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) Strongly opposed adding it. It doesn't make sense and it was a source of vandalism. Puts the deaths on the same level as soldiers in war rather than an unfortunate loss of life. Suggests protestors and capitol police all went into it expecting casualties like a war. As a first-order logical problem, few people in the capitol were associated with an "organization" and of those who were, many were associated with multiple. This is not like the Allied forces and the Axis. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:37, 8 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)

If/when the participants are added back at some point, here's what I propose based on preliminary knowledge of whom the participants were. All with stringent citations.

January 6 United States Capitol attack
Parties
Trump supporters Proud Boys Boogaloo Boys Three Percenters Oath Keepers QAnon believers Other pro-Trump and far-right rioters Metropolitan Police Capitol Police FBI DHS U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives

ImperatorPublius (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When you include sides in a conflict, you should include the number, or if not possible, approximate number of "soldiers" in each "country". Scare quotes because this obvious isn't a traditional conflict box. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead parties in infobox

I don't see how this isn't pure WP:OR. I initially removed it but then noticed that fatalities and injuries were organized by side, so self-reverted. But seriously, who decided that (e.g.) Madison Cawthorn was a lead figure on the Trump side? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes this seems fraught with difficulty. Dividing the fatalities by "side", especially when at least one was unrelated to the storming, seems inhumane. These deaths (and even the injuries) did not seem to be the goal of either side. If you watch the video of the breach of the barrier you will see protesters helping a police officer to their feet. You may also have seen pictures of an officer treating a protestor's eye with an eyebath. The officer who shot Ashli Babbitt will be investigated, not sent back with a clap on the back, and a medal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Removed

I've removed both the "sides" and "leadparties" values from the infobox after they were once again re-added, since I haven't seen any consensus to reintroduce them, and there are major sourcing issues with them. I've left an inline note asking people not to reintroduce them without achieving consensus first; I assume people just haven't realized there was already discussion about not including them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Noting there is some additional discussion below at . GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Can there be a vote on this of some sort? I support the mentioned infobox due to ease of determining who the parties involved were. At the current moment we can omit and debate as to whether political parties should be involved but the actual actors like Capitol police and Q should not be delayed in posting 50.75.4.146 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

See #Proposed enriched, new Infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no rush. Elsewhere people are maintaining that the Capitol Police assisted the protesters (though I think they are wrong), and no-one knows what "Q"'s objective is, it's quite likely that they are laughing at their followers. Not much is as clear cut as in a military conflict. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Agreed. Inhumane to try to describe it as a war and many of the people caught up in it as soldierrs. Capitol police assisted protestors.

I support having the infobox belligerents added, as seen in 2020 United States racial unrest for example Bruhmoney77 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I support having the infobox belligerents added as well. It was used for the2020 United States racial unrest as stated above. One may argue that this event was even more severe considering a group of people entered into the building that represents the United States government. Football3434 (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll re-voice here the sentiment from many editors that this kind of comparison is horrifically offensive. I assume editors who don't oppose haven't thought through the implications of equating this to a battle. I'm in favor of deleting this section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it offensive to have belligerents for a civil conflict. 2020 United States racial unrest, 2019-20 Hong Kong protests, 2019-2020 Chilean protests all have them for example. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If you have a concrete suggestion, please think it through and post. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We use this in many instances that are similar to this one. This was a conflict to say the least. Many conflicts have had a belligerents infobox. Football3434 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So I guess I’ll just put a support toward adding belligerents to this article’s infobox. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Riots generally have military style info boxes. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol should have a military style info box because it is a civil conflict with obvious sides, moreso than other similar events as it is widely considered a coup attempt, sedition, insurrection, ...etc by Congress, other members of US government, mainstream news organizations, ...etc; all consider it to be a literal armed conflict. There were clearly two sides with opposing goals. The attackers include various organized groups unlike most other riots, and they had a clear goal that was not unifying. Of course there are some good acts by rioters and police, but there are good acts even in war between enemies. Warlightyahoo (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Support removal. Several users above have deferred to consistency with other articles that use this infobox. Personally, I think the "side" parameter in Infobox civil conflict is questionable, and creates an undue parallelism with military conflicts. For example, it doesn't really add anything to list on a side "Metropolitan Police", "Capitol Police", "FBI", and "DHS" – the takeaway of this event was "the stormers" vs. "law enforcement". I would support removal of the sides for the infoboxes of several of the examples cited above, as well. — Goszei (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

with all due respect, that makes zero sense. To remove the belligerents from the infobox would take forever due to the sheer amount of articles that have belligerents for civil conflicts. Not to mention, this was a civil conflict that had obvious sides and their own casualties. To not add it would make no sense and serve as an inconsistency. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruhmoney77, please stop trying to post about adding a box without thinking it through. For every article with a box like this, there are many that don't. Consider 2012 Benghazi attack. Any box should have the following characteristics. It's a good exercise to demonstrate why it's not appropriate here. (1) can all "belligerents" be identified as belonging to a country or organization? few can be identified with a specific organization and those that can sometimes belonged to multiple (1) were "belligerents" on clearly defined sides, always "fighting" and never helping one another -- Capitol Police worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of everyone, of course prioritizing the safety of some but with the safety of all in mind. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe there's been consensus on this (multiple times), so if you're considering posting here, please read the whole discussion through first. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:54, 10 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)

Note that there are many protesters on the near side of the barrier already. This may have simply been a pragmatic move to reduce the chance of crush injuries or stampedes. (Another part of the barrier was beached by force, presumably before this.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Note: it's gone (or renamed or moved?; looked like this not long before disappearing.) What's desperately needed, and is the kind of work where wikipedia can really shine is to report who said what when, according to which reliable source, so the reader can as readily as possible, see the conflicting and connecting claims and refer to the sources. For example it currently reports, "Three days before the riots, the Pentagon twice offered to send in the National Guard, but were told by the United States Capitol Police that it would not be necessary," as fact, instead of as something anonymously sourced in an article that then states, "Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection ... the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration," which seems to be in or more likely is almost but not quite in direct contradiction with another RS, Politico, for, "Robert Contee, the acting Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, said after the event that his department had possessed no intelligence indicating the Capitol would be breached". In other words, we must not speak disputed-by-RS claims in wikipedia's voice as fact. Likewise, we have Forbes (a staff reporter) saying "Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Thursday that the Department of Defense “repeatedly denied” requests to authorize deployment of Maryland’s National Guard troops to help quell violence at the Capitol on Wednesday". https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/01/07/maryland-governor-says-pentagon-repeatedly-denied-approval-to-send-national-guard-to-capitol/?sh=72825b6a6cb4 Let's get to the point where one can read the article and have a good sense of why there was reportedly a delay of two and a half hours between when the DC mayor requested national guard and they began moving toward DC, with clarity on the timeline of messages from the Mayor (and Hoyer, Pelosi, Schumer, etc), to Hogan, to Ryan McCarthy, to Christopher Miller, and back to McCarthy, which took some 90 minutes. We should at least add some {{disputed}} & {{who}} templates 'till we can get this sorted. Somebody?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The "coup" & "insurrection" 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)

In the heat of the moment, most newspapers will use emotive and hyperbolic language because their job is to attract readers' attention. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should describe the event as it is described by authors after the event, not in the middle of it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Coup", "Insurrection", and "Sedition" have specific legal implications. Beyond WP:BLPCRIME, confirmation needs to come from an official source. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:31, 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)

The Insurrection At The Capitol Is A TV Event That Will Live In History RobP (talk) 21:03, 8 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"

Trump caused the assault on the Capitol. He must be removed. "Failing that, senior Republicans must restrain the president. The insurrection came just as many top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), were finally denouncing Mr. Trump’s antidemocratic campaign to overturn the election results." RobP (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
• Al Jazeera - The ignored warnings of the US Capitol insurrection
• Ars Technica - Capitol insurrection was recipe for COVID superspreader event arstechnica.com Alalch Emis (talk) 02:49, 10 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)

@Chetsford: I feel like this article by the Brookings Institution makes good points and pretty much gives an explanation of what I said above.--WMrapids (talk) 11:32, 9 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)

• I would consider a coup to be an attempt by a group of high ranking government officials to suddenly seize the reigns of power, generally by posing a threat to the life or freedom of the existing leader. The storming was not by government officials and did not appear to have their support to take control of the government. It also seems that most of the people who broke in were not there in some sort of an attempt to take control of the government. As such the 'coup' label is unhelpful to readers. I am more supportive of insurrection, especially given its use by NPR and AP. Generally speaking, this seems most similar to Euro-Midan. ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:09, 8 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)

What these guys did was really stupid. I would put that in the article if I could. For now there is only speculation about insurecction or conspiracyt. I'm joining others in voting wait and see. Spudlace (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I really apologize if I'm in the wrong section, I'm really rarely contributing to Wikipedia as a whole, I just wanted to point out some thoughts on the naming convention for this article:

1. The "See Also" list gives other examples of "storming the legislature building". However, none of those articles are titled using the same naming convention. For example, the Armenian and Serbian articles are listed as "Protests" and not "Storming of X", even though the situation is almost exactly the same.
2. Different naming conventions are often thrown around as political rhetoric, so a media site calling something a coup does not (by itself) make it a coup, any more than political rhetoric from conservative news sites are taken in the opposite direction
3. Strictly speaking, a coup implies a military insurrection of some kind, but all the people in this situation are civilians, not military

So the naming convention of the article I would support, one way or the other, would be simply something that is consistent with other articles that already exist LutherVinci (talk) 23:13, 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)

Insurrection?

While the previous move was closed with the recommendation to wait about a week, we are now about three days after the event. After reviewing more recent sources, it seems that the term "insurrection" has been determined to be the most common term. CNN is even hosting a special titled "The Trump Insurrection". Any opinions on this?--WMrapids (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Protestors vs rioters (Lead)

Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It is back to rioters, but a the term should have a discussion. Words are so key, that a discussion on that is probably a good idea. (Changing name to discussion about protestors vs rioters). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) is my vote. I believe the people that actually entered the capitol are rioters, but they people outside the capitol are protestors. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad way to break it down. Thank you Elijahandskip. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100% 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's important to be careful with these descriptors because it's not clear who was a rioter, while they are all protestors. I like the suggestion of Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) above, but it's sadly more complicated than that. People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory, while people who had the barriers opened for them, later, at another point on the perimeter may not be guilty of anything. It's going to be interesting to see the legal outcomes, there are probably two killings, and yet we are told someone is going to be prosecuted for stealing an envelope. Until then we can only follow reliable sources on fact, and NPOV on tone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

100% agree. Keep up the good work! Also note "riot" and WP:BLPCRIME DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

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

Transcluded discussion from other talk page

Support

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

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

• Strong support: the RNC and DNC pipe bombs are terrorism alone, nonetheless breaking into the nation's capitol. ɱ (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: It has to be. They stormed the U.S. Capitol for the purpose of wanting to alter the election in favor of Trump instead of Biden. That's just as political as it can get. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: Echoing everyone else above. Strongest possible yes. Brad (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: I wouldn't object to the article being renamed to "2021 terrorist attack of the United States Capitol". -- RobLa (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - per sources [2]. And they did terrorize members of Congress. Pipe bombs were found. BTW, taking over parliaments is not anything new, even recently. The Crimean parliament was taken by the green men, but the most similar incident was probably Armenian parliament shooting. It is only through sheer luck that the members of the Congress were not harmed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously Per User:Nfitz this fits the definition as clearly as you can get, widely supported by many RSes. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - it checkes all boxes of terrorism, there wer bombing attempts aswell. and CNN as well as polititians call it terrorism Norschweden (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The events were an unlawful use of violence and intimidation for the advancement of political goals. Plus, there were multiple IEDs found. Bravetheif (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The intention of the rioters was clear, and that was to terrorize lawmakers and shut down the United States Government. That fits the definition of terrorism. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – their intention was to overthrow the joint session of Congress in order to change the results of a democratic election. That is a coup. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (sparingly) This was an act of domestic terrorism. A lot of sources frame it in these terms. However, it's important we don't overuse the term in an NPOV way. We must use this term in a reliable-sourced, explicitly-defined way. Provided the reliable sources characterize it this way, there should be no issue to the proper use of the term. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support: Clearly yes as per intent, reliable sources, evidence, definitions and the leading comments above. I would suggest its a No Brainer. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes open and shut pre-meditated anti-democratic political violence intended to control using fear. What could the objections be? GPinkerton (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Yes - Reliable sources use it, it fits the definition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — A number of officials including President-elect Joe Biden have referred to this event as an act of domestic terrorism. Courier (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - This easily fits the official FBI/DOJ definition of terrorism: "Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Verumregium (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — It's pretty simple: These individuals used violence to attempt to further their political views. Terrorism is the use of violence as a tool for political and social change. -- Phyzome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Undoubtebly Yes - This event was the textbook definition of terrorism. It was politically motivated and was aimed to instill fear into the U.S. government as well as the American people. It is pretty clear cut. The rioters also had zip ties ready for the capture of government officials.
• Yes. They caused nothing but violence and destruction. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes We need not to use such terms wildly however causing congress to evacuate and causing an immense amount of damage with the intent of terror is undoubtedly constitutes an act of terrorism. Using the dictionary definition without the lounge of national definitions it fits the universal term. Des Vallee (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other

• Wait. If individual rioters receive charges of terrorism, terrorism-related charges, or charges of sedition - we should refer to this act as "terrorism". Until then, I propose that we simply wait. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. I would prefer to wait until there has been news of individuals or organizations being referred doing "terrorist" behavior. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per Mt.FijiBoiz. This seems reasonable and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait I would wait until such individuals are charged with terrorism-related charges, once they are I will be in support. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait While the definition of terrorism has been expanded significantly in recent decades, it's looking like a very few of those involved were prepared for terroristic acts. When this is clarified we can have a suitable section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Wait Personally these seem to be acts of terrorism to me, but I agree with the above that we should wait for charges or expert opinions. Ziko (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per above. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and as this isn't classified as terrorism (yet?), we should wait until it is classified as such. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Per WP:LABEL, value-laden labels should be treated cautiously even if used by reliable sources. Sources will begin to describe the event more neutrally as it leaves the realm of news and enters the realm of history.Jancarcu (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Wait a bit and see what RS converge on, and we get a clearer picture of motivations, who the leaders were, who planted the bombs, how they organized, et cetera. Terrorism isn't really well-defined, so I'm opposed to an appeal to definitions. DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if there are charges of "terrorism" for people involved I'll consider it, but I don't see the support for that label as-of-yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait Too soon, but if a majority of reliable sources begin using the term, so can Wikipedia. Usage in RS will probably be influenced by what kind of charges will be brought (i.e. terrorism-related or not). Sjö (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until a consensus is reached within our sources. -- ToE 11:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per everyone else. Some people were there to protest, some were clearly rioting, some were clearly there to commit assassinations and acts of terror... It's a very complicated, multifaceted event, and we should just wait to see what a majority of experts and officials say, all across the board. Love of Corey (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per most above. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per all above. GeraldWL 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

"Breached"/"Raided" instead of "Stormed"?

Agreed. I have a specific concern with the word "storming" in the title. This is a loaded term, especially among white supremacists and militia types. I have little doubt it would be their preferred term, given the name of one far-right neo-Nazi publication, "The Daily Stormer," which is a reference to the original Nazi-party paper, "Der Stürmer." I'm not the first to worry about this name catching on for this event; here Jill Lapore's writing in the New Yorker: "A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a 'storming' of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a 'Storm' in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January 'the Storming of the Capitol.'" I prefer something less loaded, like "attack." Even "insurrection" is preferable, I think. The fact that the term "insurrection" sounds archaic to my ear is perhaps because it's been so long since we've had to apply it. Chadwalk (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Strong support 'Storm' is not only a politically loaded term as described above, it is an emotionally loaded term that implies passion. I propose 'breach' as a neutral term. In response to those who say 'but 'storm' is starting to trend', it seems that Chadwalk's argument is to provide a more neutral term that might trend instead.

Oppose Raiding doesn't even register on Google Trends when I added it ([3]). Storming appears to be COMMONNAME EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per EvergreenFir. I haven't seen "raided" in the coverage of reliable sources, but I've seen "stormed" and "rioted", so I think we should stick with those terms. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rare alternative uses of the word by a small number of neo-Nazis shouldn't influence the naming of our articles. The overwhelming majority of people know what we mean when we use the word "storming". Also keep in mind Wikipedia is not censored; shying away from the use of that word because it's misused by fascistic groups would interfere with our ability to write an objective article. — Czello 13:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose After the neo-Nazi Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville (Trump infamously said there were fine people “on both sides”), which resulted in the murder of Heather Heyer, website infrastructure provider Cloudflare terminated its services to neo-Nazi The Daily Stormer. Now it's Twitter, Facebook, Amazon ect. that have to take care of the problem. Neo-fascists are thrilled by fascist language: Sturmabteilung, Der Stürmer, The Daily Storme? Well, yes. That's is not so remarkable. And they don't like ANTIFA/anti-fascists. What they even admit... --87.170.193.22 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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)

Is The Independent considered RS? (Its Wikipedia page describes itself as a tabloid, but I don't remember where the source list is.) They're quoting Jones' claims that he was there, and saying that "was reportedly seen later in the day, standing on top of a car near the Capitol building and shouting into a bullhorn." -- Zanimum (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Independent isn't really a tabloid, but since their news articles can border on indiscriminate, they're not the most respected. If they're just restating a tweet, there's not much point, but that report that Jones was seen later would be RS. Kingsif (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Even so the tweet mentioned above is him(?) walking along outside the Capitol, according to the captions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

C-SPAN broadcast of the chambers

Spill-over references from previous section

References

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)

@Lent: I was considering making a Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, where PRIMARY sources would be acceptable to give a timeline of events; what do the clips show: Sinema finishes, Lankford starts, Pence leaves, Lankford doesn't finish before Senate recessed? Given Trump was tweeting during these 10 minutes to incite, it seems relevant we know who was speaking. (OR:) Pence and Sinema (D-AZ) seem like obvious "targets" that people would want to disrupt during the debate at that point, so if it was Lankford that's something to note. Kingsif (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

@Kingsif:The article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (this version) now has this, which seems reasonable.

“ While debate over the Arizona electoral college votes continued, an armed police officer entered the Senate chamber, positioned facing the back entrance of the chamber. Pence handed the floor from Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema to Senator James Lankford. Moments later, Pence was escorted out by members of the Secret Service, and banging could be heard from outside as people attempted to breach the doors. As Lankford was speaking, the Senate was gaveled into recess at 2:13 p.m. ”

A detailed timeline might also note after Senator Sinema's remarks were concluded, Majority Leader McConnell yielded five minutes to Senator Lankford

A further detail: (presumably after Vice President Pence was removed to safety) president pro tempore Chuck Grassley gavelled the session into recess. (At clip 44 min 15 seconds, four gavel bangs are heard followed by Mr Grassley saying)

“ The Senate will stand in recess until the call of the chair. ”

Finally, the C-SPAN2 audio picks up someone (probably the person who had approached from Langford's left) saying at 44 min 2 seconds

“ It wasn't anything you said. ”

apparently to Langford.

Lent (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lent: That's great, but we can't just have a video referencing the actions that happen, so it might need to be written more simply or re-introduce the written sources that at least reference some of the facts. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: So would a moment-by-by moment like 22 July 2011 here Timeline of the 2011 Norway attacks be a model? Or something else found via List of timelines? Many use much larger time periods like years or centuries. Perhaps a starting point for a timeline page might be to start with an existing page where an event was the central topic, with later edits covering preceding contributing events and derivative following events? Perhaps this horrific event: November 22: Fort Worth breakfast speech. Not really sure what style would be best. Lent (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

@Lent: I think the time code version would be better: easier to follow and there's suitable prose here. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 10 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)

  First two sources are merely tweets and don't prove conspiracies; we're not fact-checkers here. I think the other two may be good, but note Jayron's concern. GeraldWL 13:52, 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)

Looking up "Antifa capitol" shows many sources discussing and debunking the conspiracy theory. Matt Gaetz uttered it on the senate floor. I definitely support including it and saying it's false, because it has been shown to be false about 5 times over yet still spreads. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it still spreads. Rudy was selling gold/fear... again: WHAT REALLY REALLY REALLY HAPPENED On January 6th?, Rudy W. Giuliani Youtube Chanel, 8 January 2021, 335.950 Clicks 577.000 Follower. Rudy's video has been removed from YouTube just hours after it appeared. He was blaming the MAGA mob riot on the "fascist-deep-state ANTIFA/antifascists". With dramatic starring of Youtube-Holocaust-denier and Groyper Army leader Nick Fuentes! --93.211.218.107 (talk) 15:41, 9 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 Mo Brooks Madison Cawthorn Josh Hawley Jake Angeli 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

Discussion

• 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)

I added Republican party at both sides because indeed the Republicans splited in two. This is clear at the leaders, while Trump and Pence are in opposite sides.

• 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)
• Support Looks good -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support But can we change the wording of "Units involved" to "Parties involved" or "Groups involved"? Units implies military or law enforcement units with central organisation and clear command structure, while this seems to have been more of an ad hoc effort. Also, I think it is problematic to place US Government on one side when the President of the very same government is on the other side. Perhaps place Presidency of Donald Trump on protester's side and Vice Presidency and US Government on the other side? Melmann 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose because of the pictures. They don't really feature the main event: the storming, entering and raiding of the capitol building. Are there better pictures? Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Too broad. Please be specific in what changes you propose, and consider splitting your proposals out. I see there are changes to the parties involved, an addition of flag icons, changes to the images, changes to the number of deaths... that's a lot, and it gets a lot more complex once you start considering the number of edits in the main article (trying to diff this will quickly become impossible). Honestly I don't even know what we are discussing here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Pretty great. Seekallknowledge (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for the same reason as Elephanthunter the proposals must be split. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: those "parties", with the little flaggies, and the list of players, that should go, all of it. Having the Republican Party on both sides is already indicative of the uselessness of this, and I'm sure you can come up with more gradations than two--clearly Hawley's position isn't Loeffler's (most recent) position which isn't McConnell's position which isn't Sasse's position. What "sides" are we talking about anyway? And the list of main characters--at what point in time? Why is bison head guy not in there, and why is Eric Trump, whose role (as usual) is neglible? This is, essentially, the same discussion we had yesterday over at 2020–2021 United States election protests: ProcrastinatingReader, it is happening again. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Full of original research. Where did you source the 'lead figures' from? Domeditrix (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support. There are definitely two sides to this and it's important to note them. However, the infobox will need to have citations from reliable sources to support the placement of people/organizations on either side. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: this is a complex event and can't be adequately summed up in this way without significant risk of confusion, misunderstanding, decontextualisation and simple falsehood. I'm not just talking about the "parties" section either: the infobox should only cover the small number of facts about the event that can reasonably be covered in such a primitive way. Everything below "methods" needs to go. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This "civil conflict" addition to the infobox totally distorts what the event was. It was not a battle between two sides, Trump supporters on the one hand and Nancy Pelosi on the other hand. It was totally one-sided, a criminal riot, and that is how it is described by Reliable Sources. Treating this a civil war between warring sides is entirely Original Research, not supported by the facts or the reporting. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per WP:OR and Melanie. This infobox presents an original, POV-laden version of the events that we should not be stating anywhere in wikivoice, especially not in the most highly trafficked area of the page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. MelanieN and Drmies have it exactly right. This was a criminal act, not a "civil conflict" between "parties" and "units." Keep the infobox simple. Neutrality^talk 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Question - @Arms & Hearts:@MelanieN:@AleatoryPonderings:@Neutrality:@Domeditrix:@Drmies: Sorry for the ping. You all have expressed opposition to including the involved opposing parties of the riot because it wouldn't be clear or an accurate representation of what happened. I was wondering, would you be opposed to including a list of only the groups that reliable sources have confirmed were part of the rioters? For instance, many reliable sources confirmed that the Proud Boys attended. I was considering that instead of portraying it as a conflict between two sides like a civil war, we could just list the groups that were part of perpetrating the attack. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd still be opposed for several reasons. Using your example, let's say we list the Proud Boys in the infobox. This tells us that at least one person with at least a loose association with that group was in attendance. It doesn't tell us how many were there, what role they played, what their goals or intentions were and whether they were successful. (In the case of the Proud Boys this might be reasonably straightforward. In the case of the Capitol Police, members of which are now faced with criminal investigations for their complicity with the rioters, is obviously much more complex. Likewise the entire Republican Party, and indeed the entire federal government.) These matters are just as important, if not more, than the bare fact that a group played some role, and can only be covered in prose. Thankfully, this is an encyclopaedia written in prose, so there's no problem – the problem only arises if we try to cram extensive information about a complex event into the infobox, a format patently not designed for that purpose or capable of fulfilling that role. There's an additional problem of the impossibility of providing context. When writing prose we can say "the far-right group XYZ," "the neo-nazi organisation ABC" etc. Infoboxes don't allow (or at least certainly don't encourage) providing that sort of clarity. To some extent this is mitigated by providing a link when the organisation is notable, but notability is not necessarily a requirement for playing a major role in an event like this (the article mentions, for example, something called the Nationalist Social Club, but representatives of thousands more far-right groupuscules were surely present). I agree with Drmies' comment above, but I also see this as a deeper issue with infoboxes in articles like these per se; even if there were two clearly-defined sides, it would still be a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Arms & Hearts; still opposed. Would just add that once these matters are fully investigated by journalists, law enforcement, and scholars, it may well turn out that, e.g., Proud Boys were the masterminds behind (some of) the events. But making that assertion would require extensive, careful sourcing and expansion to the article's prose, not just a news report saying "there were Proud Boys there". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Arms & Hearts, I couldn't agree more: thank you. Herbfur you may have a point in that it seems obvious to list for instance the Proud Boys in an infobox list of perpetrators, but the complexities are just too much for an infobox. They may not be as "loosely" organized as BLM or Antifa, but there are important questions of representation here. We're not really dealing with official organizations with memberships and legal status and party platforms and official declarations of insurrection. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, those are good points. I looked through the article's prose and I found that the attending organizations were mentioned at the beginning of the section on the events of the riot, with not much detail. What do you think would be the best way to expand on this information? I think a subsection on the groups attending in the background section, with full information on the numbers and planning and investigations, would be appropriate. Thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Herbfur. I think that "participating groups" should certainly be in the article text, to the extent they are reliably confirmed. Not in the infobox. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Herbfur: I'm in full agreement with Arms & Hearts. I'd also add that there's no need to potentially jump the gun on this. Let's wait to see what reliable sources bring up regarding the role of certain groups before we even consider adding such fields to an infobox. To do otherwise would be to conduct original research. Domeditrix (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per MelanieN. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @CapeVerdeWave: Care to explain why you've implemented this proposal unilaterally when the discussion is clearly ongoing and no consensus has been reached? Domeditrix (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: The weight of the responses was tending toward Support, and reliable sources, on balance, support the proposal. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No they weren't, and no they don't. I have yet to see anyone produce a reference where a Reliable Source describes this as a civil conflict or lists the "sides". This is pure Original Research. And it should NOT be in the article until it has consensus, which it is a long way from right now. Thank you, User:GorillaWarfare, for removing it and adding an invisible comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a joke, yes? Vandalism by a "Unit" of the "America First (Groypers)", perhaps? What genius listed the "Republican Party" as, essentially, a belligerent in this pseudo-"battle" because some of its members were involved? Why not just toss "Men" and "White race" in there, too? What a shambolic disgrace. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as poorly-cited if not outright original research. I previously raised concerns about the completely unsupported assertion that Groypers/America First and Neo-Confederates were "parties" to this, and that's only one concern of mine with this new proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose This is not a well thought out proposal. Gammapearls (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose these battle infoboxes are often bad on actual battles, and are offensively horrific here. The leaders are arbitrary (why Madison Cawthorn and not Ted Cruz? how is Kevin McCarthy an opposition leader), the "Units involved" and "Casualties" sections are mockeries, and overall it's just painful to read. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose echoing sentiment from a lot of editors, this is deeply offensive. I wouldn't normally take issue with the tone of a suggestion, but to compare this to a battle requires a moment to note that this unacceptable. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose including all sub proposals below. Multiple editors above, including Drmies and Arms & Hearts sum up my views so I’ll be short. I am sure the change is in good faith, but it doesn’t consider the implications clearly and is factually and logically erroneous. We do not have multiple parties up against each other: Republicans vs Democrats is factually incorrect and ridiculous (Republicans distanced themselves from these events), and is perpetuating the same rhetoric that led to this stuff in the first place, and “Trump verses Pence + Pelosi” is equally silly. Further, these were a disparate group of criminals, nothing more, and there was only one “key figure” involved in the events. That alone doesn’t call for a sided presentation in the infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Austin Jaax: Care to explain why you've implemented this proposal unilaterally when the discussion is clearly ongoing and there is no consensus in favour of such changes? Domeditrix (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have removed it. There appears to be consensus against doing this so far. Added sides - no one has provided a valid reason as to why this shouldn't be included. Only arguments provided have been fogged by emotion and denial.[4] is not a very convincing argument to override consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per MelanieN simon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per MelanieN and Drmies. — Goszei (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

Please add the proposals so that we can discuss them individually --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - It should be noted that at the time of the submission of this proposal, the extant infobox in the article included parties in the "sides" sections. Those have since been removed, for better or worse, from the live page. So it should be understood that this proposal wasn't suggesting to *add* those, but merely to update them. I personally still think they have merit. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

For better. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Using the "side1" and "side2" parameters of the infobox civil conflict

• Support It seems clear to me that there is a consensus among the reliable sources that this was an insurrection by Trump's supporters against U.S. government. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• NO. It is not that simple. And if you have "Trump supporters" on one side and "US government" on another you are simplifying things greatly, and your representation is a representation of nothing. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it's far too muddy for that. See previous discussions for examples. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Oppose per Drmies. It vastly oversimplifies the event, to the point where we would be misleading readers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sadly Oppose — I would like to support this, as the person who led the effort last night to boldly begin utilizing the infobox parameters to include more detail. However the proposal currently is not appropriate. It lacks proper citations and introduces gaudy flags which aren't appropriate. I might try to retool this and propose a different version. However, it currently doesn't help. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Gwennie, though I would like to support this, this proposal is not appropriate and should be tweaked. Nekomancerjade (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I share the view of the commenters above: gaudy, inaccurate, and oversimplifying. — Goszei (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Using flag icons in the infobox

• Weak oppose I don't think it would help readability. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Fairly strong support I think it helps avoid wall of unornamented text syndrome, adds visual interest and a graphical hook. Also makes parties recognizable at a glance. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There were flags at the event. Reliable sources prominently feature people holding those flags. We should use their flags. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can't see a reason to put flags here, we should try and minimise flag usage (especially in infobox) per MOS:ICON/WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Lee Vilenski is correct. Elephanthunter, no. There was also a bison head at the event; we wouldn't want that in an infobox. If you want to go by what flags they wore, the "Trump" side would numerically be represented by an American flag, which takes the crazy to a whole nother level. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that the fac that Trump supporters want to believe that they are represented by the American flag. In reality they attacked at the building that represent democracy. The fact that they believed they are saving their country doesn't mean they could be right. They attacked their goverment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  You're missing the point: you should tell this to Elephanthunter. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support. It's clear and enriched. Flags represent each group and raised at the Capitol. So, I cannot find any reason not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the discussion above, we are not going to have any listing of "sides" in the infobox, so we would certainly not be using "flags". Most of the suggested "combatants" don't have a flag anyhow. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Per the discussion above, we are not going to have any listing of "sides" in the infobox There is no consensus on one side or the other at the moment so the question remains open. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. A tiny flag does not help readers identify flags in pictures, despite the argument above. They're visually disruptive, and we don't need to be doing these groups' branding for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Couldn't agree with GorillaWarfare more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• America vs America? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. It's neonazis Americans against America.

Using the "leadfigures1" and "leadfigures2" parameters of the infobox civil conflict

• Weak oppose Trump can arguably be designated a lead figure on the "side" of Trump's supporters, but who can be considered a lead figure on the "side" of the US Congress? Does the question even make sense? --RaphaelQS (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Among with the US Congress it is the Democratic Party and part of Republicans. And generally they are the key peoples of each side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Both leaders are rather clear-cut and lots of sourcing exists surrounding them. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

As I can see most of the people that oppose are about the flags. I personally support the flag use but I think we could find a solution that satisfy most of us. So I suggest to remove the flags from the units but keep them at the sides.

Support. Let's change it and replace the poor infobox of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (6)

In section "Trump administration resignations," request to add following sentence after "Julian Borger of The Guardian observed that the resignations were mostly among 'second-tier officials' and that there was 'no sign ... of a sweeping exodus or mutiny'."

"Mulvaney has indicated some officals are declining to resign 'because they’re worried the president might put someone worse in'."

citation: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-adviser-resigns-two-other-senior-officials-consider-quitting-matt-pottinger Dangerdan97 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is simply not true as of now, as Betsy Devos and Elaine Chao, both cabinet members, have resigned since the event as a direct result. Even had your request been accurate at the time of the publication of the article, it isn't anymore. Builder018 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're suggesting the initial statement by Borger is no longer true (a sentiment I would agree with), I would amend my request to simply have that line removed from the article as incorrect.

If it is to stand, then I have to ask for clarification on resistance to my addition. Has Mulvaney retracted his statement, or has every member of the cabinet resigned? Without one or both of those scenarios occurring there is no way of knowing the "truth" of his assertion, only that he has made it and a reliable source has reported it. Dangerdan97 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My assertion is indeed that the initial statement by Borger is no longer true, and should be removed. Builder018 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Builder018: If you look at the source, it's very clear Borger is writing after Chao and Devos resigned, and is explicitly describing them as "second-tier officials". You can disagree with his assessment, but the article's presentation of his statement, which I've now restored in full, is entirely accurate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, then Borger is incredibly incorrect; by no means is any cabinet member a "second-tier official", and even the most seemingly unimportant wield a massive amount of power and influence, though his assessment being incorrect rather than out of date makes for a much less strong opposition to the inclusion. Builder018 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Unacceptable removal of key facts from the first sentence

This edit[5] that removes several key facts and links to other related articles is completely unacceptable. Note that the material that was removed is uncontroversial, purely factual and not related to the above discussion on whether we should include something about Trump's "urging" or "incitement."

The rioters were supporting Trump's attempt to overturn the election (regardless of whether he urged them to do it), and the edit essentially removes any motivation or identity from the sentence, turning them into an anonymous group of "rioters" with no goal, purpose or identity, when in fact they had stated their goal – supporting Trump and overturning the election – very clearly. --Tataral (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the removal of this information is entirely inappropriate, and should be re-instated if there is no significant objection. Builder018 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to remark that I find the current phrasing awkward, as it seems to be trying to cram too much information into a single sentence. I preferred the earlier version which stated that the rioters were "supporting United States President Donald Trump". From a readability point of view it might make more sense to add the "attempts to overturn the election" part in the second paragraph which discusses Trump's comments leading up to the riots. AnonQuixote (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@AnonQuixote: "attempts to overturn the election" does not supply nearly enough information; many elections have taken place recently, and multiple have been challenged. The current section was sufficient context without overly crowding the article. Builder018 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question removed the phrase "supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election", describing the rioters. I agree that the information/wikilinks should not be removed, but I think trying to fit everything into the initial sentence results in awkward phrasing. AnonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not the exact wording that's the issue, but the inclusion of key facts and links to those related articles. We may have to discuss the exact wording further, but the sentence should be reinstated until we agree on a new wording. --Tataral (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Tataral, the sentence should probably be re-written by consensus, but should be re-instated and not removed until such consensus for a re-write can be obtained. Builder018 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note: The sentence was restored in this edit[6], which I support. --Tataral (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Elijahandskip has continued to attempt to edit-war out this sentence; I have restored it again and warned them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It is so funny that a discussion about this exact topic is above in the talk page. Extremely funny how you followed a discussion here and completely ignored the discussion above. There is no consensus as multiple people (In the discussion above) stated an oppose AND a support for it. I would consider this discussion irrelevant as it doesn’t involve anything from the one above. Please move the discussion to the topic above. I am undoing the part in question and I am rejecting the “warning” as this talk page section is actually how major problems arise. Please see above. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As explained above, it's an outright falsehood that there is a discussion above about this (I started the other discussion as well). There is no support for your edit-warring over this sentence and attempt to remove uncontroversial facts and links to other relevant articles. Please self-revert. --Tataral (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

See here: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence. This discussion needs to move to that discussion (Which was started yesterday). Elijahandskip (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion in question says nothing about this specific wording in the lede. The fact that a discussion is ongoing about some other wording does not imply that you may unilaterally declare that no edits may be made to other wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The other discussion is specifically about whether to include something about Trump's personal "urging" or "incitement" in the sentence, not about stating the uncontroversial fact that the protesters were supporters of Trump or including relevant links to other WP articles. --Tataral (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did not participate in the previous discussions on this matter but it is obvious to me that Elijahandskip's edit was inappropriate and against clear consensus existing here (which I myself support). I have restored [7] the wording to the lede. I am currently on wikibreak and will be mostly inactive on WP for a few weeks. However, I do want to note that this page is subject to WP:ACDS. If issues of significant and persistent misconduct arise here, they can be reported at WP:AE for appropriate action there. Nsk92 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  My edit was not called for. I understand what the consensus here is for and I respect it. I do want to note that in the future, this could get messy again (Unintentionally). Personally, I feel like the discussion above (If votes to remove it) could have an impact on the lead sentence that would go against this consensus. For now, we kick the can down the road. Hopefully it doesn’t get messy, but it could. Sorry for the problems I caused. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note #2: The sentence was restored again in this edit citing clear consensus for it.[8]. --Tataral (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is now correctly reflected on the page ("The riots were incited by comments made by Trump and his allies at an earlier rally"). Indeed, it is important that they were not just supporters of Trump (and Republican Party), but that they were incited by him. As sources say, "Seething with anger, mostly unmasked, Donald Trump’s supporters stormed and breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, stoked by his defiant speech claiming the election had been stolen from him." and especially this :“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. That must be cited on this page. [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above pretty much has a decent consensus that the word "urge" shouldn't be used in the lead paragraph as Pres. Trump never said the exact phrase "Storm the capital". He might have alluded to it, but the word urge means a direct statement. See Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence for that discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of these words have legal implications. This is the kind of thing that will be decided in due course. Despite the timely nature of the event, Wikipedia is not a place to write about ongoing crimes. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed—please see my comments about ongoing BLP violation here. Using Wikivoice to assert that Donald Trump committed a serious crime is unacceptable, and guidance makes clear we must both use "alleged" or "accused" and identify the accusers. Also, this fact-check should be instructive. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and the Identification of Rioters Section

I just removed the section on identification of rioters. In case the edit isn't reverted, the original text is here: [10]. I find that maintaining this information is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME because most of the people listed there are not public officials and have not yet been convicted of a crime. For now, this information should not be included, due to the risk of harm and legal liability. However, there were bits about public officials who attended, so I wouldn't be opposed to re-adding that per WP:BLPPUBLIC. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Herbfur, Agree that for now we should err on the side of caution and not disclose names. Earlier today, I reverted a number of additions to disambiguation pages that referred to the accused by their exact name and were clearly WP:BLPCRIME. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the people have publicly identified themselves, so as for those people, I don't see a BLP issue with inclusion (maybe a due weight question). Neutrality^talk 21:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation because the content was sourced to WaPo, Usatoday and other legitimate sources. Also, the person of interest is not someone who has been officially accused of any crime. I would restore this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:, it doesn't matter if RS identified them, the policy still provides that that information cannot be included. @Neutrality:, I'm still not convinced that that information can be included because of innocent until proven guilty. I'd say we can include that information if they identified themselves, but only after they've been convicted of a crime. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, WP:BLPCRIME advises extra caution, beyond just requiring a reliable source, before including material that accuses someone of a crime. I would also question the WP:WEIGHT that should be given to naming individuals when hundreds of people were involved, except for those whose involvement was particularly prominent. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely correct. I'd say we would need coverage from numerous reliable sources, particularly those covering national and not local events, to justify adding any self-identified people back to the article. I'm unequivocally opposed to adding individuals who didn't identify themselves, at least until a conviction is secured and the conviction is covered notably. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of names and Wikipedia isn't a trial court or investigatory service, and we can't risk that legal risk of inclusion. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• All people mentioned by name in this section are actually public figures. Please see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. For example, Jake Angeli and Baked Alaska (activist) are public figures as people seeking public attention. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE might provide that these figures, even if they're notable, might not be worth including. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest restoring most of the section -- particularly the info on alt-right celebrities and current or former state legislators. Possibly keep those who identified themselves to journalists and effectively made themselves public figures. All else, cite but don't necessarily name them in the article. RexSueciae (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the content on legislators has been restored to the bottom of the section on rioting in the Capitol. I don't find self-identification to be sufficient for restoration, however. The policy simply states that it's best not to mention any specific names. If there are multiple sources that indicate that these people are notable, attended, and identified themself, then yes, I would consider readding. Perhaps we can go through the old text to determine this. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Herbfur: The policy does not provides that any information about a crime "cannot be included." The policy actually says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." It's a directive to use caution and good judgment, not a total bar on anything touching on a pending criminal matter. If we use the best sources, word things accurately and carefully (i.e., avoiding any implication that any specific individual is actually guilty of a criminal act), and avoid unduly focusing on obscure individuals, that is consistent with BLP. (And we routinely do this: see Elizabeth Holmes for an example). Neutrality^talk 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's enough national coverage in reliable sources of people who identified themselves and attended the riot, I would not oppose inclusion of that content, even without a conviction, relating to your point and WP:undue. However, I still oppose inclusion of other individuals. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The text you deleted included this excerpt:

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots;

References

I'm assuming you're not contending that this can't be included on BLP or some other ground? Neutrality^talk 22:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that I deleted that excerpt of text. That should definitely be added back. There's a similar portion of text about Jones' involvement in the planning section. Jones is enough of a public figure to be included. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who restored the content about state legislators - I feel that, at least, should remain. They're public figures by virtue of their legislative positions, for one thing. And their actions are beginning to have repercussions in their respective state capitols.

Also, I agree that those who outed themselves can't really claim any expectation of privacy after this. On those who didn't, my feelings are somewhat more mixed-to-neutral. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I fully support the inclusion of the legislators, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Restore entire section and include the legislators, as some have started to receive charges. Wikipedia is not censored. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The removal of the section is due to a misunderstanding of WP:BLPCRIME, which lends credence to the section's restoration and (potential) expansion. Information from credible sources about Alex Jones and the Nationalist Social Club's involvements should be re-added to the article even if the the removed section isn't restored. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The legislators are already in the article. I also find my perceived comprehension of the policy irrelevant, I'd prefer that you explain your position based on your actual understanding of the policy. Alex Jones is already in the article. I can re-add the NSC to the article because they're an organization and not individuals. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean Wikipedia can include everything, also. We're still subject to the bounds of WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and other policies. Wikipedia should be very, very careful with including information on people who are accused of crimes, per WP:BLPCRIME. BLPCRIME specifies CONVICTION as the standard for including ordinary people, not charges. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed compromise - I propose that the content be readded to the article, but the people's names in objected sections be removed and replaced with generic language, like "a man was arrested for looting Nancy Pelosi's office". This way, important content remains and people can still find more pertinent information in the citations. @Fuzheado:, @Neutrality:, @My very best wishes:, @RL0919:, @RexSueciae:, @Mt.FijiBoiz:, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems (somewhat) fair. A complete removal of the information would do great harm to the article and the acts, since they occured during the riots, belong on this page. Not including the names of random participants seems to follow Wikipedia policy, however, the names of prominent people arrested or wanted for "domestic terrorism" (term used by the FBI) must be included. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I can support this: the only names I would include would be those of people who outed themselves. But it's no skin off my nose if those don't make it in. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This works for me also. I would limit names to people who admitted their participation and have particular prominence (such as politicians and organizational leaders). Generic descriptions for everyone else. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Herbfur, I think this is reasonable and the detailed list of considerations below was done in a logical way. Thanks to everyone for collaborating on a good solution. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think we must mentione all people who were prominently described in multiple RS and arguably qualify as public figures, especially if we have pages about these people. Should we mention them as proven perpetrators of crime? No, that could be against the policy. But to mention them as people who just took part in the events would be fine. Hiding facts which were published everywhere would be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The rationale I had in making this compromise is that, while I cannot in good conscience agree to add the names, the compromise would still make the actions known and readers can click the citations to find the actual names of the people who participated in the riot. If and when a conviction comes, the names absolutely should be included. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone notable (and especially a public figure) being present during an event X is just a fact and not a crime. Hence the BLPCRIME is irrelevant. No need to hide their names that appear everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Public figures should be included but quite a few of the people mentioned in the contested text aren't notable. Many of these pages were nominated for deletion or already deleted. The whole point of the compromise is balancing my BLPCRIME concern with the majority's wish to restore the information. The names are still available if people click the citations. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Identification of rioters "The day after the storming of the Capitol, the FBI and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department requested the public for assistance to identify any of the rioters."  Content re-added to the criminal investigation section. "Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli, a QAnon conspiracy theorist; Tim "Baked Alaska" Gionet, a neo-Nazi social media personality; and Nick Ochs, founder of the Proud Boys Hawaii chapter."  Content removed, contested on grounds of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE "Bloomberg News journalists stated that far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots;"  Content added to the beginning of the rioting in the Capitol section "a Vice journalist reported that members of the Nationalist Social Club, a neo-Nazi street gang, were also present at the Capitol. CBS 2 Boise identified Josiah Colt, the man who hung from the Senate floor balcony ledge. Jenny Cudd, a former mayoral candidate of Midland, Texas, bragged on Facebook about her participation, with current Midland mayor Patrick Payton expressing disappointment in her actions."  Content removed, contested on grounds of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE "A picture of Richard "Bigo" Barnett of Gravette, Arkansas, a Trump-supporting self-identified white nationalist, at Pelosi's desk later went viral. Barnett was arrested on January 8, 2021. Josiah Colt, a native of Boise, Idaho, reportedly echoed themes associated with the boogaloo movement and managed to mount the vice president's seat in the Senate chamber."  Content removed, contested on grounds of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE "Supporters of the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers were also reportedly present or wore emblematic gear or symbols during the riots; Neo-Nazi apparel was also worn by some participants during the riots, including a shirt emblazoned with references to the Auschwitz–Birkenau concentration camp and its motto, Arbeit macht frei (German for "work makes you free"). Jon Schaffer of American metal band Iced Earth was identified as having participated in the riot."  Content included in Participating groups section "At least thirteen Republican state legislators—including Nevada State Assemblywoman Annie Black, Virginia State Senator Amanda Chase, Alaska State Representative David Eastman, West Virginia Delegate Derrick Evans, Missouri State Representative Justin Hill, Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem, Michigan State Representative Matt Maddock, Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, and Tennessee Representative Terri Lynn Weaver, as well as outgoing Arizona State Representative Anthony Kern, outgoing Georgia State Representative Vernon Jones, and former Pennsylvania State Representative Rick Saccone—were present at the event. Representative Weaver claimed to have been "in the thick of it," while Delegate Evans filmed himself entering the Capitol Building alongside rioters. All denied participating in acts of violence. Evans was later charged by federal authorities with entering a restricted area."  Content included at the bottom of the Rioting in the Capitol section References

Emerging COMMONNAME

I know there's a discussion here about whether to include coup/insurrection based on building our own title, but before we do come to another RM, I think it's worthy to note that at least CNN, per their news special, has settled on their name for it: The Trump Insurrection.

A variant on this phrasing, if not used as a name, is apparent in other sources:

• "pro-Trump insurrection" - Inquirer
• "politicians blame Trump for insurrection" - The Guardian (news not opinion)
• "pro-Trump insurrection" - MSNBC
• "the Trump insurrection" - New Yorker
• "pro-Trump attempted insurrection" - The Washington Post

It seems like that's the emerging COMMONNAME and something to keep an eye on to see if it sticks before we move the article again. We don't to cycle through lots of article moves for such a prominent topic. If it's still sticking by next week, it would be the best title, but let's watch it for now. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

These sources have all expressed anti-Trump sentiment before the event. It would be great to get sources from those who support him (however wrong they may be) to verify that the word is used by both. Common requires broad usage. This is coming from someone personally anti-Trump. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral media reporting on Trump doing sketchy things is just going to happen with neutral media. You do know that neutral media exists, right? These are WP-consensus agreed some of the most neutral sources. They have independent journalists, so if they've ever said something "anti-Trump" it's because, like with this event, Trump did something objectionable. I can see where you're coming from, but you're aiming for False balance. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If appropriate for Wikipedia, the term "Insurrection" will be used by official bodies in course proceedings whose job is to investigate actions with specific legal meanings like "Insurrection". Then we should add it to this article. Otherwise, it's like a news report about a murder. Maybe true, but it doesn't belong here. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

News reports about murders do belong here. We can't call it murder per Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, just like how at no point in this article is it called an insurrection. Builder018 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

We're agreeing. I meant the word "murder" doesn't belong here. And exactly--the word "insurrection" doesn't belong in this article (yet). DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I think you might be misunderstanding something else - if we changed the title to "The Trump Insurrection", we're not subjectively saying Wikipedia thinks it's an insurrection, we're (correctly) reporting that "The Trump Insurrection" is what this event is being called by people. Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Overview of relevant terminology undergoing discussion

There have been lengthy discussions about the appropriate word choice for several things on this article. Most of the discussion centers on the least charged and most accurate definition.

This is not the purpose of this section. The purpose of this section is merely to assemble a list of words for quick and easy reference.

• Event:

• attack
• demonstration
• event
• mob
• protest
• rally
• riot
• storming
• invasion
• unrest
• violence

• Event as a possible coup/revolt:

• coup
• coup d'etat
• insurrection
• overthrow
• rebellion
• revolution
• revolt
• sedition
• uprising

• Participants:

• crowd
• mob
• rioters
• participants
• people
• protestors
• supporters

• Urged/incited:

• called
• encouraged
• incited
• instructed
• urged

Please add to the list but do not remove from it.

Relevant Discussion There is a discussion about the words "Urge" and "Incited" above. See:Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence Elijahandskip (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Added a section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When adding to this list, note that this is not just a list of synonyms. No one has called the participants "freedom fighters", nor should we. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion for the word "urge" determined it was not a good word for the lead. It might need to be questioned in the rest of the article as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Added a few, including the headwords themselves which are pretty neutral. Also alphabetized them, just because. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Thank you! DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Does speculation by reliable sources equal fact?

Just because one (or more) reliable sources say that Trump's speech "inflamed" or "encouraged" the crowd of protestors, does that mean this should be stated as fact, in wikivoice? Trump's speech contained dog whistles both overt and subtle, but the emotional state of the crowd and its motivations in that moment is a matter of speculation. Given the methods used in the insurrection (as well as evidence of online organization beforehand), this was planned well in advance of Trump's speech.

I honestly hope I'm not nitpicking. I'm just confused about how we can treat what is almost certainly speculation as a fact just because a news article from a reliable source says so, even though the author of that article had no reasonable way of knowing. --Frogging101 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a specific accusation with legal implications and Wikipedia isn't about speculation. The job of assigning blame is a court. All current sources are sources that have expressed anti-Trump sentiment. We need more than that. Please post on the discussion above. We need more sane voices like yours. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Q746371: You mention this above: sources that have expressed anti-Trump sentiment, but many of these are the most reliable, neutral sources around. They just report when Trump does bad things - that isn't being anti-Trump media. It's honest. What we'll have is sources that have reported Trump doing illegal things - unobjectionable fact after last year's impeachment - and sources that won't report that, which are pro-Trump media. Simply put: you are trying to say that any media that has ever criticized Trump has inherent bias and can't be trusted, which is an inappropriate reading of WP policies to say the least. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's reliable in the facts it reports. It is correct to state what Trump said and cite the newspaper. It is not correct to use its same language and draw its same conclusions. Further, "inciting an insurrection" has legal implications. It is perfectly reasonable for a newspaper to accuse someone of a crime, but inappropriate for Wikipedia to state it without saying who accused them. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of Inciting in this article is not a legal matter, and we don't need to wait for a court of law to weigh in on it to see whether or not he incited the crowd. There's far more than enough consensus for this to be put into wikivoice with no issue. Builder018 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

One article may well be challenged, especially from a sketchy source. But dozens of articles, from dozens of reliable networks, represent a consensus that Wikipedia by its policies cannot ignore. Even if there is reason to suspect that the consensus is incorrect, unless that reason is published by another reliable source, Wikipedia cannot depend on it, as that falls under Original Research. Builder018 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be reliable in that they make a good faith effort to report truths rather than falsehoods and make best efforts to rectify any inaccurate reports. But that doesn't mean that everything they write is completely factual. They can still embellish or "fill in the blanks" with bits of speculation or interpretation that are not actually supported by empirical facts or even particularly effortful or informed analysis of facts. And I do not fault them for doing this (though I would prefer that they didn't). But it illustrates that what makes good news media isn't the same as what makes a good encyclopedia.--Frogging101 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Kingsif and Builder018. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

We're editing in the middle of event. Sentences like these don't belong in the article. Whether Trumped "incited" or "urged" will be stated by more authoritative sources later. This sentence will either read, "X agency indicted Trump for inciting...and found guilty" or will quote historians. There's no point in quoting newspapers making their own (possibly correct) interpretations. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed a sentence of this sort yesterday, but it seems to have found its way back in. Can we take this section as indicating a consensus it doesn't belong? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There's absolutely no such consensus here, in fact it's basically evenly divided. The argument that we need to wait for a court of law to state things like "instigated" or "falsely" for us to include them is based on an inherently flawed understanding of policy. Builder018 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends on what the preponderance of sources say. But it is also (to a degree) speculation. I lean towards yes we can say this, as simply put its to widely held a view for anything else to be a bit wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Baseless => False

Many words in this article have a clearer, simpler, exact synonym that isn't value-laden.

We need to maintain as neutral a tone as possible. When there are less loaded words with identical definitions, we should use them. When I read "baseless" in a Wikipedia article, I begin to question it.

"Baseless assertion" should be "false assertion".

"Unfounded claims" should be "false claims". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Baseless and unfounded are no more value-laden than false. Reliable Sources call it that, so we call it that. Also, please sign your posts, so people know who they're talking to. Builder018 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

They are certainly more value laden. Look at the recent entries in the OED under "baseless" and "unfounded". It's always about a dispute or disagreement, often political and always heated. "False" is simple, clear, and accurate. More to the point, "baseless" and "unfounded" add no semantic meaning. Also thank you for the signature reminder. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this. Whether something is "baseless" or "unfounded" depends on what basis or foundation one finds acceptable. What is false is, for our purposes at least, universally false. I would add that we do not need sources to specifically describe claims as false in order to describe them as such. If a source says "John Doe said antifa were responsible for the attack, which was actually carried out by Trump supporters" or "John Doe said the election was won by Trump, when in fact it was won by Biden" the source is identifying John Doe's claim as a false claim and there is no reason we shouldn't do the same, only more explicitly. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There appears to have been consensus among UK broadcast news media for a period of weeks to use phrases like "unsupported" and "without offering any evidence" - my feeling is that they are trying to put a more explicit disclaimer, a la social media, on these claims than usual. (Normal practice would be to report claims by major figures as "claims", and say who they were challenged by, so this has been a very noticeable change of style, which may come back to bite us.) This seems to me far preferable than saying "false", it's perfectly clear and encourages people who might believe the claims to think about whether the claims are in fact supported, rather than just dismiss the messenger as "MSM". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

I think we should expect more of our readers. Note that there are plenty of articles about how to do inadvisable things with chemistry without a "don't do this at home".

In the US, there's a suicide prevention notice on every media about suicide, but none in the Wiki article. Perhaps we should, but as an encyclopedia it I feel intrudes on the voice. I put some weight on your opinion, however, and definitely prefer "unfounded" to "baseless". DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected pipe bomber

here if anyone needs it: File:Pipe bomb suspect FBI Jan 2021.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs)

Per Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, this file shouldn't even be uploaded, let alone included in the article. Hard oppose to any possible inclusion. Builder018 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've disabled the image per WP:BLPCRIME. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This file shouldn't even be on our servers. Thank you and please don't hesitate to remove anything like this immediately. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to have that image - as the wanted poster - hosted on Wikipedia or on Commons. Since it's not actually identifying any known individual, it's not needed as a cropped image (but also fine to have until the figure does become identifiable) Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Incitement of violence - Permanent Twitter-suspension of Trump

Included in Twitter’s statement, explaining why it banned Trump: “Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.” → https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html --217.234.74.170 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is a US company with close personal connection to the event. Discussions about tech regulation and the role of social media companies are driven by events like this. Please find neutral sources.

As a side note, the US media has given significant attention to this event--more than the coronavirus deaths and unemployment. With few developments on the ground, outlets have begun to focus on unconfirmed and speculative reports. Keep on eye on how credible supposed threats like these are. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Why Twitter finally banned Trump, recode, January 8, 2021
• Twitter bans Trump, Social media platforms have finally blocked the president’s accounts. Previous cases show that deplatforming works — if the costs are high enough., MIT Technology Review, January 8, 2021 → Quote: "... mainstream news outlets are the largest amplifier of White House disinformation, since “journalists, all of whom are on Twitter, quickly work his statements into their broadcasts." ... "In the same message, he lied about having immediately deployed the National Guard, when in fact he initially resisted." --93.211.218.107 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is a US company with close personal connection to the event no it's not. And it's acceptable as PRIMARY for their own statement on why Trump was banned. You think anyone besides Twitter knows better why they did that? It's not being used for anything else. Q/Denver, your understanding of various neutrality policies is demonstrably poor (see: up and down this talk page), can you stop weighing in demanding things that aren't helpful? Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm uploading more of my on-scene photos of the storming to Wikimedia Commons under CC

If anyone for whatever article needs more photos, check out my page under this username at Wikimedia Commons and feel free to apply them wherever. I'm prioritizing getting the direct storming ones up first, then later will upload photos from Trump's speech on the Ellipse, some of which include people who later stormed the Capitol.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapTheForwardAssist

TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

TapTheForwardAssist wow, thank you for taking these and sharing! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You were there, TapTheForwardAssist? That raises some questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

eh, does it really? I would've gone if I was in the area to get some photos. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess this is how we got photos of lynchings in the 20th century. Just point your camera at the crime scene and click. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff. I think we should consider using File:DC Capitol Storming IMG 7965.jpg as the article main infobox image. SpurriousCorrelation 04:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Small note to reverse the image. You can see "Trump" is printed backward. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's just the flags that are backwards. The woman's phone screen in the lower left shows the recording screen not mirrored, as well as the man's "LL Bean" jacket in the lower right. DanRosenfeld (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Note I'm working on the last batch of specifically storming photos now, so more batches have been added since this post. Tomorrow or I have an extensive number of photos from earlier in the day at Trump's speech, events the prior day, armed protests in Georgia, etc. So just check my Contributions later tonight or the next few days as I start moving uploading all my photos. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@TapTheForwardAssist: These are great! Thanks for sharing them Bravetheif (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It would improve the article if the photos were grouped as a Category and then linked from the article.Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: I prioritized just getting the images up for now, but anyone feel free to tag or label or whatnot. All the actual storming photos I have now are up (I skipped some shots that were overall similar to the posted shots). Next I'm going to upload shots I took at the Trump speech prior to that, and maybe of the rallies from the prior day. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking This could be a good image to use: less distracting features, can see the Capitol rotunda, and no personality rights issues Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, and I would support if proposed or done. Qexigator (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Specific word/phrase discussions

These are discussions for words or phrases that are questioned.

When Trump "Urged" his supporters

In the "Save America March" section, we currently have the phrase "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol".

• Replace with incited as Pres. Trump didn't directly say "storm the capitol" or "march on the capitol" (In respect to a command). The word "Urge" means to "recommend or advocate (something) strongly" (Oxford dictionary). Since he never actually said a command to storm the capitol, saying it would be a lie and would be a slight bias on Wikipedia. Incited is a better word for what he did. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In a discussion earlier, the community had a consensus to remove the word "Urge" from the lead. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Circumstances of Mr. Greesons death

The actual articel writes "Greeson died of a heart attack linked to accidental electrocution, while Philips died of a stroke.[302]" The claimed source don't write something about the accidental electrocution. NYT announced that Greeson was outside the captiol having a phonecall while suffered an heard attack. Accourding to forbes: "The D.C. police department did not immediately respond to questions from Forbes about the circumstances surrounding these deaths, including a request for information on a rumor circulating social media that one of the two men who suffered a heart attack did so after accidentally tasering himself. " Proposal to change the Wikiarticel according to the NYT-article by Adam Goldman (he is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner) the NYT in: "Greeson died of a heart attack outside of the capitol [11], while Philips died of a stroke. Quaternus (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The other protesters who died

Besides Ashli Babbit, who was shot, it appears that the cause of death of two of the other three protesters (Benjamin Philips and Kevin Greeson) were stroke and heart attack, respectively, whereas the fourth (Rosanne Boyland) was trampled to death.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rosanne-boyland-woman-killed-in-dc-riots-was-trampled-by-crowd/ https://people.com/politics/family-member-of-woman-who-died-riots-capitol-blames-trump/ https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/washington-protest-trump-capitol-pennsylvania-ben-philips-20210107.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-supporters-who-died-during-capitol-riot-left-online-presence-n1253400

--2001:B07:646C:244E:312A:D83F:5151:E835 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought one protester died after falling 50 feet from the scaffolding? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead getting too long again

Perhaps the italicized text below should be moved to other sections:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they damaged, ransacked,[17] and occupied parts of the building for several hours.[18]

The storming led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol building, and it disrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes and formalize Joe Biden's election victory. The rioters gathered in support of President Trump's persistent and false claims that the 2020 election had been "stolen" from him, which were part of his months-long effort to overturn his electoral defeat. Summoned by Trump,[19] thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and 6 to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory.[20][21][22]

On the morning of January 6, protesters assembled on the Ellipse for a "Save America" rally.[23][24] in which Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and several members of Congress addressed the crowd.[25] Trump encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and to march towards the Capitol,[26][27] while Giuliani called for "trial by combat",[28] and Trump Jr. threatened Trump's opponents that "we're coming for you."[29] As the rioters entered the Capitol by breaking through windows and doors, Capitol security evacuated the Senate and House of Representatives chambers. Several buildings in the Capitol complex were evacuated, and all of them were locked down.[30] Rioters broke past security to occupy the evacuated Senate chamber while federal law enforcement officers drew handguns to prevent entry to the evacuated House floor.[31][32][33] The evacuated office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was occupied.[34] Improvised explosive devices were found on the Capitol grounds during the riots; explosives were also found at offices for both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, and in a nearby vehicle.

Five people have been confirmed dead from the events and others were seriously injured. One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died.[35][36][37] Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.[3][12][38] Federal authorities launched a murder investigation to examine Sicknick's killing.[39] Three protesters suffered fatal medical emergencies during the event.

Trump reacted slowly to the storming, first resisting sending the National Guard to quell the mob,[40] and eventually praising the rioters as "great patriots" and telling them to "go home in peace" while reiterating false claims of election fraud.[41][42] The crowd was dispersed out of the U.S. Capitol later that evening. The process to certify Electoral College results resumed that evening and continued to its conclusion the following morning, with Pence declaring Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the victors and affirming that they will assume office on January 20. Under pressure from his administration, including many resignations, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a statement.[43][44][45]

The events prompted widespread condemnation by political leaders and organizations in the United States and abroad. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for Trump to be removed from office, either through the 25th Amendment or by impeachment.[46] Facebook responded by locking Trump's accounts and removing posts related to the incident, and Twitter responded initially by locking his account for 12 hours, then permanently suspending his account on January 8, 2021.[47][48] The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as treason,[49] insurrection, sedition, domestic terrorism,[50] and an attempted coup d'état[51][52] or self-coup[53] by Trump.

This would leave the intro like this:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they damaged, ransacked,[17] and occupied parts of the building for several hours.[18]

The storming led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol building, and it disrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes and formalize Joe Biden's election victory. Summoned by Trump,[19] thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and 6 to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory.[20][21][22] On the morning of January 6, protesters assembled on the Ellipse. Trump encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and to march towards the Capitol,[26][27]

Five people have been confirmed dead from the events and others were seriously injured. One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died.[35][36][37] Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.[3][12][38]

Trump reacted slowly to the storming, first resisting sending the National Guard to quell the mob,[40] and eventually praising the rioters as "great patriots" and telling them to "go home in peace" while reiterating false claims of election fraud.[41][42] Under pressure from his administration, including many resignations, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a statement.[43][44][45] The events prompted widespread condemnation by political leaders and organizations in the United States and abroad.

I'm not saying that this is anything like what the intro should wind up with when you get done with your editing. It's merely an idea of what could be done to shorten the lead. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capitol art

Currently, the article says art was "looted" per this source. Details about individual artworks are probably too specific for this page, but editors can add information to the newly created United States Capitol art page, or share sources on the talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The evacuated office of the Speaker was occupied.

The office of the second most powerful person in America was breached and occupied. This is absolutely astonishing and it should not be surprising that some might seek to whitewash it away. Imagine what might have happened had she been there, as “PELOSI IS SATAN” was written on a police car and a gallows was placed on the grounds. The edit should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&diff=999359229&oldid=999359132

soibangla (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Who proposed that the occupation of Pelosi's offices be removed? It's currently mentioned in the lede ("he evacuated office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was occupied.") with a reliable source. The statement should stay. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay I see now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 removed related content, saying "Pelosi's office was one of several offices occupied. Stop singling this out". I think that Pelosi being singled out is the most important reason why this information should stay, just as the information about Mike Pence being singled out for harm by rioters should stay. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As the epitome of "Mob" Richard 'Bigo' Barnett, not only entered Pelosi's office, he also boasted that he 'wrote her a nasty note, put my feet up on her desk and scratched my balls'. --87.170.192.221 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fatal medical emergency for crushed to death?

I know the media was using the phrase “fatal medical emergency” but that implies, “something that would have happened anyway, and was fatal because the person couldn’t get to medical help” I.e. stroke,Aneurysm , Heart attack, anaphylaxis... being crushed to death by the mass of people is certainly *not* in this category. Can someone fix this misleading text? It appears multiple times, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that an unarmed protestor sitting down is an "occupation". W33KeNdr (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone fix the paragraph below to talk about the people in the same order?

Three other protesters also died, identified as Rosanne Boyland, 34, of Kennesaw, Georgia; Kevin Greeson, 55, from Athens, Alabama; and Benjamin Philips, 50, of Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.[197][198][199] Greeson died of a heart attack while Philips died of a stroke.[200] Boyland's cause of death was disputed; one account said she was crushed to death, while another said she collapsed while standing at the side in the Capitol rotunda.[201][202][203] The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that there was "no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol."[204] Phillips started the social media site Trumparoo, intended for Trump supporters.[205] Greeson's family said he was "not there to participate in violence or rioting, nor did he condone such actions."[206] Boyland's sister also said she "had no intention of committing violence when she traveled to Washington" and simply wanted to show her support.[203]

If it’s going to go Boyland. Greeson, Phillips, then all the stuff about B., then all the stuff about G, then all the stuff about P. As it’s written, I feel like I need a score card to keep track of what happened to who.

I don’t want to edit myself on a sensitive page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Flags, signs and other items left behind in Capitol riot to be preserved as historical artifacts

Not sure where to mention this, any ideas? Also seems important to include what the signs say, which may speak to which groups people belonged to eg QAnon

• https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533475-flags-signs-and-other-items-left-behind-in-capitol-riot-to-be-preserved-as

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: This is a great source! Content can probably be added to the "Participating groups" and "Damage, theft, and impact" sections. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Modi flags but no Gasdsen flag?

It seems like the entire paragraph devoted to India/Modi/Trump based on one flag seen in a photo does not maybe make notability?

Wether it does or not, the Gasdsen “don’t tread on me” flag was carried a lot, and seems like a glaring omission. Perhaps there should be a section on the signs and banners and symbolism being invoked? From a cultural and historical perspective that seems I,portent, as there are news stories that the Smithsonian and others have actually collected some of the things left behind of historical preservation.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Excerpted words from Trump speech in lead missing context...

Currently, the few cherry-picked words from Trump's address are arranged in such a way that they push a POV and give the false impression that he explicitly advocated for a violent attack on the Capitol.

• It's falsely stated (or at least implied) that he exhorted his followers to "take back the country" (he wanted them to "cheer on" legislators to do so).
• The "fight like hell" was in the context of "election security", not referring to any walk to the Capitol.
• And the cited sources are far from ideal—both are from the minutes and hours after the riot, one from a UK "live blog" that is no longer at the link, the other from a tiny Globe article that offers no real context and was published during the rioting and before law enforcement had even reestablished control of the buildings.

Happily for us, fact-checkers have since used more nuance in describing his words in context—and as Snopes points out here, Trump told them to "peacefully and patriotically" march to the Capitol to "cheer on" legislators to "take back the country". Snopes links to a transcript of the full remarks. Accordingly, I suggest keeping the current phrases, but editing the sentence to read:

"After saying "we need to fight like hell" to protect the country from alleged voter fraud, Trump encouraged his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" to the Capitol and to support "weak" Republicans with "the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

That seems to me a far more neutral and accurate encapsulation of what he said in the context of encouraging his supporters going to the Capitol. And I understand there are concerns about length; if that's the case, a briefer but still more-accurate sentence is possible. But it's essential that the lead in this encyclopedia article not give a distorted or biased view of the President's words. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Whilst Trump didn’t, as you say, explicitly advocate the storming if your suggested emphasis was adopted it wouldn’t reflect the balance of reliable sources. These clearly emphasise that the overall impact of what he said was to incite the mob to storm the Capitol. NPOV requires that that should be the emphasis therefore. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Elle! I would read her/his comment carefully: the sources are evaluating what he said, not reading into the intention behind it. As written, the article implies the words he said were an explicit call to storm the capitol. News outlets have tried to say his intention was to do something, but that's different. Elle is making the (excellent) point that we should pay attention to the fact checkers for basic facts. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support reword as per Ele. The article as it stands is biased. --49.195.111.81 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

R.N.C.

Some news regarding how the Republican National Committee is taking this event. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:22B2:4000:38D6:DADF:92B3:53D9 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

New title: Trump Capitol riot

This is not an RfC, just brainstorming. What about a better title?

• Trump Capitol riot
• Trump Capitol insurrection riot
• Trump insurrection at Capitol

This identifies the inspiration, location, and action. At present, it shouldn't need to include the year, but if necessary, one could add 2021. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That is the best title I have seen.Casprings (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No RS is using this (to my knowledge), and this doesn't even slightly explain what happened. Trump didn't do anything - also which Trump, I hope Judd Trump is ok. Which Capitol? Capitol of the world? I don't see how any of this is an improvement, and definitely doesn't meet WP:COMMON NAME Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Lee said: if we're not using COMMONNAME, there's limitations on how much we can "build" a title. It usually involves putting a year at the front and using the most accurate, short, neutral, explicit description possible. We don't coin names for things, which is what these suggestions all are. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, it makes it seem like trump was the one who stormed the capitol, it also doesn't show the time frame, or imply what transpired in the capitol. 777burger ^{(LET'S TALK)} 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to play with this. We need a better title that includes some of those words, and possibly others. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay but can it happen in any of the title discussions above or whichever RM comes first next week? Kingsif (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Believe it or not, we have standards on here. Trillfendi (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 777burger. The suggested title is way too succinct and therefore vague on the topic. Love of Corey (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 777burger. The title is too vague and perhaps misleading, possibly even violating WP:NPOV. For one thing, there is no such thing as a "Trump Capitol". For another, it makes the riots look as if it were led by Mr. Trump. While the president may have incited the rioters whether he intended it or not, he did not lead the insurrection. FreeMediaKid! 01:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 777burger. Agree, however, that a future, better, title should omit the year as this was an unprecedented event Alalch Emis (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - but agree that the year should come out, unless insurrection in the Capitol becomes a regular event. I would like to mention, though, this essay by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker, specifically where Lepore writes

  A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a “storming” of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a “Storm” in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January “the Storming of the Capitol.”

  I think this is a very valid point which should be considered when re-titling is brought up again, as I'm sure it will be. In any event, these suggestions are terrible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We really shouldn't consider these fringe groups. They produce so much nonsense you can't find an association for every word, even "OK". Consider words as meant by the average reader. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump 'expressed regret' for the video...

Trump 'expressed regret' for the video where he promised a peaceful transfer of power and says he won't resign See here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Storming The U.S. Capitol Was About Maintaining White Power In America"

The header title above comes from a piece published by 538 yesterday [12]

Our article here on Wikipedia doesn't currently contain deeper analysis regarding the riots, etc. Obviously it would need to be supported by WP:RS but would like to hear from other editors on what a section like that would be titled (I was thinking something like Analysis) and if the new sub-section should be placed within the current Aftermath section, or stand on its own. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we move this article to wikinews?

I think we should because A.) We could continue updating it and B.) It could keep trolls from bringing people to argue about stupid stuff that leads nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8FE:4840:4169:A880:FFB4:A3E5 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Assuming this is a serious proposal, no. This is a notable event which deserves encyclopedic coverage. I'm sure coverage at Wikinews would be appreciated there, though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, Wikinews is a separate site from English Wikipedia, run under its own rules. We don't generally shuttle articles back and forth. Also, in my opinion, Wikipedia's coverage of important current events is much more comprehensive and balanced than that on Wikinews, because there are generally more participants here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Storming of the Oregon State Capitol on December 21, 2020

The Oregon State Capitol in Salem was attacked by the same or a similar group on December 21, 2020, while the Capitol was in session with the subject of COVID-19. This insurrection was handled haphazardly, and the armed hostiles were allowed to walk away. This incident has disturbing similarities to the Washington DC Capitol attack. The issues being "protested" were different: COVID-19 lockdown in Oregon; the Electoral vote count in Washington DC. On the day of the DC attack, January 6, 2021, the Salem Capitol was again surrounded by hostiles, as were the Capitols in a number of other states. The Oregon States Capitol was stormed before the US Capitol was.Riffel2021 (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You should discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. TFD (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Riot" and WP:BLPCRIME

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots

We need a new RfC on the title

I scanned the talk page and didn't see one happening. I've been reading a lot of coverage about the protesters this weekend, ones who were live streaming and posting on Instagram & Facebook and ones who have since been arrested. And, to a man, they describe what they did as "storming the Capitol." Then I saw a Yale history professor on a news program who was talking about the language we use for this event and she said that "storming" implies heroism (like revolutionaries storming the Bastille and other like incidents). I don't think the article reflects a sympathetic view of the rioters so I think we should consider a title that implies more of a riot or insurrection than a "revolution" or a heroic storming of the bastions of political power. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I don't agree that storming implies heroism at all, only that a defended position was overrun. It was historic, unfortunate as that is for the overwhelming majority of non-stormers. "Assault" could be better, but mostly because "storming" suggests a complete and final victory rather than a temporarily successful attack that was ultimately repelled. Still, if it's thought problematic because of the militaristic tone of "storming" and its cognates in Germanic languages favoured by the participants, consider that if the current title is kept, the implication is that rather than the "storm" "coming", or being "here", as the fantasists allege, it fixes the event firmly in the past. The storm has blown over, blown itself out, it was a washout ... GPinkerton (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz it's more like a "one size fits all term". A military term, used for both sides. During WWII, it's almost always used when the Allies "storm" one front of another. On the other hand, at the Battle of the Alamo, it's used to describe how the Mexican troops "stormed" the Alamo and massacred everyone inside. And like those battles themselves, determining the hero is very subjective to POV. — Maile (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of differential treatment

Since this section seems mostly based on one's opinion. Should we not add a counter-claim such as this article? [13] 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That source is mostly op-eds per WP:RSP. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Found a way to portray the sides in the infobox

I've updated the infobox with sides as supporters of attempts to overturn the election vs. the US Congress. I believe this is a good and succinct way of summarizing the sides to the conflict and avoids the issues previously discussed in terms of more detailed list of participants etc. Z117 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this might open the gate to the earlier disagreements. For example, should we not also include the protective details within the Capitol building? I'm not sure if it's police, or FBI, or some other group, but it wasn't simply protesters vs congress. — Czello 08:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommend changing linked article of "total war"

In the paragraph below quick facts the Trump jr. quote of "total war" is linked to the internal article of "war". The phrase "total war" is a term of its own and has a dedicated Wikipedia article. Recommend to change linking accordingly as this significantly changes the context of the term used.

Snippet of referenced section: Trump Jr. threatened the president's opponents by saying "we're coming for you," having called for "total war" in the weeks leading up to the riots. Troubadix77 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. — Czello 09:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a size estimate?

Even with all the details and specifics about this crowd listed I was still unable to ascertain if the size was 500 people or 500,000. Did I miss something? Fieldlab (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump would say it is the biggest protest in US history! I have seen estimates ranging from several thousand up to ten thousand. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The article mentions estimates that were expected, and i came here wondering why there's no number at all, it's a glaring omission. Normally you see numbers as if official, but not here, not yet. This forum is a first of its kind, so as i learn more about what it's (WP) learned, I will be able to put this in better words, but i'll try: let's let it (this community) take its time, but without looking away from the fact that either all the estimates are bull, or this event needs one too. We are also seeing poll numbers, so this does belong in the article, just "how soon" i guess.... -i'll make an account soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.224.248 (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ground footage

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJzTFZxhpp7/?igshid=131rzfksaw20z

Is some ground footage with audible dialog. Not sure about how notable it is, but can this find a place somewhere? 119.82.84.240 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is almost certainly copyrighted, so I don't think we can use it. — Czello 11:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL someone changed the pictures

who keeps changing them to a confederate flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.238.103 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A vandal made the change on Wikimedia; it's now been fixed and the user has been banned. — Czello 11:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to protect the photos on Commons? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If persistent disruptive editing continues I see no reason why we shouldn't request their protection ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Trump administration gutted a key federal agency responsible for funneling intelligence and threat assessments to law enforcement partners across the country

Could this information be included in the introduction to the Background section?

• https://abcnews.go.com/US/months-ahead-capitol-riot-dhs-threat-assessment-group/story?id=75155673

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The article says that Trump gutted the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis which could have provided information to DC police about the threats to the Capitol. I think that's fine so long as we explain the relevance and that it is an opinion. TFD (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split on event timeline section

Due to size considerations, the section on the timeline of the events of the Capitol storming likely needs to be spun out into a standalone article. If approved, I suggest placing the link at the beginning of the main section on the D.C. events using Template:For. TVTonightOKC (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on a timeline article is above... somewhere Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tvtonightokc: Just do it Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Did Trump care about Pence's safety?

The following (properly sourced) lines are in the entry:

A source close to the vice president subsequently told CNN that Trump and his top aides did little to check on Pence's safety during the crisis and appeared unconcerned at the possibility that "an angry mob that he commanded to march on the Capitol might injure the vice president or his family."

The line reports on something an anonymous source noticed that did not happen - it's not actually part of the narrative of what DID happen. Further, it reads like an attack on Trump's character - unnecessary, and out of place. I don't write this in defense of Trump - who I totally oppose - but it disrupts the narrative of the day's events - which say more about Trump, and more effectively, than this anonymous statement about something that purportedly did not happen. I'm deleting the line, and referencing this comment. Jd2718 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s well sourced (as you concede) and obviously significant to the subject of this article based on encyclopedia policy. I can conceive of no valid reason to exclude it. Both acts and omissions can be significant to understanding an event. The fact that it may reflect poorly on Trump is not a reason for deletion. Neutrality^talk 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is does not tell what happened. There is no event. An anonymous source says that something - and not even anything specific - did not happen. Imputing meaning to a non-event should not be up to editors. Jd2718 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the rioters explicitly called to harm Pence makes it notable information. Kingsif (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Trump knew that at the time. That was reporting that came out later. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jd2718 removing it. This is speculation at best; it is attributed to a single anonymous source; and it is about something that did not happen. We could write another whole article about things that did not happen - or about things that people could or should have done but didn't. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, as for "single anonymous source," there are multiple sources that independently report this:

• Jim Acosta (January 7, 2021). "Trump pressured Pence to engineer a coup, then put the VP in danger, source says". CNN. Trump and top White House officials did little to check in on Vice President Mike Pence while he and members of his family were inside the US Capitol when Trump-backed rioters stormed the halls of Congress on Wednesday, a source close to the vice president tells CNN....Several of the violent Trump supporters who were rampaging the US Capitol were heard screaming "where's Mike Pence," the source said, frightening the vice president and his family. Yet, the President and his top aides barely lifted a finger to check in on Pence to make sure he and his family were unharmed, the source added
• Jim Acosta and Pamela Brown (January 9, 2021). "Pence has not ruled out 25th Amendment, source says". CNN. aides to the vice president were outraged that Trump did not check in on Pence on Wednesday as he and his family were fleeing from the mob storming the Capitol.
• Kristen Welker, Kelly O'Donnell and Monica Alba (January 10, 2021). "Pence to attend Biden inauguration; Trump never called him in the Capitol bunker, sources say". NBC News. "While the vice president and his family were in a bunker in the Capitol, the president did not reach out to check on his safety nor did he condemn those who said the VP should be executed," said sources familiar with the matter. Video shows rioters shouting, 'Hang Pence!'
• Jill Colvin (January 7, 2021). "Hurt feelings, anger linger after Pence, Trump clash". Associated Press. Pence was whisked from the Senate chamber to a secure location, where he was held for hours with staff as well as his wife and daughter, who had been there to support him. Trump did not call to check in on his vice president's safety during the ordeal and instead spent much of Wednesday consumed with anger over Pence's action, tweeting, 'Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.' Later, members of the mob outside the Capitol were captured on video chanting, 'Hang Mike Pence!'
• Maureen Groppe (January 8, 2021). "An 'angry' Pence navigates the fallout of his rupture with Trump over election, Capitol riots". USA Today. When rioters broke through the perimeter and rampaged the building, Pence, his wife and older daughter were whisked away to a secure location by the Secret Service. Trump did not reach out to inquire about their safety, according to a person close to Pence.

Since these has been considered noteworthy by least four independent sources (the AP, CNN, NBC, and USA Today), I don't see how we can omit this material, which is about an extraordinary rupture between a president and VP. Neutrality^talk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There’s too much evidence proving that this did actually happen so I agree that we should keep it SRD625 (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Non Neutral Language in Casualties section

The section refers to Ashli Babbitt as a "a 35-year-old rioter" the next paragraph states "Three other protesters also died." Are they rioters or are they protesters? also the entire article is one sided and does not represent a neutral point of view in any section, the article authors are all too polorised and should not be working on this article 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I do dispute the validity of left wing media as reliable sources for such an article as they have a heavy bias, but either way you cannot conflate "Rioters" as "Protesters" 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well you can, as a protest can also turn into a riot. As to the rest, we go by policy, if its an RS we use it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course I agree and the protest did turn into a riot, but the article says a "Rioter" died then says "Other Protesters" died which by the use of the word "Other" is saying the Rioters and Protestors are one and the same and is not neutral. We do not know if the protesters who died were involved in the riot or were law abiding hence the lack of neutrality when conflating the two. "Three protesters also died" would be a more neutral choice of words than "Three other protesters also died". Also an RS is not an RS in every situation especially situations which they have a heavy bias in. 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well one could have been a rioter and the others peacefully protestors, hence why we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is what I have been saying but that is not how the article reads, It currently reads that those protesters who died were also rioters. 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with "rioter" (or the earlier "invader"). I had changed it to the neutral "35-year-old woman". I can't change it again, but that is what I recommend. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The Washington Post says “woman”.[14] So does the New York Times.[15] So does NPR.[16] Those were the first three stories that came up when I googled her name. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

NPR also call here a rioter "She was among the rioters who stormed the Capitol building.". Arguably twice "Babbitt is seen on the footage inside the Capitol wearing a backpack and Trump flag among a large group of rioters"Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

rioters"Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

And "rioter" is also directly supported by the Washington Post (Investigations: Video shows fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol):

"Two previously unreported video clips obtained by The Washington Post shed new light on the fatal shooting by police of Trump supporter and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt as she and other rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Babbitt and others were attempting to breach a barricaded door inside the Capitol building on Wednesday afternoon, angrily demanding that three U.S. Capitol Police officers who were guarding the door step aside, one of the clips shows. The officers moved away as colleagues in tactical gear arrived behind the rioters, according to the clip and other video posted online. Roughly 35 seconds after the officers moved away, as she climbed up toward a broken section of the unguarded door, Babbitt was shot by an officer on the other side.

I'm fine with "rioter" and in fact think it's far more precise than "woman." --Neutrality^talk 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem @Neutrality, we agree Ashli Babbitt was a rioter however the three others that died we do not as yet know anything about, linking them with the rioters is not neutral. They could have been outside peacefully and legally protesting 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just called them all rioters; That’s what I am seeing at least in the news articles I’m looking at SRD625 (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say we change it to "1 rioter, 3 protestors and a cop".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)