support' with only 4 or 5 users even weighing in their opinion. I believe it's necessary to know the involved parties, and that the only problem was overcomplication. I think that it should be re-added, but kept simplified. Such as Pro-Trump protesters, and then just DC, VA, MD, NJ and the national guard or something? I'm not sure but I feel putting the involved parties in the infobox will help give a better overview. Flalf^Talk 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest discussing this at #Military-style parties in infobox? rather than starting a new section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this suggestion doesn't really cover the reason given by Bondegezou and DenverCoder9 for why they opposed it. Maybe you should make a sandbox version of this proposed change with citations so that it is a bit clearer and to try to resolve the issues. So far, I am in agreement with their responses. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest it should eventually be added back, but only after the dust has settled a bit and we can get a good sense of what happened from the sources. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

In case this hasn't been seen, 2021 United States coup d'état attempt

Doug Weller talk 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I've redirected the page to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Off to bed now, I suppose I won't be able to sleep through the night without checking the news! Doug Weller talk 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusingly though, we now have 2021 United States coup d'état attempt pointing to one article and 2020 United States coup d'état attempt to another. Would a hatnote – 2021 United States coup d'état attempt redirects here. It is not to be confused with 2020 United States coup d'état attempt – seem flippant? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, I have corrected the aforementioned redirect. It now points to this article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: But this event didn't happen in 2020. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, you are correct. However, if people are mistakenly typing it often looking for this article, then it is a good redirect. Unless it was referring to a different incident? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it's worth revisiting in a week or so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take a look at the view count then and see if it is necessary or not. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543, your edit to 2020 United States coup d'état attempt has now been reverted by P,TO 19104 to point back to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Description as an attempted coup. Seagull123 Φ 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Seagull123, yes. The redirect was indeed supposed to point to a different article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t there be a separate but linked article entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”? Why does this specific event not have its own article? It is unprecedented in modern US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title Runnamucker (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Runnamucker (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the same event. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this event could be considered a coup, the thing is too unorganized. I was sure that Trump, despite his questionable actions, I don't think that his real intention was to block in this illegal way the certification of votes. In my opinion, it lacks the assumptions to call this also an attempted coup. DR5996 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note of Appreciation to Wikipedia contributors

May I on behalf of all readers express enormous gratitude for the contributions & editing here. A hugely impressive page on an ongoing event. Wikipedians at their best. I really hesitate to clutter this page even with this note, so feel free to remove :) Perhaps there is space in the wiki model for an additional tab to allow readers to express gratitude. Thank you all contributors for your diligent work. A European reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.66.189 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That is very kind of you to say, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Like --- N2e (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Like All of the contributors should be commended, and by that I mean those contributing in good-faith, which is the majority. I'd also like to say that I'm particularly impressed with GorillaWarfare's fair and extended engagement with various editors on the talk page, as well as their quick handling of some minor bits of disruption. I was going to leave something saying as much on their talk page, but I might as well leave it here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am more mixed on this. There have been far too many edit conflicts, and clearly there is need for a type of protection that has a higher requirement than 500 edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, This was a note of appreciation to editors, not praise for the Wikipedia backend. Just say thanks! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And I left my own note to editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Fair enough, I'm just giving you a hard time. Happy editing! (I'll give another thanks to editors who've helped out as well!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I too am mightily impressed by the work of my peers. I have started several breaking news articles during my 200 years on Wikipedia and know how frustrating and exhilarating it can be. Brilliant efforts all round today. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is an appropriate solution to edit conflicts. If more protection is needed to avoid edit wars, sure, but this would be unnecessary otherwise. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit conflicts are frustrating, but page protection is for preventing intentional disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If edit wars aren't considered disruptive, then I disagree. There have been silent edit wars on this article, where the same content has been added, removed and re-added multiple times. This is allowed due to the significant amount of edits being made, which makes community enforcement of WP:BRD impossible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Then just... enforce it? Ping the people relevant to the war on the talk page. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I wish it was enforced too, but it seems that there are far too many edits, making it too difficult to enforce. Due to the high likelihood of edit conflicts, edits were making their edits smaller and more numerous, which creates more edit conflicts and increases the difficulty in identifying and enforcing edit warring behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Never thought I’d see the day (besides Olympus Has Fallen in real life) that people genuinely appreciated Wikipedia. This is why we do what we do, at the end of the day. Trillfendi (talk)

Also want to say good job to those who did it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just read the entire article and am greatly impressed with it. Even if many conflicts had to be undergone by the editors, this is an astonishing production in a very short time. DSatz (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New page for efforts to remove Trump via 25th Amendment or Impeachment.

Should we start a new page dedicated to the efforts to remove Donald Trump? Even if these efforts are unsuccessful, articles of impeachment are already being drawn up by Ilhan Omar, and I would say it would be likely they will be voted on tonight, which would warrant a separate page. A vast number of Democratic members have said he should be removed via 25th amendment or impeachment, tonight. So I think we should make a page now, and if it turns out to not happen we can just merge it back into this page as its not really that notable (members have called for trumps impeachment and removal 100s of times, not really that notable unless at least there is a vote).

I would make it myself, but it would likely get deleted or by the time I was finished writing it there would already be another page lol.MarkiPoli (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We've already got Impeachment of Donald Trump which largely describes the late 2019/early 2020 impeachment, but it could perhaps be added to that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That page (along with Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump, which covers the house investigation before the vote, and Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump, which covers the Senate trial) only covers the 2019-20 impeachment. Other efforts are at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, so it would be added to that. There will need to be a new page though, if he is impeached again by the house (even if he isn't removed by the senate). MarkiPoli (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support you to write a draft, but only publish it until the articles of impeachment are official. It should be named Second Impeachment of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is far too premature to create a new page until actions are taken toward impeachment beyond just an introduction of a resolution. This should be a new section at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump for now. Reywas92^Talk 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody who can edit mention that Ilhan Omar has announced the drafting of articles of impeachment? Thank you Homo logos (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some footage that could be migrated

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biZ79MkOA5w

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Uploading to commons now. Heavy video so might take a little while. Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• here Kingsif (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

PolitiFact

I recently added a citation of a PolitiFact article claiming that what occurred can be reasonably considered a coup, but this citation was removed in another edit by another user. The removal was unexplained by the user, and I think the source (including the quotation) should still be there. AndrewOne (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It was probably an edit conflict—I've had a handful of my edits mysteriously go missing just because the page is so heavily-edited. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem supported by the source. PolitiFact only concludes "a good case can be made" and, throughout the article, the author hedges his bets, never coming right out and saying yes or no. (In any case, if it could be defined in these terms it would be an autgolpe and not a coup, but I don't think PolitiFact is probably sophisticated enough to have landed on that word yet; maybe they will in a few days. I don't say that disparagingly, just that their writers don't have any real expertise in this area and seem to be learning on the job at the moment.) Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@AndrewOne: - that "other user" was me, I'm afraid. I intended to make a simple one-word change to a different section to improve readability, but there was an edit conflict. I cancelled it completely and made my tiny change again, and I have no idea how it picked up this other material. By the time I was alerted to what happened, it could not be undone because there were almost a hundred other changes in the meantime which overlapped. Then I had to go to work and I have only just seen your note as well. So I am happy to fix it if there is agreement on what should be changed. And please accept my rather confused apologies for the problem.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is PD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8YVqgFsrdM Victor Grigas (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it? Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Role of Capitol Police in the early entrance to the Capitol building

Having seen serious reporting on the role of (some) Capitol police in hindering, or not hindering and possibly aiding, entrance to the Capitol, am a bit curious why it is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that it was the ease of entrance, facilitated by (some) of these armed security force ppl, is why a number of persons (see the lede paragraph) are calling it a coup. Would be helpful to gather articles and references and explicate the situation, to see if their is a consensus verifiable view on these alleged actions. N2e (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mind sharing this serious reporting you've seen? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't come across any 'serious' reports so far, but Tyrese Gibson has been posting a lot of videos on his Instagram. One of them also shows a 'protestor' carrying the disputed flag. Not sure about the credibility or sources though. example 180.151.224.189 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This Reddit-linked video may apply to this question: 'The police opened the gates for Capitol rioters'. Reddit says it was posted at about 4-5pm EST. Might be worth preserving. It's clear in the (small) video that many other people are videoing the event ... so there may be more. Twang (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A section in the article has been added—2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Scrutiny of Capitol security response—with quite decent sourcing. Thanks! N2e (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE and readability

Do we really need so many citations in the lead? "The riots and storming of the Capitol have been described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." currently has six references on it, this seems excessive as it's clearly explained later in the article, too. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. This is a recent and controversial event, so erring on the side of caution by adding citations is probably the smartest move, at least in the short term. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but six citations on such a statement still seems excessive. One or two per statement, maximum. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The six sources are being used to support the use of three very specific and politically charged terms (insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism). The use of each of those terms needs to be sourced, so more sources makes sense. (Essentially, instead of putting 2-3 sources next to each of the three terms, the sources were all put at the end.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be put next to the word they are backing up, then? Would be more useful to readers than a block of sources. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Elliot321: that having the citations closer to the words they're supporting would be helpful here and want to add that WP:CITEBUNDLEing for multiple sources supporting a single claim would also help. Wingedserif (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif, problem is, nobody cares about citations in the lead. It is not current anymore, as it only occurs in Jan 6, so it is encouraged to have the least amount of citations, as they must be covered about in the body. GeraldWL 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, it's still a current event. I'm not sure the lead of the article only summarizes the rest of the article which might be the bigger issue. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Elliot321, yes, it simply summarizes the article; a lead is essentially a summary. It's not current but recent, there's a big line differing them. Though it will still be hard to clean the article, the event has passed, and it might be easier to do so. I tried to, but the high activity of the article caused several edit conflicts and I gave up in eventual. Using an In use tag I think is also ineffective, so I'll wait until activity slows. This debate also initially occurred in the Talk of COVID-19 pandemic; as you can see, its lead has minimal citations now. GeraldWL 13:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis yeah, edit conflicts can be quite a pain (were you here yesterday? it was impossible to get anything in).

Anyway, I'm just somewhat opposed to slapping an ugly template on the page. At least, wait until the "recent event" template is removed and the page calms down a bit, meanwhile, having a few extra sources isn't really a big problem. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Separate article

untitled section split off from above by User:GKFX^talk 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There should be a separate but linked article for this attack, as it is an unprecedented in modern US history. News sources such as NYT are calling it an attack... and that’s what it is.

The article should be entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”

further discussion at link below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title Runnamucker (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, suggest WP:CITEBUNDLE. GeraldWL 15:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Incited by Trump

New York Times has gone ahead and labelled the riot/protest/blabla an "attack incited by Trump." Should be included in the article somewhere. 180.151.224.189 (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Donald Trump has called the people to do that. We have to consider him as an abettor of this. Also I hope the term protest would be removed soon from the title. The apropriate title is 2021 Far-right attack at the US Capitol.

No. The article MUST remain neutral to both parties and not heavily BASED and lean and pander to the far-left. Bombastic Brody (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen no evidence that President Trump, explicitly or otherwise, Called for anything like the storming of the Capital Building. I have found what appears to be a transcript of his remarks here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-told-supporters-stormed-capitol-hill/story?id=75110558Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with brody, it wouldnt be too neutral to say that donald trump insited the 'Storming' Call me Deathisaninevitability Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Right now in these times of tension, we really do not need to incite more claims that will only cause more tension between users and their political affiliations here on Wikipedia. Bombastic Brody (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved partially with the article renaming/move, but I would like to challenge the idea that changing an article title to be more descriptive counts as pandering, in itself. "Protest" is already such a vague word, especially given how many take place in DC all the time. And in this case, in particular, it's hard to define who the "sides" are—falling into standard left/right divisions is unhelpful here. my 2¢. Wingedserif (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New Photo

As a note, almost all photos of the storming (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Rudy Speaking closeup.jpg) have been nominated for deletion. Might need to find a new photo, or worst case, have none. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Side note, I believe the new header image should probably show the actual occupation of the capitol building itself. It's strange to me that the existing one doesn't. Nekomancerjade Talk 08:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

i would like to second what Nekomancer said. The first picture shown on the page should be a photo of the actual occupation of the building, rather than protesters hanging around outside Neonpixii (talk)

We need photos that many people have already saw, like the man in the buffalo costume Edskiash (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

proposed infobox

Extended content

2021 storming of the United States Capitol Part of 2020–2021 United States election protests and attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Crowd.jpg Crowd at the rally in D.C. Date January 5, 2021 – ongoing Location Washington, D.C., U.S. Caused by Opposition to the Electoral College vote count of the 2020 United States presidential election Status Ongoing Parties "Save America" Rally Pro-Trump protesters Proud Boys America First Neo-confederates Republican Party (partially) US Goverment US Capitol Police FBI Department of Homeland Security United States Marshals Service District of Columbia District of Columbia National Guard Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Virginia Virginia National Guard Virginia State Troopers Fairfax County Police Department Maryland Maryland National Guard Montgomery County Police Department Prince George’s County Police Department Democratic Party Republican Party (partially) Casualties Death(s) 4 Injuries At least 14 D.C. police officers Arrested At least 53 References Notes

What about this proposed infobox distinguishes it from the current one? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: This infobox appears to add the participating parties. I support it's addition Bravetheif (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is only one problem at the infobox: Democratic Party, Republican Party and pro-Trump protesters (Keep america great again), have no flagicons. If somebody finaly add this, maybe could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I made an edit to your proposed infobox as three of the Template:flagicon image uses had File: appended to the beginning of them, preventing them from showing up properly. I believe that the addition of File: was a mistake and removed them. Is this ok with you? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, I like it RoadSmasher420 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not my infobox, the IP proposed it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Against for reasons of the inclusion of political parties (fairly big-tent organizations with only nominal involvement in the actual events) and the non-WP:NPOV term "protestors." "Demonstrators," "elements" or similar in my opinion would be better. Would be in support of adding the parties involved to the infobox, but against this specific proposition. U-dble (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Against, As cool as this looks, I agree with U-dble that including political parties in this is dicey. I like the idea of including sides in the infobox, but it has to be done differently. Colin dm (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Against. As U-dble said, including political parties is shakey at best, especially with how large and generally big-tent it is. I'm in support of an infobox, but we need to wait for the situation to evolve and see these political stances for the parties' leadership. We used to have an infobox of this variety on this page, in fact, but if I recall correctly it was recalled for being too convoluted and shakey, and I fear this would be as well. Nekomancerjade (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

shot intruder

In this article (compliments to all the editors) it states that the fatality ..."was shot by law enforcement "... whilst in the specific article Ashli Babbitt it says ...It is unclear who shot her.... with both being referenced. Until it is clear who shot the woman should this article read that it is unclear. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 09:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(7:48) "Multiple individuals forced entry into the Capitol building and attempted to gain access to the House- and attempted to gain access to the House Room, which was still in Session. They were confronted by plainclothes US Capitol police officers, at which time one Capitol police officer discharged their service weapon striking an adult female. She was transported to a local hospital where, after all life-saving efforts failed, she was pronounced deceased." The quote is from Police Department Chief Robert Contee as noted at 4:18 in the video. Given that the DC Police Department Twitter account is the official account for the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, I would say that it is clear enough based on Contee's words. There are aspects that are unclear, but those will be dealt with pending their investigation. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, a clear good reference. As the article Ashli Babbitt has been merged the problem (if there was one) no longer exists. Ta. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The "coup" discussion

Seeing that there are now sources beginning to describe this as a "coup attempt", I wanted to make an organized section discussing the situation. It also seems that some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt, but the forceful entry into the capitol was a coup attempt. Below I will make a few sections to organize this discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what is meant by "some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt." Which legislative act? The joint session counting votes? RobP (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources describing as "coup attempt"

This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "coup attempt" or similar (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

Generally reliable sources

• The Atlantic – This is a Coup
• Bellingcat – "what many are calling an attempted coup"
• BuzzFeed News – "Facebook Forced Its Employees To Stop Discussing Trump's Coup Attempt", "President Trump Just Used Social Media To Attempt A Coup", "Trump Is Justifying His Supporters' Attempted Coup With More Lies About The Election", "There’s No Evidence Antifa Was Involved In The Attempted Coup At The Capitol"
• CNN – "Wednesday's coup attempt at the US Capitol.", "Trump's stunning attempt at a coup"
• The Daily Beast – "It’s Our First-Ever Coup Attempt—and There’s No Doubt Who’s Behind It"
• The Daily Dot – "engaging in the first attempted coup against the American government since the Civil War"
• The Guardian – "the attempted coup continues to unfold"
• Haaretz – Trump’s Legacy: From Charlottesville to Coup Attempt, an Embrace of Far-right Violence
• The Intercept – "Trump did make a half-hearted effort to end the attempted coup he had requested"
• Los Angeles Times – "looking a lot like an attempted coup, as violent Trump supporters laid siege to the nation’s Capitol"
• Le Monde diplomatique – "after participating in the coup d'état in Congress", "A woman who participated in the coup in Congress"
• Mother Jones – "It was outright rebellion, an attempt at an actual political coup"
• MSNBC – "Trump incited a riot as part of a clumsy attempt at a coup"
• The Nation – "Joe Biden spoke about the attempted coup"
• The New Republic – "A Very American Coup", "praised those who carried out the coup attempt", "As for Trump, his cuckoo coup attempts"
• New York – "American democracy in a violent crescendo to Trump’s coup failed attempt", "Fourteen senators had originally indicated support for the attempted coup"
• The New Yorker – "Only after a riot and an attempted coup has Congress finally ended the 2020 Presidential election"
• Rolling Stone – "The Attempted Coup at the Capitol Proves This Is the United States of QAnon"
• The Times – "watching a coup unfold in the final moments of the presidency"
• Der Spiegel – "Coup of the losers"
• TheWrap – "The former NYC mayor, it seemed, tried to call one of Trump’s Senate allies to beg for more help pulling off what amounts to coup"
• U.S. News and World Report – "It looked like a coup attempt in the very sort of undeveloped country"
• USA Today – "With the Capitol's breach, President Trump's virtual coup on Twitter became all too real"
• Vanity Fair – "urging White House officials not to speak to Trump or enable his coup attempt", "Trump's attempted coup", "The Eerie Charlottesville Echoes of Trump Supporters' Capitol Coup"
• Vox – "The effort is flagrantly undemocratic, a kind of legal coup"
• The Washington Post – "She was one of four fatalities from the violent coup attempt", "stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup"

Other sources

• Government Executive – "OPM Failed to Issue Guidance for D.C. Federal Workers During Coup Attempt"
• Fortune – "A coup attempt and an undivided government", "Attempted coup at Capitol presents key opportunity for cyberattack, experts warn"
• NASDAQ – "GOVTS WRAP - Blue sweep stirs stimulus reflation trade, put on pause by Trump's coup d'état attempt"
• The Mercury News – "Trump’s clumsy coup fuels dangerous national division"
• Lexington Herald-Leader – "McConnell’s defense of democracy far too little, far too late amid Capitol coup attempt"
• Kansas City Star – "Assault on democracy: Sen. Josh Hawley has blood on his hands in Capitol coup attempt"
• Washington City Paper – "D.C. Shuts Down After Violent Insurrectionists’ Attempted Coup"
• GQ – "Scenes From a Coup Attempt"
• The Jerusalem Post – "Can the coup in Washington happen in Jerusalem? - analysis"
• Business Insider – "Advertisers pull commercials around news coverage of attempted coup at US Capitol"
• Gizmodo – "American Airlines Bans Alcohol on Flights Out of D.C. After Trump Loyalists Attempt Coup"
• Mashable – "The attempted coup revealed what really poisons America"
• TechCrunch – "Social media allowed a shocked nation to watch a coup attempt in real time"
• Uproxx – "Sen. Josh Hawley’s Home State Newspaper Took Him To The Woodshed For His Starring Role In Trump’s MAGA Coup Attempt"
• Perfil – "Trump leads the US to self-destruction and there is fear of self-coup"
• elDiario.es – "An attempted coup that bears the signature of Donald Trump"
• Okdiario – "Attempted coup in the capital of the world"
• Grupo Noticias – "Attempted coup in the US: Trump supporters break into Congress and confront the Police"
• Handelsblatt – "Trump's unsuccessful coup: Biden faces a Herculean task"
• BFM TV – "Pro-Trump coup in the US Congress"
• Orange S.A. – "Pro-Trump coup in the US Congress"
• Euronews – "Calm in Washington after pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill"
• France Info – "Pro-Trump coup: "Will democracy be able to reduce these fractures?" Asks a political scientist specializing in the United States"
• Ouest-France – "IN IMAGES, IN PICTURES. The coup by supporters of Donald Trump"
• La Voix du Nord – "Pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill: one dead, curfew in effect in Washington"
• Stuttgarter Nachrichten – "Trump supporters occupy Capitol: The second coup - a low point in democracy"
• Luxemburger Wort – "The pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill"
• Habertürk – "Last minute US coup attempt: Congress building was raided: 4 dead"
• Yeniçağ – "Coup attempt in America. Is the USA behind every coup and every uprising good?"

Sources describing as "insurrection"

This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "insurrection" (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

Generally reliable sources

• Associated Press – "Insurrection Marks Moment of Reckoning for Republicans"
• Axios "Former presidents denounce "insurrection" at U.S. Capitol" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxterria (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• CNN – "Insurrection fueled by conspiracy groups, extremists and fringe movements"
• The Guardian – "'Incited by the president': politicians blame Trump for insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• The Intercept – "INSIDE THE INSURRECTION"
• Mother Jones – "Liveblog: Trump Incites Violent Insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• NBC – "A 'surreal, bizarre' day: Congress returns after pro-Trump insurrection"
• NPR – "What Groups Were Involved In Pro-Trump Insurrection?"

• Lulu Garcia-Navarro (senior NPR journalist) – "NPR guidance: we won’t be calling the people who stormed the Capitol ‘protestors’ - they are ‘pro-Trump extremists’ and what they are doing is ‘insurrection’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Quartz – Big business is turning against Trump and his fellow insurrection enablers
• Rolling Stone – ‘Deeply Disturbing and Alarming’: World Leaders Condemn MAGA Insurrection
• USA Today – "'Disgraceful': World leaders shocked by US Capitol 'insurrection' "
• Vanity Fair – "DONALD TRUMP SAYS VIOLENT INSURRECTION THAT KILLED AT LEAST ONE PERSON WAS JUSTIFIED", "'Unfit to Remain in Office': In the Wake of Insurrection, the Nation’s Newspapers Excoriate Trump En Masse"
• Vox – "The far right is falsely blaming antifa for the pro-Trump insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• Washington Post – "Pence says 'violence never wins,' McConnell decries 'attempted insurection ' as Congress resumes Electoral Count.", "From historic day to 'insurrection,' how the mob takeover of the Capitol unfolded in news coverage"
• ABC News - 4 dead after US Capitol breached by pro-Trump mob during 'failed insurrection' RobP (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• New York Times - Resuming electoral counting, McConnell condemns the mob assault on the Capitol as a ‘failed insurrection.’ RobP (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Foreign Policy - The Military Stayed Out of the Insurrection, but It Isn’t Over Yet RobP (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Others

• ABC News The insurrection at the U.S. Capitol offers a new, and perhaps final, moment of reckoning ...
• Capital Gazette From Washington to Annapolis, dismay, anger and disbelief follow insurrection on Capitol Hill
• PBS News Hour – "Acting U.S. Attorney General says U.S. Capitol insurrection an ‘intolerable attack’"
• Marketplace (radio program) What the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol means for economic recovery
• Irish Times ‘Insurrection’: How the world’s media covered the storming of the US Capitol by Trump supporters
• CNBC Trump tweets amid violent Capitol Hill insurrection as leaders beg him to address the nation
• WAMU-FM A Fatal Insurrection At The U.S. Capitol Leaves D.C. Under Curfew, Public Emergency
• Oregon Public Broadcasting Portland’s protesters spot double standard in restrained response to Capitol insurrection
• KMGH-TV Denver leaders react to U.S. Capitol insurrection
• Variety TV News Scrambles to Cover Insurrection at U.S. Capitol in Surreal National Moment
• KSAT-TV Some Texas Republicans decried Capitol insurrection — but didn’t connect the violence to their own rhetoric (preceding 12 added by Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC))
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – "'Insurrection at the Capitol': Trump supporters storm Congress in a deadly assault on American democracy" Alalch Emis (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

In the sections above, "coup" is more widely used internationally. On the other hand, it seems that "insurrection" is more prominent in English sources and in use among US politicians. "Storm" does not appear to be more popular than the other two, though it appears frequently in German media.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Very few not-in-the-moment sources use coup without attempted, because the word coup does imply a success. The word storm doesn't have that implication, a storm is a still a storm whether it's successful or not. Same with a protest, an attack, a demonstration, etc. I think that we should avoid using coup simply because we can't use it without putting a qualifier there, which instantly strays into commentary territory. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Holding on Changes I appreciate the work that went in to making this list, however, caution should be exercised. Business Insider is currently the subject of an intense discussion at WP:RSN and I question the quality of Uproxx for reporting civil-military relations; many of these are op-eds and editorials that are using the word "coup" as a term of art; and several of these are non-English language sources where the nuance of the word coup does not precisely reflect in English translation. Factually, if it were determined to be a putsch of some type, it would be an autogolpe and not a coup. A coup is an attack against the existing executive power, while an autogolpe is an attack against the existing legislative power. As time progresses, this nuance will be learned and internalized by reporters on beats that normally don't deal with this subject and we may see an evolution in nomenclature. We must chronicle the terms used by RS, however, that does not preclude us from proceeding with deliberation and caution, particularly insofar as current events are concerned. Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Not a survey, but thanks for the info as I agree that we should wait and created this discussion so we can pick apart the sources while we wait. The op-eds included are written by the editorial boards of the said sources, showing that the term they use is what the publication decides best describes the event. "Putsch" is not used often in English and especially not in this circumstance, though it is often synonymous with "coup" when used. Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue. An autogolpe or self-coup is a type of coup, so it would still be accurate to describe it as a "coup attempt" without being too specific on what type of coup it may be (which seems like many publications have done by simply calling the event a "coup attempt"). Also, we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt", such as the 1851 French coup d'état, the 1973 Uruguayan coup d'état and the 1970 Lesotho coup d'état. So if the event were to be determined to be a self-coup attempt, then it would be acceptable to name this the 2021 United States coup d'état attempt in accordance with predecessor articles. That is, unless, sources give us a special name for the event.--WMrapids (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue." I regret to inform you that's an objectively false statement. As the French term is invoked in English, a coup d'etat is understood to be an attack against the executive power in all literature on the subject while the Spanish term autogolpe is invoked to mean an attack against the legislative authority by the executive. I can't find my copy of Luttwack's Coup d'Etat at the moment, but I'm pretty certain he clarifies it that way (and it is the definitive source on the subject), but there's a breadth of other scholarship on this as well in the academic literature (e.g. [1] or Paul Brooker's Non Democratic Regimes [page 83 in my edition]). "we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt"" Please see WP:WINARS. In any case, this is all neither here nor there since it sounds like we both agree we should wait to implement any changes. Chetsford (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I did some searches just then, most of the articles I just read referred to it as a "riot" or the "protestors storming the capitol building". I'm not seeing a lot of obvious references to coups, and my personal feeling is, a coup would involve some level of sophisticated organistion, this is just the working of a mob. Just my 2c! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: The simple definition of a coup is "the removal of an existing government from power" (Wikipedia), "a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power" (Oxford) or "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" (Merriam-Webster), all meaning that it is the removal or change of a government, which generally can constitute multiple branches, not only the executive. However, it seems that you are more interested in the intricate definition of a coup according to various scholarly opinions which, as you can see in some articles above, are divided. Your opinion is respected, but we do not use WP:OR. Reliable sources seem to be using the simple definition approach. As for WP:WINARS, that is obvious. The articles were listed as examples for if this event is determined to be a coup attempt by reliable sources, not as a source to determine the article title.--WMrapids (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate you looking up the word "coup" in the dictionary, we generally frown on WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Dropping the not-a-guideline essay WP:COUP. It's a pretty hardline stance, used a few times discussing South American politics. Kingsif (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: That's helpful. It seems like many reliable sources are describing this a "coup attempt", though it's still early so we are working on determining Wikipedia:Verify. Due to the importance of this article, we can be sure WP:OR should not be a problem as well. WP:NPOV seems to be alright too as numerous reliable sources have verified that Biden had won the election and that such acts of reversing the election are unlawful, so describing this as a "coup attempt" would be neutral. It seems like we are just working on the verifiability regarding how to describe the event at this point (insurrection, coup attempt, etc.)--WMrapids (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• If looking at more sources, The Guardian has now collected all its coverage under the tag "US Capitol stormed" on its website. But then they have a headline calling it an insurrection, and an opinion piece saying to call it a coup. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Look at the multiple sources added above into a generally reliable section. Many new sources being released this morning.--WMrapids (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but The New York Times has published an article that explicitly rejects the "coup" label. Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is in my mind too early to use these types of words. The most accurate statement is protest turned riot. Unless someone can prove that the people involved had an organized plan to overthrow Congress, which is very doubtful, than the other labels don't apply. Also a lot of the sources using these terms are opinion pieces, they can be useful in describing what people 'think' of what happened, but not what it actually was. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside my own personal opinion about this event, I wonder why do we need to count noses & apply just a single label. Why not write something like the following: "While this has been described as a coup [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], others have described it as an insurrection [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], or a riot [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here]." IMHO, that would adhere to NPOV: we are reporting what others say, not our own opinions. (And we can save our discussion energy for which sources to use as examples.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• this is about the name. The RtM to something other than "protests" was urgently needed, but there will be another name change, ideally in about a week from now. Alalch Emis (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.... an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Also, Biden used that term.

A coup is a quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.... a sudden violent or illegal seizure of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Federal law enforcement assistance of Trump

European officials are now saying that Trump received assistance with establishing supporters within the Capitol. Security officials from Europe stated they train with US federal forces and that "it's obvious that large parts of any successful plan were just ignored". This is interesting as one argument regarding the definition of "coup" is that it requires assistance from armed branches of the government.--WMrapids (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitters Involvement

Twitter had a big role in the storming of the Capitol. Multiple high ranking GOP members went out and disavowed trumps actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.142.139 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Jamiroquai Protester

I was going to add a brief mention of the protestor with the hat and horns (whose actual name is Jake Angeli), as I've found four articles that mention him specifically, including some just discussing him. However, clearly he shouldn't have his own page, nor should he go on the Jamiroquai. Does that sound ok? Any objections? He has featured very prominently in the media, almost the face of the protesters. If anyone doing the major editing here has any objections?Chetsford, WMrapids, Majavah, let me know - Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What kind of mention and where in the article were you thinking? Majavah (talk!) 12:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Jake Angeli currently exists and its deletion is being discussed, so this article should probably err on the side of caution and later follow that decision. At this point I'd suggest yes to the specific photo I assume you're referencing, no to the text. If the discussion yields a 'delete' that should block mention of this individual in the text or the photo's caption. If there is a usable image of someone engaged in illegal activity related to a symbol of the legislature, I believe that'd certainly be appropriate to include. It's not the Tienanmen Square tank photo, but it is illustrative of this article's subject. We should make sure to focus on the event and the political symbol, and avoid lending weight to an individual strictly because of how their outfit might look (which itself raises a subjectivity issue). That is perhaps unless verifiability is established with regards to this sort of assertion that the outfit itself has symbolic relevance. MJKazin (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok - didn't realise he had his own article - thanks. Yes, a pic for him on this page is probably appropriate, if he has his own article, details can go there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That's the 'QAnon Shaman', a fixture at recent right-wing rallies, Nazi-tattooed, 32, real name Jake Angeli. Angeli was at the front of a group of agitators who broke into the Capitol and faced off with DC police. He made his way into the Senate chamber where he was seen shouting and posing for photos. He was seen screaming in the Senate chamber and clutching a megaphone. Angeli flexed his left arm as he stood behind the dais in the Senate chamber where just moments earlier Pence and Nancy Pelosi had stood.

• https://twitter.com/stevennelson10/status/1346909795564060674,

• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9120221/Horned-Arizona-QAnon-supporter-leads-Trump-supporters-looted-Congress.html - Quote: "In one photo posted on his Facebook account in November, where he calls himself Yellowstone Wolf, Angeli is seen shaking hands with Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump's personal attorney who hours before the violence kicked off encouraged supporters to pursue a 'trial by combat' ... Foto: Angeli at a rally in Phoenix in November 2020"

• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9122495/The-violent-pro-Trump-mob-stormed-Capitol.html - Quote: "One of his tattoos is said to show the symbol of Wotanism, an acronym for 'Will of the Aryan Nation.' Dr Adam Rutherford (Autor of "How to Argue with a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality (2020)") tweeted: 'I know this jamiroquoi wannabe muthaf***a is kinda funny but his tattoo is the symbol of Wotanism, which is a Nazi/Odin occult that believes Jews control the government, the Holocaust is exaggerated and champions the 14/88 slogan. He's a real card-carrying Nazi.'"

In a video posted on Twitter, Jamiroquai singer Jay Kay, assumed an American accent and said: “Good morning world. Now some of you may be thinking you saw me in Washington last night but I’m afraid I wasn’t with all those freaks.” He wrote: “Good Morning Washington, loving the headgear, but not sure that’s my crowd. Stay safe everyone.” --87.170.200.180 (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trump video

As seen and discussed previously at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 1#this is PD. Instead of just quoting his words from the video, we can insert it as media - at least five other language versions of Wikipedia have - for encyclopedic documentation of 1. the response and 2. the video which has taken on notability of its own for being removed by all social media. One editor objected to its inclusion - and tried to delete it - by saying it's inciting violence. Well, we've got the speech in quotes already in the article and I'm sure you can all see it's not an incitement to anything, not that such would preclude inclusion at all per the fact we're documenting its existence and significance, and the video caption came with a disclaimer. As there was one unfounded objection and plenty of support, I feel it would be beneficial to the encyclopedic coverage of the article to include the video (here on commons). Kingsif (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be included, yeah. WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course it needs to be included (with appropriate context). WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a document of high historic relevance. We wouldn't even be having this discussion with a different country. --MarioGom (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the video should be included for its historicity but strongly disagree that the disclaimer is needed. The current disclaimer comes across as overly concerned with challenging the points made by the subject of the video instead of simply informing the reader of what the video is. Simply saying in the caption what the video is, and what happened to it, should suffice; I see no reason why the disclaimer is necessary as it is currently worded and it will only invite future edit warring for its lack of a neutral presentation. I also disagree that there's any real, settled consensus on this yet (as insisted by Kinsif), considering the age of the article. RopeTricks (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The isn't a real consensus, but there was overwhelming support at the last discussion linked at the top of this section. Some said it should only be included if there is a strong disclaimer. @RopeTricks: Do you think your sole opinion - and two reverts before bringing it to discussion on what I expect is a 1RR article - trumps the pre-established views of those that discussed it before? I'll be waiting on your self-revert. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"two reverts before bringing it to discussion" I made the last revert AFTER I posted on this talk page discussion so check your clock before you try taking that route against me again. I saw on your previous discussion you can be rather snarky in your responses, which I am not tolerating. Anyway, to answer your question, my "sole" opinion should be considered, yes, as any editor's. This is an invite to a greater, dedicated discussion on the topic to hopefully secure a final, lasting consensus, unlike the prior discussion. If every single editor agrees that the current Twitter-style "disclaimer" is suitable, then so be it. RopeTricks (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh but you still re-reverted before it was discussed, no? No need to shout. If I'm snarky to people making ridiculous accusations of inciting violence then I'll be snarky to them and it's not your place to say you won't tolerate me when I've been nothing but polite to you. It's also not your place to say that nobody can add a disclaimer because you disagree when multiple other users have already agreed on doing it. Do you understand that? Get a consensus for your choice edit before continuing to force it, and self-revert until then. P.S. And don't think that calling someone out for being "snarky" in a different situation makes your opinion superior or whatever your intention in doing that was, okay? Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the video doesn't directly incite violence. If it did, I'd push for its outright deletion regardless of alleged historical significance. However, I don't think its inclusion on the article adds anything that can't be expressed solely through prose in a sentence or two. If a video needs a caption to debunk most of Trump's words as lies, we just shouldn't be including that video. RoxySaunders (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New first lead sentence

Discussion of the lead section

It seems to me that the first paragraph has gotten too long. The "storming" of the Capital is only introduced after two, very complex sentences. I'd add a new, one-sentence first paragraph to the top, something like:

On January 6, 2021, pro-Trump demonstrators outside the US Capital stormed the Capital building and invaded both the House and Senate chambers.

On January 5 and 6, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gathered in Washington, D.C., to protest...

-RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Fixed I have added a new lead sentence that explicitly summarizes the storming first, before going in to the background. Does this work for you? --Jayron32 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: - It seems as though the lead section is still too long, per the addition of Template:Lead too long to this article. Should I add a "#Lead section" section to this talk page? -- RobLa (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparison with the Wilmington coup of 1898

If relevant, please consider adding mention of the comparisons being made with the Wilmington coup of 1898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.35.142 (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Lackluster police response

Seems like an aspect of this event that isn't well covered in the article. Much of the controversy has been over the lax response of law enforcement, in comparison to other demonstrations, potentially due to demographics involved. Anyone got any good sources? I'm thinking specifically of things like the cops who were taking selfies with the rioters inside the building BlackholeWA (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is some at 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Scrutiny_over_Capitol_security_lapses. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Jake Angeli - the most notable protester

Shouldn’t Wikipedia mention Jake Angeli, the most notable protester with costum and horns? He gained world fame and surely is notable. Topjur01 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as it is clearly expressed he is a neonazi, conspiracy theorist and Proud Boys member. Samuel D Rowe (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I created a one-sentence stub to get the ball rolling. Improvements welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently the section "Response" lists three protestors: "Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli..." Proposal: Extending this paragraph with two other protestors with a sentence like: "Further identified protestors include Richard “Bigo” Barnett who was sitting in Pelosi's office and Adam Johnson who was smiling while carrying away a lectern."

Sources: --- 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done Notable involved protesters/rioters/terrorists/<your loaded descriptor term here> will be mentioned at some point if they aren't already but not as a result of this edit request. Especially due to the fact many sources are still in the air. Additionally we shouldn't glorify the involved parties unless they are supremely notable or necessary to mention. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

MacCallum's alleged “support"

What the article says she said does not necessarily imply support. She said that it was a huge victory for them, which is obvious. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ExperiencedArticleFixer I think it's important to mention the fact that coverage of the riot on Fox News had a largely positive tone, at least until the violence ramped up. This is especially important given the sharp contrast with other networks. The Daily Beast article seemed like a fairly reliable source, and I thought the implication was pretty clear. But, fair enough. Should there be a section of the article describing news coverage of the event, and how different networks reacted? This source additionally mentions how Fox News, at least initially, was very much happy for the rioters, backtracking once they realized the mob was far from peaceful. RexSueciae (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be original research/synthesis unless there are analyses of published media we could cite. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The linked WaPo article, and the article from The Daily Beast (which was removed from the wiki page, hence this discussion) appear to fit the criteria. RexSueciae (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Because editors have added references to Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, I am going to be bold and add MacCallum back in. RexSueciae (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are we using such soft language

Why are we normalizing this by using soft language like storming. CatLife4ever (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the wording that reliable sources use. Majavah (talk!) 14:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources also use insurrection. Storming was chosen by the user who started the request to move, as the media was using the verb "storm" while the situation had been developing to describe what's going on, but immediately afterwards the media and public officials also started using "insurrection" to qualify the event. There is no serious division here: "storming" the how to the what which is the "insurrection". I believe that eventually, the name will be changed to insurrection. Probably already more reliable sources use and advocate using "insurrection" at this point. Some advocate using it with particular certitude, and the same can't be said about storming, which appears to be an ad-hoc term. It hasn't been demonstrated on this talk page that more RSs use "storming" in the title, it's just a vague impression of some, and possibly not a currently relevant impression as the headlines are multiplying. Alalch Emis (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO "Insurrection" is more of a value judgement, and a statement of intention. It's more ambiguous than "storming", which describes the physical act. Personally, I don't find "storming" to be particularly soft language either; it's usually reserved for times of war or insurrection, and it (accurately) implies violent conflict and forceful entry. 69.172.176.96 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia need to use reliable sources and I agree. But we are talking about something that is happening live, we see it with our own eyes and all the planet watch it. So, I agree that generaly the language is too soft. I am not talking about the word storming. But I think we have to talk clearly about a dark day for democracy. I think we have to talk about Neo-Nazis supporters of Trump (this is something clear, the alt-right flags are clear even in the image of the infobox), aiming to destroy democracy. Why we are hiding obvious things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarises what Reliable Sources say about a subject. Being able to see something "with our own eyes" is irrelevent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet more sources national and international use the terms 'coup' and 'insurrection' than 'storming'. Very few reliable sources use the latter. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mob: biased words

Should some other neutral word (e.g. crowd, supporters, etc.) be used (except for quotes) or is it ok as it is from the aspect of NPOV? Mob sounds derogatory to me and we should use neutral language regardless of our opinion about the event and the people involved. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Many, many reliable sources use the "mob" language. We follow the language used by the sources. Neutrality^talk 14:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point of view, but there are also numerous sources using the word 'rioters' or 'crowd' or something else. And the media takes a stance that or another way, which we as an encyclopedia should not. Taking a look at WP:NPOV, I find the following: "neutral terms are generally preferable" and "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:EPSTYLE states: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think mob is fitting to be used occasionally throughout the article. The definition provided by a Google search was "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." While not all demonstrators were there for violence, there obviously were many that were. We could use mob more frequently when addressing the individuals that breached the building? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This could work in specific contexts (as occurs in the article: "angry mob", "violence of mob"). Then, the more specific question is whether we should use this in the lead: "Subsequently, a pro-Trump mob marched on Congress and eventually stormed the building." Probably something else would work better in this place; the section providing details uses the terms "rally attendees" and "rioters", so one of these terms should also be used in the lead. Also as per WP:LEAD. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Mob" sounds right because this is language from sources. And the "mob" is not necessarily disorganized. Some of the video show groups or organized and apparently trained attackers. That is exactly how Russian GRU-led forces took over the entire Crimea without firing a shot. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• From Merriam-Webster: "a large and disorderly crowd of people; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action." The crowd storming the capitol was large, very disorderly (had no clear goal in mind), and there was much documented destruction. I can't really see any argument for them not being a mob. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy does not forbid, for example, to acknowledge rather common opinions such as death being bad or puppies being cute. Nor does it require us to describe serial killers in such a way that reading the article does not negatively affect your opinion of them. If you feel describing the events here reflects negatively on, say, the president-unelect, the cause if far more likely to be found in the nature of the events themselves rather than the way they are presented. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• While I have added two uses of the word "mob" to the article myself, I think we should be very careful here. I have reviewed the use of the word "mob" in several hundred pages in the category , and we rarely use the word at all in Wikipedia's voice, even when it is used in a cite or quotation. For the curious I counted (roughly) 7 usages in WP voice, 2 referring to historic incidents, about 10 in references and 2 in quotes. This article has 4 in WP voice, 6 in quotes and 28 in references. So:

  It looks as though we are following sources.

  We are not using "mob" a huge amount, but still far more than we usually do when discussing something that can convincingly fit the definition.

• However Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, no tone. We should wherever possible avoid words that imply judgement, even when that judgement is widely shared.
• For this reason we should avoid "mob" in WP voice wherever possible.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Thank you a lot to everyone for your insightful feedback. It seems reasonable to me to conclude that this word mob could work in some contexts, but should be used very sparingly and hesitantly. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Treason and Insurrection and Sedition

WP needs to (for obvious reasons) be superhumanly careful with these three words. They may fit, but they could quickly be editorialized and get out of hand. Whereas, I, a regular "dude" may find them appropriate; WP may (and some users) take odds or offense with their inclusion. But, let's face facts, if "coup" or "attempted coup" and "insurrection" are proper terms, we can only assume the "treason" and "sedition" may equally work as well. I'm not saying this because the words are used heavily (or at all) in the main article; I'm saying this because I want WP to simply "be careful, and let calmer editors prevail." The dust must settle, fuller perspectives will shine through like a beacon, and the truth will win the day.

America will rebound from these events. The Union is stronger than a rabble storming a building, after all. Thank you for reading this. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the terms, so not using them in Wikipedia would be wrong and inaccurate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, I think the majority of regular editors have this in mind, if you've read the talk page. I've not seen anyone mention "treason" or "sedition", for that matter. But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places. "Insurrection" is widely used, and in probably dozens upon dozens of reliable sources at this point, in editorial voice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable, but slanted sources. It's important to also attribute these characterizations, and keep it out of wikivoice. 2607:9880:1A38:138:AC21:BA4E:B6EC:478E (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Security forces present

Perhaps it should be added in the articles that the US Marshals Service were also called in? They were in the infobox as a "party to the civil conflict" and it is confirmed in this source

KnightofFaerië (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)-

References

Act of War, Enemy Combatants, & Military Tribunal?

Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal? 162.237.205.133 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that show that the insurrection is an act of war, then it will be added to the article. Wikipedia's job isn't predicting what might happen. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Actualy, if somebody carries a Confedarate flag outside the Capitol isnt't an act of war. But if they are armed and cause damages threatening people at the sanctum of democracy, mayby you are right. This is an act of war. Finding sources to prove something that all planet saw with their eyes is something really easy. 5.54.43.217 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism in the United States perhaps. The US government can act against domestic terrorism, but "war" indicates there is a defined enemy. I would think it would be unConstitutional to designate any one political party as the enemy. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Act of war might be a good starting place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

No, rioters carrying confederate flags, which really from 1896- till the late 2010s, were often prompted by the federal government is not insurrection. By that reasoning Antifa members carrying flags of the Soviet Union or 1960s protestors who had North Vietnam flags, were insurrectionist or enemy combatants. All evidence points to this being handled by the DC police not the army so none of the three things you mention apply here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Their point is specifically about carrying a flag of the Confederacy (i.e. an enemy state to the Union) during a coup d'etat attempt against the United States government. This could theoretically be interpreted as a nascent act of the Civil War performed by militant advocates for the (now-defunct) Confederacy. While the attempt to violently disrupt democracy has been recognized as sedition and domestic terrorism, but currently no reliable sources recognize it as an act of war. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And it is still meaningless. This just personal opinion, but this was not a coup, but a protest turned riot. The confederate flag was tolerated by both the federal government and both parties till really the late 2010s, it was not uncommon to see at events celebrating the union. Using the term (enemy state to the Union) is meaningless outside of the league of the south no one calls for a return of an independent south. One guy holding a flag now deemed political incorrect while at a protest turned riot by people who pride themselves on not being political correct is a pointless side note in comparison to what actually happened. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said that carrying a confedarate flag at a protest is an act of war. But not inside the US Capitol, during an attack. I agree that there are ot too much sources that mention it as an act of war. But I think that here we have all the proves we need to talk about an act of war. In this case, are the sources necessery? Only the picture shows people with confedarate and other alt-right flags INSIDE the US Capitol attacking at police officers, is enough to talk about an act of civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal?" This person clearly was saying that this one guy brining the flag in was an act of rebellion that somehow called for military action. Absurd since not only is the confederacy been dead for more than 150 years, but in more recent times in 1968 riots attacked government buildings with North Vietnam flags, an actually real country the United States was fighting at the time and they were not subject to this action, so no what the original poster put out is meaningless here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

External Links / FBI

Please add FBI Seeking Information Related to Violent Activity at the U.S Capitol Building. -- Iape (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Iape (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I would like to add a better infobox that had suggested at previous section. It hadn't received the attention it need. The users that noticed it supported the change.

Extended content

2021 storming of the United States Capitol Part of 2020–2021 United States election protests and attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Crowd.jpg Top to bottom, left to right: A pro-Trump flag waving in front of the Capitol, The crowd of far-right supporters of Donald Trump at the US capital city, President Donald Trump speaking to a crowd at the "Save America" rally, Protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza Date January 6, 2021 (2021-01-06) 1:10 p.m. – 5:40 p.m. (EST) Location United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. 38°53′23.3″N 77°00′32.6″W Caused by Opposition to the Electoral College vote count of the 2020 United States presidential election Parties "Save America" Rally Pro-Trump protesters Proud Boys America First (Groypers) Neo-confederates Republican Party (partially) US Goverment US Capitol Police FBI Department of Homeland Security United States Marshals Service District of Columbia District of Columbia National Guard Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Virginia Virginia National Guard Virginia State Troopers Fairfax County Police Department Maryland Maryland National Guard Montgomery County Police Department Prince George’s County Police Department Democratic Party Republican Party (partially) Casualties Death(s) 5 deaths 4 protestors 1 police officer Injuries At least 50 Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police officers Arrested At least 68 References Notes

I agree with changing this to include the parties involved in the incident, however, one change would be the fact that the picture shouldn't be of the protest before the storming of the Capitol, considering that's not what this article is about, but that the picture should show the insurrectionists storming the Capitol inside or outside the building. There are plenty photos there, and I think it'll help make the article more about the incident rather then the prior protests. Foxterria (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a new edit, corresponding at the new infobox at the topic. Also there are an image added and the sides. I think it would be better than the infobox at the topic.

I also agree wit this edit, though I think that you should include the leading figures such as Trump, Pence, Giuliani, Pelosi, etc. in the infobox. SpaceSandwich (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Any additions could be useful, if they are confirmed.

Discussions on the first sentence

First sentence

I think the first sentence should include something about the storming happening at the urging or incitement of Trump. That is really quite central to the reception of the incident and its political magnitude. (RS have overwhelmingly stated that Trump and his associates incited (or similar wording) the storming, so that's not the issue here, only whether it's important enough to be in the first sentence)

I would propose e.g. one of these:

• On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of Trump and his associates
• On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol, incited by Trump and his associates.

--Tataral (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My official thing is a strong oppose to adding anything about Trump into the lead. I am not as opposed to the 2nd one, but the first one I am very strong to oppose it. That lead sorta says “Pres. Trump said ‘Storm the Capitol’, which he never said.” Elijahandskip (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead already includes a ton of material about Trump, including his incitement. The question here is only whether it's important enough for the first sentence as well. Note that the proposals above are only two possible wordings to summarise how Trump's incitement was central to the incident. --Tataral (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the 2nd one saying that. “Urge” doesn’t refer to incitement. It refers to “ recommend or advocate (something) strongly.” (Oxford dictionary). President Trump never recommended or advocated to storm the capital. So if urge is added, it says a false statement. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has insisted on the "urge" alternative. Personally I prefer the second version at this point. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.

Read the talk message above. There is an on-going discussion about the lead hosted by WikiProject Current Events. The discussion can be found here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC) That may be the case, but the content of this article is really decided here on its own talk page, so discussion regarding the precise wording of this article should take place here rather than somewhere else (particularly a rather obscure WikiProject devoted to an equally obscure portal, that few editors and readers really use). --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I moved the discussion to the talk page. Look below for the official discussion about it. {Also, if you look at the Portal:Current events, you can see the daily view count. Had about 60,000 views since January 1. Not really that obscure.} Elijahandskip (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC) It is better to continue the discussion here based on the concrete proposal. Your new/second section is not any more "official" than this discussion. This article alone had nearly 200,000 readers only during the last six hours of yesterday, and probably at least a million readers today. --Tataral (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Just copy/paste the proposal below. Also, the discussion on the WikiProject was before the proposal, so technically it should all be moved together (Time checking and stuff for formatting). Elijahandskip (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC) The fact that you started a discussion on a little-noticed talk page for a little-noticed WikiProject, where no editor active on this article would look for any discussion of this article's content and its details, and with no other participants, doesn't mean that your discussion was "first". This discussion was first, on the talk page that matters for this article. --Tataral (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

First Sentence (Lead) Discussion Originally on WikiProject Current Events-Moved here

This discussion is about the lead for the article. Originally, the lead read “On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of President Trump and his associates.” The new lead currently leaves the “urging of President Trump of his associates” off due to Wikipedia needing a neutral lead. The discussion is about whether to add that last part into the lead, or keep it out of the lead. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, even if you are not a part of the WikiProject.

• Leave it out due to President Trump’s message on twitter to leave peacefully. President Trump never said the words “Storm the capital”, so saying that he urged them to do it would be a lie and would be a slight “bias” on Wikipedia’s part. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Of course, Trump didn't stormed the capitol himself. And of course he said on twitter that people should go home (BUT THE STORMING HAD ALREADY DONE THEN!). Donald Trump is the abettor of the storming. (By 5.54.43.217 {User didn’t sign})

Discussion was originally on WikiProject Current Events. It has been moved here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.

There is a discussion on the first sentence above (Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#First sentence. I suggest you move this section there as a sub section. The only reason I don’t want to move the discussion again is the amount of “times” of interrupting the talk page. So far, this is the 3rd discussion about it on this talk page alone. It is also at the bottom currently, so people will move to here instead of the one above. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Also the discussion on the WikiProject page was before your discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC) That doesn't matter. No editor active on this article would look for any discussion of details in this article on that WikiProject page, and this talk page is the central place for discussion of this article's content. --Tataral (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• That "Trump didn't storm the capitol himself" and that he "said on twitter that people should go home" don't change the fact that reliable sources have overwhelmingly reported that Trump incited the storming. The question here is only whether it's important enough to be included in the lead, based on how it is covered in RS. And Trump's incitement is really the key issue here. Washington DC see protests every day, but not violent mobs incited by the president. --Tataral (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is included in the lead, just not the first sentence. It's a few sentences down. I have no further opinion on the matter, but wanted to correct an incorrect statement in your summary. --Jayron32 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant the first sentence rather than the entire lead, as I clarified in the main section devoted to this question above. --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tataral, that was exactly what I said (see the second half of my comment). I think that almost all sources agree that president Trump is responsible for what happened. The video on twitter doent't change it. About the question if it's important to be included, the fact that we are talking about the president of the United States himself, makes it more important than any other person had evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

*Support adding it back - Having accurate information about seditious acts against a country is important. Even if someone is able to make a well reasoned argument per WP:NPOV, I believe that WP:IAR needs to supersede. This is important enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Had a chance to calm down. The first sentence as it is now is still too loaded. Perhaps something like this, "On January 6, 2021, a mob of rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, occupying the building for several hours." Jdphenix (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose re-addition - per Elijahandskip. Jdcomix (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• The WP:RS sources about the riot (looking particularly at WaPo and NYT) tend to include Trump's inciting role prominently, so I would support us doing similar. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support adding it back - The New York Times speaks of Trump openly inciting a mob that then attacked the United States Capitol. Later, they add "Mr. Trump encouraged his loyalists in his capacity as a leader of their movement".−:They also quote Mitt Romney with "... the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning. What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the president of the United States.”". Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

It should probably be mentioned somewhere in the "Reactions" section or elsewhere that quite a few pro-Trump Republicans (like Matt Gaetz) are trying to spread a baseless conspiracy theory that it was actually Antifa masquerading as Trump supporters. It's already gaining ground. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Related: A man who stormed the U.S. Capitol in a horned fur cap is an “Antifa thug.” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional Sections?

What with the increased coverage about individuals claiming that the individuals who stormed the building were ANTIFA protesters pretending to be MAGA followers and multiple conspiracy theories arriving or being pushed by conservative news sourcesshould there be a "Conspiracy theory/Controversy section" for this article? Further what could be added is the dichotomy between the BLM protests police response and the police response here, as I believe there are articles already out about it? Also should there be an "Investigation section" or "Planning of protest section"? The investigation section since the FBI has already reached out to the public asking for help and arrests have been made Along with the use of social media to help plan and incite violence. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

In contrast to the BLM protests/riots/etc.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that a lot of comparisons have been made between the police response to the BLM riots and this event, yet there's nothing about this in the article. I've seen some news coverage doing these comparisons, so there's definitely sources. It seems pretty important to me, as the responses were incredibly different. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide these sources when suggesting changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

OmegaFallon, I found some sources to back this: CNN, USA TODAY, and The Guardian, The Washington Post, and CBS News, among others. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

May well be more trouble than it's worth, but I wondered what others thought of including a further reading section to collect some of the longform narrative pieces like the following. (I saw one last night from WSJ too, but I don't have the URL handy.) There's a zillion news articles around and I thought it might make sense to highlight, for our benefit and for posterity, the ones that describe the whole event and not just episodes that are part of it. FYI, the below are collected at the Wikidata item, which is well worth a look if you haven't seen it yet. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Jaffe, Logan; DePillis, Lydia; Arnsdorf, Isaac; McSwane, J. David (2021-01-07). "Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren't Ready". ProPublica.
• Buchanan, Larry; Gamio, Lazaro; Kelso, Christina; Khavin, Dmitriy; Leatherby, Lauren; Parlapiano, Alicia; Reinhard, Scott; Singhvi, Anjali; Watkins, Derek (2021-01-07). "How a Pro-Trump Mob Stormed the U.S. Capitol". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Adam Kinzinger videos

Adam Kinzinger speech in House after Jan 6, 2021 intrusion

GOP rep Adam Kinzinger calling for Trump to be removed via 25th amendment

I've just added two PD videos of Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill 11): one of his speech when the House returned to debate, and the other of his Twitter video today as the first GOP lawmaker to call for 25th amendment removal. Either of these might be good to use in the article. Kingsif (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, Thanks, the first would be good for 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count. Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ASHLI BABBIT, the woman who was killed

This person had an article but it was speedily deleted and supposed to be merged but was not merged.

Who is this person?????? Many news articles but I want a concise summary here on Wikipedia, the World's News Source.

The police officer who shot her has been suspended. Wikipedia needs at least a separate section on her in the article. Vanny089 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, a full section is WP:UNDUE in this very high-profile main article on the attack. A short mention, maybe two or three sentences, is appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the discussion was conclude to redirect the article (NOT merge the text) back to this one (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt). Also, Wikipedia is not the World's News Source. You seem to be mistaken about that. --Jayron32 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to include the names of the protestors who were killed at the rally. Maybe not full biographies, but definitely include them. W33KeNdr (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@W33KeNdr: Disagree. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor a newspaper, and in the case of low-profile individuals whose sole notability is their death/injury as part of a violent insurrection, the article's text should presume in favor of their privacy. Obviously it's important to note any deaths from this incident, but not to unduly publicize the identities of people who many sources would describe as terrorists. RoxySaunders (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

may discover that the other 3 deaths are not notable but Babbit is notable because of much coverage in reliable sources. However, like Melania Trump, I don't care do u. Carry on with wp. Vanny089 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Very good reference

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55581206

It is is on the BBC

Vanny089 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think an unarmed protestor being killed by the police at a rally is an important part of this story, and including their new had been a Wikipedia norm for all protests. W33KeNdr (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said previously, it's absolutely important to the story that a woman was shot while she and a mob of armed protesters attempted to force their way through a broken window into a chamber of evacuated congresspeople. This woman's identity MIGHT be notable if she receives sustained coverage in reliable sources, or if she is recognized as a police martyr, and her death sparks a movement in her name. At this moment, it's too early to tell, and we should err on the side of caution. RoxySaunders (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Need to add visual material that reflects the identity of perpetrators as Trump supporters

The photographs and videos currently included in this page do not sufficiently reflect the identity of the perpetrators as Trump supporters. Given that there are now conspiracy theories indicating that the ANTIFA incited the storming which are being circulating in the right-wing media, it is imperative that this page thoroughly debunks any falsehoods and presents sufficient evidence to unequivocally put such conspiracy theories to rest. There are numerous photographs and videos that clearly indicate the political affiliations of the perpetrators, including Trump flags and items of clothing prominently displaying the Trump name. These need to be included in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppt91 (talk • contribs)

If you have access to such images (which are compliant with Wikipedia's image use policy) can you include them here so we can see them? Also, as a side note, we don't include images merely to "identify perpetrators". I agree some better images of the actual event would be useful, but not for the reasons you note. However, we don't have a magic picture fairy who can just wave their wand and make images appear. A real live person has to 1) take the picture 2) agree to license the image for uses compatible with Wikipedia's license 3) upload the image to Wikimedia Commons so we can 4) add it to the article. If you can help with ANY of those steps, it would be most appreciated. --Jayron32

You're not wrong, but I don't know if it will accomplish what you think it will. These people will just as easily believe that "antifa infiltrators" put on some MAGA hats to blend in. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

While I do agree that visual parts of the articles could be improved, you're coming to it from a wrong angle. Wikipedia is not a forum or a battleground. It is also nota place for righting great wrongs. While there is some call for due weight and balance, we should just follow reliable sources, and the cultural consensus will make it to the top. Melmann 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we will need to rely on fair use here. Some of the most gripping images are owned by Getty (I've seen their watermark clearly on them), as well as other for-profit groups. They might permit CC-NC relicensing, which I believe falls under fair use. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Many sources are providing proof - more of which will be forthcoming - regarding Antifa's obvious roll in the violence at the Capitol. This was clearly a democrat putsch. https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/known-antifa-members-posed-as-pro-trump-to-infiltrate-capitol-riot-sources/

Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump Is A Juggernaut - No. NY Post is not [[WP::RS]]. Jdphenix (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Cursory link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#New_York_Post RoxySaunders (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

First time since war of 1812

I don't think this is really accurate or at least lacking context due to the 1954 United States Capitol shooting. I understand that overrun is different than attack, but I think the context is needed. Here is a source to back up [2] 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thought the same thing when I saw that line, there was also a 1998 shooting. [3] Flalf^Talk 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

International reactions

So now there is a separate page, obviously we can and should summarize here. However the current summary is vastly inadequate and borders on disinformation. It is not sufficient to say outside observers expressed concern and were shocked as if that's all there was. The current version goes even further than before in practically equating Ireland/France/Sweden/Germany's responses with that of Belarus or Russia: Some criticized the government of the United States itself, comparing the riots to other chaotic events throughout history. But there is a wide diversity of responses, all of which are notable and who says what has deep implications, especially once the next administration takes power:

• The following blamed Trump for the crisis (relevant to how they treat him as a legitimate or illegitimate interlocutor for the American people in the two weeks he is still President, if he remains so): France, Germany, Ireland, Nigeria, Sweden, Malaysia
• Said it was internal matter for the US: Mexico, Russia
• Russia made a cryptic statement about Maidan (i.e. the Ukrainian protests that toppled a pro-Russian head of state) that may be interpreted either as mocking American democracy or... something else.
• Explicitly described the protests as illegitimate,unlawful, as an insurrection, threat to democracy, etc: Canada, France, United Kingdom Germany, Israel, India (yes: both Israel and India), Austria, Bahamas, Trinidad, Estonia, Iceland, Lux, Slovakia --- relevant in the context of the "free world" relying on other members of the "free world" to maintain democracy in their country should it be challenged, and the US' history of intervention in the internal affairs of country's facing challenges to democracy, especially in Eastern Europe.
  • As a self-coup or autogolpe: Bolivia
• Stated that the protests damaged the ability of the US to criticize other governments or governing systems, or of double standards: Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, Russia sort of, China (bonus: South Africa advocated that Americans should "follow the example of great democratic states like South Africa")
• Explicit support to Joe Biden: Argentina,
• Call for a peaceful transition of power and/or stated the election results were legitimate: a lot.
• Endorsed Trump's claims about the election: Belarus, Brazil, some populist parties in Europe.

The summary should be fixed so that these are not all lumped together in some way. (Not all of these have to be distinguished -- just two or three "most notable" stances can be mentioned and that would be good). --Calthinus (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New Name

I think we can come up with a better name per Wikipedia:TITLE, I don't think you need the title for it. Also, I am not so sure about the word storming. Riots seem a little better. I will hold off on a move request, but I think something like United States Capitol Riots. Casprings (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think "protest" or "rally" are the most accurate. W33KeNdr (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Protests was the original name, and both riots and rally were discussed above. See Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Closed_discussions_re:_page_title, a consensus on the current title was made after an RfC. Flalf^Talk 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened to that discussion? I don't see it now. --Chronodm (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Found it — moved to the Archive page. My NPOV objections re: Stormfront, Daily Storm, and QAnon stand -- this language is not NPOV, even if some of the media are also using it. --Chronodm (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much discussion on riot. If we look at WP:RSes, there is alot of support.

ABC: US Capitol riots by Donald Trump supporters end with four deaths, including a woman shot by police

BBC: Capitol riots: What happens on Capitol Hill?

CNBC: More than 50 police officers were injured at the pro-Trump riot at the Capitol

I also think we need to add Trump to show the connection. Perhaps Trump's United States Capitol Riots. Casprings (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It should not be called storming, protest, or rally. It was an insurrection. Call it what it is, not what you want it to be. Sources calling it insurrection:

• Gaurdian
• BBC
• NPR
• CNN
• NPR
• Economist
• ABC
• CNBC
• USA Today

The list goes on and on. Maybe call it United States Capitol insurrection. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I can buy that. If sources say it was a a violent uprising against an authority or government we should say so.Casprings (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Every one of those sources listed refer to the Capitol being stormed (mostly in the first paragraph). Several of them only use the term ‘insurrection’ in the article title and not in the body of the article, often within quotes i.e. not in the voice of the source. Insurrection appears to be used as a loaded term. At best, the cited sources indicate no more than equal support for storming and insurrection. It seems to me using dictionary definitions that storming is more appropriate - insurrection gives more political heft to what was simply rabble violence. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's claimed that the discussion has been closed, but I don't see where it was discussed or who decided it was closed. Given Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, not to mention QAnon's repeated use of "storm", I really don't think it's a neutral choice. --Chronodm (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgot about that. Might start to put together a move request and bring it up. United States Capitol insurrection.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please. Some other possibilities: the New York Times are both using the words "riot" and "breach" as well as "storm"; CNN is using "riot" and "domestic terror attack"; Fox is calling it "Capitol riots". (I'd supply detailed references but I haven't got time to stay on this right now.) --Chronodm (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason I was fine with storm is because, in my opinion it can be either negative or positive, so I think it's pretty NPOV. Flalf^Talk 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming seems good but only for part of what happened. (Even then, it's important to think carefully as the unfolding of events becomes clearer.) Possibly occupation might be an alternative if one was wanted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

2021 Invasion on the US Capitol and Coup d'Etat attempt , could be a clear and exact title.

Public domain images

Hey, does anyone know if any public domain images of the incursion into the Capitol itself exist? The current infobox images seem a tad detached from the subject at hand since they're from the rally earlier in the day. If such images exist, I think they'd be well placed in said infobox. U-dble (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Characterization as domestic terrorism

The following discussion might be of interest to the editors of this page: Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States § Attack on the United States Capitol (2021). --MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in the page move debates above, the debate over the title of this article needs to center on the descriptive term for what happened yesterday. MarioGom's comment adds one to the list ("attack"). So, what would be the preferred term to center the title discussion around? a) "attack", b) "breach", c) "insurrection", d) "protest", e) "storming", f) "standoff", g) something else? -- RobLa (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RobLa, for the overall events, I would call them protests. I still think the original title was better, but there was already an RFC so I drop the stick there. Storming looks quite accurate and neutral for the... storming of the Capitol. Attack would have made sense if the protesters actually killed or tried to kill people at the Capitol or something like that. I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate here. By the way, attack was used at Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States to imply it's a terrorist attack. MarioGom (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

They are no protestors neither terrorists. They were far-right crowd that attempted to make a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a very good question; I think that the actions clearly exceed what we usually call "protests". Ziko (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oregon, for the "Outside the District of Columbia" section

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/01/06/pro-trump-election-rallies-close-oregon-marion-county-offices/6558277002/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/pro-trump-protesters-gather-near-oregon-capitol/283-9d75e29c-d3d8-4b48-8818-054a7ff54282

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/01/06/oregon-capitol-salem-trump-protest-election-results/

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2021/01/protest-set-for-oregon-capitol-as-trump-stages-dc-rally-lawmakers-convene-to-confirm-electoral-college-vote.html

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/operation-occupy-the-capital-salem-01062021/

Sharing again, mostly as a reminder to myself, since someone else archived a section with these sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

First sentence:

"[A]t the behest of United States President Donald Trump,[7][8][9] a mob of armed rioters stormed the United States Capitol, breaching security and occupying parts of the building for several hours"

I'm not sure this is factual. I watched the original sources, and he claims, of course, that the election was stolen and that there was fraud. But from what I saw he never actually told anyone to go to the capitol and certainly never said to storm it. I think this is a bit too inflammatory and NPOV, and should be replaced with something like "after being inflamed by unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, a mob of armed rioters stormed the United States Capitol, breaching security and occupying parts of the building for several hours" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:1f70:a494:9e9b:b503:b4d0 (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to wp:boldly fix this sentence. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

He did and did say "I will there with you"! And with that sentence he lyed again.--93.211.213.235 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

After looking into it more, it seems he did say "i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today", however he did not tell them to storm the capitol. Just to protest there. Also that quote was not present in any of the three sources cited for that sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:1f70:a494:9e9b:b503:b4d0 (talk • contribs)

1. Please sign your comments. 2. If you dispute this, simply edit the page to reflect what the sources say. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: Actually they cannot be bold and edit, the article is extended conformed protected, and they are an IP. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, maybe they could use the edit request function then, with a specific request for how to cure this allegedly faulty wording. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, or rather: none of the three cited sources actually support the claim that Trump ordered them to storm the Capitol. They all report that he told his supporters to march there, but clearly that's not the same. The closest quote is from Times: "'If you don’t **fight** like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,' Trump had told the crowd, urging them to head to the Capitol" [emphasis mine]. I can't and won't edit, but that seems far too weak a source to start the entire article with such a disputed/unclear/open-to-interpretation statement. (It should obviously be discussed in detail in the remainder of the article.) 2A02:908:1013:7780:F0E3:646A:F748:4C1E (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Look more, b/c "Trump Is Said To Have Discussed Pardoning Himself" --93.211.213.235 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been fixed. --108.17.71.32 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with pictures in infobox

None of the photos featured in the infobox actually show the storming or occupation of the US Capitol building despite the title of the article being "2021 storming of the United States Capitol". The photos seem like they would be more appropriate to be featured on an article for the "Save America" rally" or the 2020–2021 United States election protests. Should this be rectified? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be! But are there any such usable photos? The best place to look would be commons:Category:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol but there's nothing like that currently there. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

(Technical note - I see that RFC's are one per article, but this stems from discussion here and Domestic terrorism in the United States#Attack on the United States Capitol (2021), and content at Terrorism in the United States. This article seemed like the better place for it.) Jdphenix (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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 (as yes). 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? 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 [4]. 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)

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)

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)

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 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 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)

• 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)

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)

Wrong information

This article made a couple of false statements in just one sentence when they said "TAKEN OVER FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1814". First off it was taken over in 2018 by an anti-Kavanagh protests. Then secondly the Trump supporters did not break down the door AKA "TAKE OVER" there is video after video showing the Capitol Police opening the doors and letting them in..— Preceding unsigned comment added by BhcPatriot (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen no such video User:BhcPatriot. I've seen lots of photos and video of doors being barricaded, and police trying to unsuccessfully push rioters back through doors and windows. I did see a barricade outside being moved in a video ... but that's not a door into the Capitol. Can you provide a link? Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DONOTFEED Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It would violate WP:AGF to suggest that a user is a troll, after a single polite request. You shouldn't do that - instead a variant of WP:ROPE may be better. Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time the capitol has been violently breached since 1814. The 2018 rally you're referring to did occur on capitol grounds, but remained largely peaceful, and protestors did not attempt to forcibly enter any restricted areas in the Capitol Building. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally watched live on PBS as rioters broke windows and entered the Capitol. Your claims are false, unless you can find a source proving otherwise. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Under deaths section there is a line about a Capitol Police Officer dying, the article it links to states that this was false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.216.101 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears his death was prematurely reported. Then he actually died. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Police death: ERROR

The police man who died was not injured. He died of a stroke. Google "capitol police stroke" and many news articles. Wikipedia should not knowingly have errors or people will mistrust or laugh at WP. Vanny089 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

God forbid people mistrusting Wikipedia. You can make an edit request using the template and providing sources. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article currently reads: [T]hree other rioters died as a result of medical emergencies during the incident and a Capitol Police officer died the following day. While the wording here may be confusing, the article does not allege that the officer's death was a result of injury, only that it was related to the events of the day (as reported in reliable sources). Some local news outlets reported that "According to the force's union Chairman Gus Papathanasiou" the officer had a stroke during the confrontation and died the next day. If there's a reliable source for this then it should be added. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

NPR is saying that the officer died after being "assaulted in Wednesday's riot by violent protesters loyal to President Trump" and was attacked "with metal pipes, discharged chemical irritants, and [...] other weapons" per https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/07/954333542/four-dead-police-injured-dozens-arrested-after-siege-at-the-u-s-capitol?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social Please avoid spreading misinformation. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It would appear, by this tweet, that the officer is brain dead and is on life support until the family can arrive. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

NPR is saying that the report of the officer's death are inaccurate: "U.S. Capitol Police say the report that one of its officers had died after being assaulted by violent protesters loyal to President Trump is not accurate. NPR incorrectly reported the death based on information from a well-placed source." This is from the article the line cites [4], https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/07/954333542/four-dead-police-injured-dozens-arrested-after-siege-at-the-u-s-capitol?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.216.101 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

He's officially confirmed dead. The officer name is Brian D. Sicknick. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/capitol-police-officer-has-died-after-clashing-pro-trump-mob-n1253396 XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Persons of interest in unrest-related offenses - Photos

DC Police released this pdf [5] - I know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but was wondering if this link can be placed in the external links section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

False information

A statement was just released saying that no police officer died and the claims are false, making the death total still 4 Darce98 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Source? Multiple credible sources are saying that a police officer died, with some saying that there may have been two officer deaths. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Being reported by Reuters. As of right now, the headline on the home page and the URL give the updated information, but the article itself still makes the claim, so may just be a case of waiting. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-capitol-police/u-s-capitol-police-say-reports-of-officer-death-not-accurate-idUSKBN29D00G?il=0 pcuser42 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Now the article has been updated - this could be used as a source now pcuser42 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Babbitt shot once

As I can't touch modern American political articles, I ask someone else correct this purely physical error. Article says she was shot by "law enforcement officers" (those who drew handguns are also called "guards"), later died of "injuries". Sources generally say she was only injured once by a single US Capitol Police officer, per Chief Robert J. Contee III in at least one of nine existing citations. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed the reference to "injuries". I would recommend reviewing WP:TBAN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, GorillaWarfare one can have more than one injury from a single gunshot. At close range, an entry and exit wound is, I imagine, likely, and damage to multiple organs/systems is multiple "injuries". GPinkerton (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect so too, but the wording can be avoided. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Because I was advised to not post here, but was pinged for comment, I believe saying I have no further comment at the moment is a proper compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

After reading the example at WP:TBAN, replacing "weather" as appropriate, I am confident that an objection to accusing multiple people of killing someone only one person is reported to have killed is not a TBAN violation. It is possibly a BLP violation, though neither killer is identified in the lead sentence. But it is very obviously wronger to state two or more officers at the scene shot the same woman than it is to discuss anatomy and arithmetic in an apolitical section of an otherwise largely politicized talk page. I will defend my right to raise and respond to legitimate questions of fundamental importance herein, with or without express written permission.

GPinkerton, you are correct. Dependant on trajectory, one bullet can cause multiple individually fatal injuries. But one bullet cannot and should never have been suggested could come from more than one "law enforcement officer", howsoever the individual(s) in question shall henceforth be described.

Just drop the fake S, people, we can tell it's incorrect regardless of any perceived political differences, just plain math and English analysis of existing police statements, presently appended inline. If my polite demand is not met within a very reasonable 72 hours, I may be forced to do it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, it's done. GPinkerton (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed "officers" instead of explicitly relaying how it was just one. I formally accept this as "good enough, just less specific" and rest my case. Thank you, my friend! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• InedibleHulk, this is a rather clear violation of your American Politics topic ban. I know you yourself have described your editing this topic as an "obsession", but that doesn't excuse the violation. You've been around long enough to know better. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

According to my search results, I've described exactly one thing as an "obsession". It was from June 19, 2015, and the context is currently unmentionable but verifiable. I forgive you for misquoting me, so forgive me for carefully and politely requesting a math error in a Main Page lead be fixed per source. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction, found two more. In the summer of '14, I described a bunch of monsters' twisted desires; two summers later, it was related to AP2. But neither were about me, just by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit on Jimbo Wales' talk page, as I noted in my reply on EvergreenFir's talk page. However, I've seen you refer to it before and after using various euphemisms, including on my own talk page, where you phrased it as "I have a history of taking of my shirt" in the edit summary, per the popular 90s song. I'm not "after you". But you are clearly unable to abide by a topic ban in this area, and it should either be extended to an indefinite ban, and/or other sanctions taken. Dude, it's easy. Just stay away from AP pages. Don't respond to this. 12:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Escape hoods

Is anyone familiar with what exactly escape hoods are? That term keeps coming up related to this story and we don't seem to have an article on that - Escape Hood, Escape Hoods, Escape hood. KConWiki (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As seen in this New York Times photo, an "escape hood" is a plastic hood equipped with an air purifyer, which are typically used during fire/chemical spills evacuations to avoid inhaling toxic fumes. Congresspeople wore these during evacuations, presumably as a countermeasure for COVID-19, since they would be unable to maintain adequate social distancing. RoxySaunders (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Smoke hood. Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I have redirected the above linked terms to Smoke hood; If anyone has any concerns, please let me know. KConWiki (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

More videos

Please include if anyone sees fit:

A Message from President Donald J. Trump Jan 7 2021

1 7 21 Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany Holds a Press Briefing

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, Victor, that first video with Trump looks seriously doctored. Do we know if that first video is a legitimate video? I suppose I could go over on WP:Commons and figure it out, but I'm lazy!  :-D -- RobLa (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RobLa this video was posted by Trump's official Twitter social media account yesterday (U.S. time), so I'm entirely sure that it's legitimate. :) Nick Camarillo (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit needed in lede

I'm not eligible to direct edit but wanted to point out a couple of copyedits needed in the lede.

"One woman was shot by law enforcement officers as she attempted to enter the House chamber through a window broken moments earlier by a co-conspirator, she later died of her injuries; and three other rioters died as a result of medical emergencies during the protest."

Should be: "One woman was shot by law enforcement officers as she attempted to enter the House chamber through a window broken moments earlier by a co-conspirator. She later died of her injuries, and three other rioters died as a result of medical emergencis during the protest."

"A Capitol Police officer was reported to have died died the following day, but the report was soon retracted."

The word "died" is repeated here; one instance needs to be deleted. 108.210.5.163 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Co-conspirator is a bad word to use. <sigh> All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Rioters?

Nazi sympathizers and terrorist would be more in order. weapons and bombs found? need more proof? 37.188.243.3 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. We have an ongoing discussion regrading the characterization of these events as terrorism on this page. Regarding "Nazi sympathizers", I'd find reliable sources that use that terminology. I think that characterization of the rioters as Nazi sympathizers gives WP:UNDUE to the minority of rioters that were carrying Nazi symbols. Jdphenix (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts matter. One of these fascists thugs had even a "Camp Auschwitz Shirt" on! Look with our own eyes: How World Leaders Are Reacting To Capitol Hill Riot | TODAY. Letting far right extremist groups run wild, emboldened by much of the Conservative leadership and the right-wing media. --87.170.200.180 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts do matter, which is why we rely on reliable sources. There certainly appears to have been some Nazi sympathizers in attendance, given the shirt and various other photos circulating, but we cannot call all attendees Nazi sympathizers without some serious reliable sourcing to back it up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Members of crowd heard shouting 'Sieg Heil'", Neonazis-tattoos "including a Valknut, a Yggdrasil, and a Mjölnir", "Demonstrant mit einem mit „Camp Auschwitz“-bedruckten Kapuzenpullover", NS-Parole »work brings freedom« (»Arbeit macht frei«), "Konföderierten-Flagge, die für Sklaverei und Rassismus steht, ein weiterer Mann zeigt den Hitler-Gruß"... Reliable Sources from Germany, where Nazis are a specialty:

• https://www.mopo.de/news/panorama/bekannte-rechte-auschwitz-pulli---sieg-heil--rufe--das-sind-trumps-anhaenger-im-kapitol-37900312
• https://www.spiegel.de/stil/jake-angeli-was-ueber-den-qanon-schamanen-aus-dem-us-kapitol-bekannt-ist-a-be3f2bb7-6b59-4e76-9ffd-9abedffe1c3a
• https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1146689.sturm-auf-das-kapitol-faschist-terrorist-oder-nur-ein-patriot.html
• https://plus.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/veteranin-neo-nazi-abgeordneter-q-glaeubige-das-sind-die-menschen-die-das-kapitol-stuermten-86918.html
• https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article223901406/Jake-Angeli-Wer-ist-der-Mann-mit-den-Bueffelhoernern.html - need more proof? --93.211.211.47 (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Raided"/"Raiding" instead of "stormed"?

Can we replace all instances of the Capitol being "stormed" by Trump supporters with "raided"?

Golfpecks256 (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bum-rushed. I think the word 'stormed' is used in the press. I also see "rampage" and presumably "rioted". Mcfnord (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

De bestormers van het Capitool

„The Storm“ stürmt das Kapitol

--93.211.211.47 (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

identification of rioters

https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1346922707431129089?s=19

Add that Alex Jones also participated in the riots, since FBI said they want everyone to identify those involved for prosecution. Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see our reliable sources policy, namely WP:SPS. Wikipedia is not in the business of identifying people from photographs without reliable sources to back them up; the FBI can do that themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare,thanks for the tip, I need to read the policy Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

differentiate between violent deaths and accidental/natural deaths during the storming in the Campaign box.

three out of the four deaths were due to accidents or natural causes. I think we should differentiate between the deaths in the campaign box. say like "1 due to gunshot, 3 accidental".--Garmin21 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Garmin21, we don't know yet whether they were accidents. "Medical emergency" could potentially be anything, up to and including suffering deliberate violence. GPinkerton (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with GPinkerton. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that.--Garmin21 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not substantiated that all of the reported medical emergencies happened in the storming of the Capitol. Greeson suffered a hearth attack outside the Capitol, "as he stood among a sea of Trump supporters on the west side of the U.S. Capitol." [6] Phillips had a stroke plausibly before or at the start of the rally, after arriving around 10:30am; "There’s no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol." [7]. Boyland collapsed around 5pm. [8].Terjen (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Does it suggest somewhere that they did? This article is about the entire day's events, and from what I can see the article only refers to the three people dying that day "during the protest", not inside the Capitol building. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A previous version mislabeled the three dead as "intruders". Terjen (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. I agree that that's inaccurate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

See also

I see that Seekallknowledge has reverted my removal of the see also section. I think it fails WP:OR (these comparisons are just some editors' views of similar or relevant events) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (for the same reason). Let's discuss. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Almost all articles have a "see also" section. Removing it entirely makes no sense, instead any comparisons that don't make sense should be discussed and removed. Seekallknowledge (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. By definition, see alsos are unreferenced compendia of individual editors' views. That's fine on uncontroversial articles, but not necessarily fine on articles like this. I see no principled way to limit the comparisons besides reliable sources. And if reliable sources make the comparison, that should go in the body, not in the see also. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and a valid one. Virtually all articles have this section, even the controversial ones. No user supports your position so the section must stay. Seekallknowledge (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick passes away

USCP Statement: January 7, 2021 Press Release At approximately 9:30 p.m. this evening (January 7, 2021), United States Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty.

Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters. He returned to his division office and collapsed. He was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The death of Officer Sicknick will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch, the USCP, and our federal partners.

Officer Sicknick joined the USCP in July 2008, and most recently served in the Department’s First Responder’s Unit.

The entire USCP Department expresses its deepest sympathies to Officer Sicknick’s family and friends on their loss, and mourns the loss of a friend and colleague.

We ask that Officer Sicknick’s family, and other USCP officers’ and their families’ privacy be respected during this time.

1. # #

https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick Coasterghost (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Added. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Could further edits be made to:

1.Fix this sentence in the first section: "One woman attempting to enter the House chamber was shot by law enforcement officers and later died,[27][28][29] three other protestors and a police officer died as a result of medical emergencies during the protest." This should be rewritten to something like "…three other protestors died as a result of medical emergencies during the protest. A police officer suffered injuries while engaging with protestors, later collapsed, and died a day later." Mfessler (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

More photos

We need more photos, such as the man in the buffalo costume, person taking podium, person sitting at Congress table, etc. Edskiash (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Edskiash, many of the photos you see online or on news articles are subject to copyright and non-free. Wikipedia does not allow non-free images except in very specific circumstances. I'm sure as images come out which are public domain or freely-licensed, they will be added. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox images and caption

"Top to bottom, left to right: Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to supporters at the "Save America" rally, protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza"

Was there a Black Lives Matter protest occuring at the same time as the events described in this article? Can someone tell me why the Black Lives Matter image and caption have been included? It's incongruous and genuinely confusing; it gives the impression the storming of the Capitol and Black Lives Matter protests are somehow connected. Thanks. Anotheranothername (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anotheranothername "Black Lives Matter Plaza" is the name of a public square in Washington, D.C.; the caption is merely stating that the depicted events occurred there, and is not claiming any connection to the Black Lives Matter movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNimon‎ (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anotheranothername, see: Black Lives Matter Plaza GPinkerton (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bellingcat confirms Ashli Babbitt shot at 2:44 EST

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/ Zhould be incorporated into the sources. 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:48DB:C29A:9C27:7E77 (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump incited the riots?

I just had a quick question regarding this. So, early on in the article, the phrase "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." seems to imply that he encouraged them to specifically "storm the capitol" which he factually did not do. While I agree that his rhetoric definitely raised the temperature, in his speech he literally called for the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today" Casting the blame on anyone for inciting something is a matter of opinion/a judgment call unless they outright call for the act that is carried out. Not trying to say Trump didn't raise the temperature just that the word "incite" ( definition: to urge or persuade someone to act in a violent or unlawful way) seems to imply a direct correlation between what Trump specifically called for (a peaceful and patriotic protest) and the what actually happened (storming of the capitol).

Perhaps a better sentence would be "The riots occurred following fiery comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." This implies a correlation between the two (the Trump speech and the riots) without implying that he specifically encouraged riots. You could even tack on a "which many view as having incited the violence" to the end of it.

So in conclusion I think that the sentence "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." would be more factual if it were stated as "The riots occurred following divisive comments made by Trump at an earlier rally, which many view as having incited the violence." I think this maintains the NPOV better, without implying that Trump specifically called for the storming of the capitol and without making a judgement call on whether or not Trump incited the riots which is a matter of opinion.

Let me know what you think. --Brboyle (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Spare us all the weasel-wording. Front-page, above the fold headlines from some Thursday papers

• Boston Globe: TRUMP-INCITED MOB ATTACKS THE CAPITOL
• Chicago Tribune: ‘Insurrection’ at Capitol: 1 DEAD AMID CHAOS INCITED BY TRUMP
• Des Moines Register: CAPITOL CHAOS (first story hede: "After weeks of egging them on, Trump then asks rioters to leave")
• Los Angeles Times: TRUMP-INCITED MOB STORMS U.S. CAPITOL
• New York Times: TRUMP INCITES MOB
• Politico: DEMOCRACY UNDER SIEGE: Trump rioters storm the Capitol, halting election certification
• San Francisco Chronicle: INSURRECTION: As Democrats win the Senate, a violent mob incited by Trump storms the Capitol and delays certification of Biden’s victory
• Washington Post: Trump mob storms Capitol: President incites crowd to acts of insurrection, violence

So please, no bogus Wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some lead paragraphs, with emphasis added. I can do this all day:

McClatchy News:

"Hundreds of rioters encouraged by President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, crashing through police lines to lay siege to the building and force a halt to the constitutional process of certifying the Electoral College count after the Nov. 3 presidential election."

LA Times:

"Violent supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, shattering windows, ransacking offices and pounding on the barricaded doors of the House chamber while shaken lawmakers huddled inside.

"The extraordinary breach of democratic order — blamed by both parties on the president’s incitement — forced members to flee the House and Senate floors under armed guard, delaying Congress’ constitutionally mandated count of electoral college votes."

New York Times:

"Congress moved late Wednesday toward confirming President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory after a mob of loyalists urged on by President Trump stormed and occupied the Capitol, disrupting the final electoral count in a shocking display of violence that shook the core of American democracy.

"There was no parallel in modern American history, with insurgents acting in the president’s name vandalizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, smashing windows, looting art and briefly taking control of the Senate chamber, where they took turns posing for photographs with fists up on the dais where Vice President Mike Pence had just been presiding."

WASHINGTON SCENE by Peter Baker: "So this is how it ends. The presidency of Donald John Trump, rooted from the beginning in anger, division and conspiracy-mongering, comes to a close with a violent mob storming the Capitol at the instigation of a defeated leader trying to hang onto power as if America were just another authoritarian nation."

Washington Post:

"As President Trump told a sprawling crowd outside the White House that they should never accept defeat, hundreds of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup that they hoped would overturn the election he lost. In the chaos, law enforcement officials said, one woman was shot and killed by police.

"The violent scene — much of it incited by the president’s incendiary language — was like no other in modern American history, bringing to a sudden halt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory."

--Calton | Talk 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be so condescending. I'm not weasel-wording and I think it is inappropriate of you to suggest that I am trying to mislead. The change I suggested doesn't deny that any of the newspapers reached the conclusion that Trump incited the riot, it just allows the reader to realize that whether or not someone incited something is a matter of opinion. My statement is not deliberately misleading and in fact reaches mostly the same conclusion as the original statement, it just makes a clearer point that Trump didn't literally call for the violence, something I feel is important in gaining neutrality. I know that all of those papers reach the conclusion that he "incited" the rioters but I think maybe there is a better way of saying it.

Nothing wrong with me suggesting a dissenting opinion, especially when I'm not really disagreeing but rather trying to come up with a way of saying it that doesn't imply that Trump literally called for/deliberately incited violence, which he factually did not. He raised the temperature and parroted falsehoods/other divisive rhetoric, but saying he "incited" violence appears to me to be those newspapers taking a step past reporting the facts at face value and instead implying that Trump said something directly related to the protesters committing acts of violence when in fact he did the exact opposite and urged them to remain peaceful (a fact that as far as I can tell, all of those news sources and the sentence I am questioning fail to lend any credence to. This alone would immediately raise a red flag interns of their reliability if I were you)

Implying in the opening of the article that Trump incited the violence without mentioning that he literally told those at the march to "march peacefully" is misleading by exclusion of information IMO and thus would seem to violate the NPOV. But, I guess if the general consensus is that these headlines that exclude this fact are more worthy of inclusion (due to them being "reliable sources" in the eyes of Wikipedia) than what Trump actually said, so be it. --Brboyle (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proud boys

I have removed the following:

The Proud Boys posted messages boasting and taking credit for causing "absolute terror".

The source says:

… the Proud Boys openly supported the Capitol insurrection. "Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots."

Support for is not "taking credit for".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

The source specifically says "posted messages boasting and taking credit for the riot". This edit should be reversed.--YannickFran (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Restored. EEng 10:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that the Independent says that. The two social media items they cite don't support it however.

For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified

— Telegram

"Our collective strength" refers to the entirety of the protestors, the Proud Boys themselves being a small organisation.

Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots.

— Parler

While the Independent is generally a RS, we are not obliged to use them when their conclusions seem tenuous. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Missing Trump quote?

Being in the UK, I don't plan to edit this article directly, but I'd like to raise a key omissions as I see it. It relates to Trump's clear encouragement of the rally-goers (rioters-to-be) to march on the Capitol buildings, and was in videos of his speech in the earlier rally that day. The key section, which evidences how they were incited to leave the rally and 'progress' to the government buildings, seems to be: "After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol,... and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.” Perhaps the second part isn't so essential, but the first part seems highly relevant to the background to the rioting. (and just commenting that Trump did not go with them, but returned to the White House, I believe, to watch events unfold on TV). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

C-SPAN broadcast of the chambers

Here are some events from the C-SPAN broadcast of the Joint Session for Counting of Electoral College Ballots on January 6.

1. The House goes into recess after protestors breach the chamber at 14:16 to 14:18

2. The House goes into recess again at 14:29

3. Protestors inside Statuary Hall at 14:30 to 14:34

4. The Senate goes into recess broadcast at 17:14 to 17:20

The third one would be nice to have but I don't think it's in the public domain since it's not from in the House or the Senate. The last one is public domain though so I uploaded it here. Can it be added to the article? Neckstells (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Neckstells, anything taken inside the House and Senate chambers is fair game and public domain according to WP:CSPAN, however if it involves anything outside of it, that's copyrighted and you'd need NFCC. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 11:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This text

After Pence left, Arizona's senior senator, Kyrsten Sinema, finished her defense before the Senate was recessed at 2:20 p.m., and the chamber was then locked down

in this version 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (this version) appears to be incorrect upon viewing the C-SPAN2 clips. Would the following better reflect events, as Senator Sinema had finished, and Senator Lankford was in the midst of remarks?

Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) was speaking on the challenge to the Arizona Electoral College vote when the Senate when into recess. Vice President Pence, then presiding over the Senate, was rushed out by the Secret Service. The Senate chamber and press gallery were put into lock-down.

Notes: VP Pence's evacuation is not shown on C-SPAN2. The C-SPAN2 clips show the lock-down of the Senate chamber along with replay of earlier remarks by Majority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky). These two CSPAN2 user clips show this:

* "User Clip: Final Minute in Senate | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

* "User Clip: Senate interrupted, recess, and lock-down 6 January 2021 | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

Lent (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Details about some people

See also: Wikipedia:Writing about women

Is it relevant to state the gender of the person who "attempt[ed] to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door" or to say that Babbitt is a "35-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran" or that Sicknick is a Trump supporter? Apokrif (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In the Sicknick case, yes, it makes grammatical sense within the sentence it is located. I presume the line about "One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died." was written pre-identification and has not yet been updated. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Identification of rioters: Holocaust denier Nicholas/ Nick Fuentes

Please add some words about him:

• https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/white-supremacists-among-those-who-stormed-the-u-s-capitol-live-streamed-inside-1.9431649 → "Gionet and Fuentes both attended the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017."

• https://www.comicsands.com/white-nationalist-killing-state-legislators-2649769286.html → "encourages his viewers to kill legislators in his stream" ... "Fuentes' alarming comment was first flagged and tweeted by Megan Squire, who, as Daily Dot confirmed, is a professor at Elon University studying extremism."

• https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/sturm-auf-den-kongress-amtsenthebung-donald-trumps-moeglich-a-375d55ae-b459-40a1-ab3b-0da0f94cbe20

• https://www.belltower.news/usa-the-storm-stuermt-das-kapitol-109893/

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/far-right-agitators-roil-the-conservative-movement-on-college-campuses-in-battle-to-define-trumpism/2019/11/16/a757d88a-0723-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

• https://www.wired.com/story/dlive-livestreaming-site-extremist-haven → "Fuentes, who hosts the far-right podcast America First and received $44,000 in donations through DLive in the last two months of 2020, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

• https://www.mlive.com/politics/2021/01/far-right-activist-who-encouraged-us-capitol-occupation-also-organized-stop-the-steal-rally-in-michigan.html → "The Capitol Siege of 2021 is going to become America’s Tiananmen Square." + "Why, because we had no leverage, what are we going to do? What can you and I do to a state legislator, besides kill them?" "Although we should not do that. I am not advising that, but I mean, what else can you do, right?" --93.211.211.47 (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (5)

Change Ashli Babbitt, to Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed U.S. Air Force veteran, a married business-owner from San Diego who’d reportedly served four tours of duty,

citation: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/07/trump-supporter-reportedly-killed-by-capitol-police-was-us-air-force-vet-family-distraught-and-confused-1013485/ 2601:1C2:1100:9460:89BF:AA5C:DA59:D83A (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - The lede is a summary of the body, which already states "Among the protesters, Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran, died after being shot by law enforcement inside the Capitol.[266]

Wikipedia doesn't support adding excessive details, in this case being "married" and a "business-owner." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

possible reference/external link

How A Violent Mob Breached The Capitol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=benfKdg3U2A — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNiceEyes (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump deliberately attempted a coup and may have had help from federal law-enforcement officials

See here:

"Multiple European security officials told Insider that President Donald Trump appeared to have tacit support among US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex in Wednesday's coup attempt."

Count Iblis (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The specific author, Mitch Prothero, seems legit, and has written for respected sources before, but Business Insider is a questionable source per WP:RSP, known to publish unvetted articles without distinguishing them from properly done journalism. I'd appreciate waiting for a more reliable source before including such information in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

False flag conspiracies

Please add:

"Despite the lack of evidence, Congressmen, Louie Gohmert and Mo Brooks spread false flag conspiracies on Twitter shortly after the storming. Both are Trump acolytes."

• Sources
• https://archive.is/Jg93Z
• https://archive.is/IjrUJ

• https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/gop-lawmaker-falsely-claims-to-have-evidence-that-antifa-orchestrated-trump-supporters-capitol-attack/
• https://mashable.com/article/antifa-conspiracies-trump-mob-january-6-capitol-debunk --93.211.217.55 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The Law&Crime source looks legit, if it is indeed run by the same Dan Abrams that the Wikipedia article is about. That would only confirm the Mo Brooks information, though. Secondly, even with a source, we would still need consensus that the information is not WP:UNDUE and other considerations; being covered by a reliable source is necessary, but not sufficient, for including information in an article. It also needs to be determined by consensus that it is relevant. --Jayron32 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed enriched, new Infobox

Extended content

2021 storming of the United States Capitol Part of 2020–2021 United States election protests and attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Crowd.jpg Top to bottom, left to right: The crowd of far-right supporters of Donald Trump at the US capital city, Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to a crowd at the "Save America" rally, Protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza Date January 6, 2021 (2021-01-06) about 2 p.m. – 5:40 p.m. (EST) Location United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. 38°53′23.3″N 77°00′32.6″W Caused by Opposition to the Electoral College vote count of the 2020 United States presidential election Methods Rioting, vandalism, looting, attempted bombing Resulted in Damage to the United States Capitol property, including vandalism and looting of offices and chambers. The counting of the Electoral College votes temporarily delayed by several hours. Resignations Elaine Chao Betsy DeVos Matthew Pottinger Stephanie Grisham Anna Cristina Niceta Lloyd Steven Sund Michael C. Stenger Paul D. Irving Installation of new security fencing around Capitol Parties "Save America" Rally Republican Party (partially) US Goverment District of Columbia Virginia Maryland Democratic Party Republican Party (partially) Lead figures Donald Trump Rudy Giuliani Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump Ted Cruz Mo Brooks Madison Cawthorn Josh Hawley Mike Pence Nancy Pelosi Chuck Schumer Mitch McConnell Kevin McCarthy Units involved Pro-Trump protesters Alt-right militias Proud Boys America First (Groypers) Neo-confederates QAnon adherents White supremacists Neo-Nazis US Capitol Police FBI Department of Homeland Security United States Marshals Service District of Columbia National Guard Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Virginia National Guard Virginia State Troopers Casualties and losses 5 deaths Unknown injured 80+ arrested 1 death 61 injured officers (56 police, 5 non-police) References Notes

Support

• I Support this change, because it's enriched and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, largely for inclusion of icons for the groups involved, which I think adds a lot to readability. Only concern is that the two listings of the Republican party might be ambiguous and confusing (seems odd to have the same group listed on two parts of a conflict), but I can see why it was done as this was a Republican rally/riot that also targeted the RNC. Is there perhaps a way to disambiguate the two factions so the listings aren't identical? Other than that it all looks good to me. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Love the angle of that first shot. I would note that the "Resignations" part is too specific as those politicians don't seem to be very popular among society; would rather just put it "Resignations of several politicians". But that's just me. GeraldWL 13:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)