Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Woah, there!: to bold or not to bold
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1,132: Line 1,132:


I think you will find the following correction is necessary: "they shattered the ideas we took for granted" → "they shattered the '''ideals''' we took for granted". The subtitling is also wrong and possibly where this mistake arose. [[User:RobbieIanMorrison|RobbieIanMorrison]] ([[User talk:RobbieIanMorrison|talk]]) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you will find the following correction is necessary: "they shattered the ideas we took for granted" → "they shattered the '''ideals''' we took for granted". The subtitling is also wrong and possibly where this mistake arose. [[User:RobbieIanMorrison|RobbieIanMorrison]] ([[User talk:RobbieIanMorrison|talk]]) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

:5 deaths resulted directly from what occurred, 1 death was a suicide that is unclear about weather or not it had anything to do with the siege. [[User:Bruhmoney77|Bruhmoney77]] ([[User talk:Bruhmoney77|talk]]) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


== Number of Deaths ==
== Number of Deaths ==

Revision as of 23:04, 11 January 2021

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
The description of events will not become more rational over time. Let's let hyperbole roam freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.17.25 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other sources

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

The Insurrection At The Capitol Is A TV Event That Will Live In History RobP (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Others

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's untrue that the labels "insurrection" or "coup" don't apply if there was not an organized plan to overthrow Congress. This is an arbitrary standard. I don't see what would support such a stance. The RS are converging on "insurrection" as many have noticed. Although there are some RS using "coup", as you have observed, some of the sources listed here are opinion pieces. This is not the case with "insurrection". Alalch Emis (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
There is tremendous clarity regarding what happened due to the incredible amount of journalistic activity and coverage, and the public nature of the events. The pseudo-revolution was televised and it amounted to an insurrection. This is what the RS are expressing at this point. This is not to say that what took place isn't a storming, but the storming is the 'how' to the 'what' - the insurrection... which does not have to be smart. This standard amuses me. This event will not be remembered as stupid but as painful and frightening to people all around the world. Alalch Emis (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What is an insurrection? "Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers." [2] How is the occupation of the capitol "violence against the state or its officers"? Certainly, it is the primary inflammatory term associated with the event. But is it accurate? Jrb1tx (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very accurate.... many news used the word, "insurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, insurrection is the term most used by reliable sources. Only Fox news calls it a "storming" in attempts to romanticise the event and build support for a Trump pardon for the participants. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the decision was to wait for a week to see what the event is to be referred as. Many reliable sources started using the word "insurrection" at the Capitol more consistency now. I assume at some point, the article will be moved to 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol, right? Here are just a few examples:

Media
  • NPR created a news category called "Insurrection At The Capitol"[3]
  • PBS Classroom resource: Three ways to teach the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol[4]
  • Tampa Bay Times "insurrection at the Capitol"[5]
  • Fortune "the insurrection at the Capitol"[6]
  • National Geographic "the Capital insurrection"[7]
  • The Guardian's First Thing "insurrection at the Capitol"[8]
  • Aljazeera "US Capitol insurrection"[9]
Politicians from both parties
  • Statement of President George W. Bush on "Insurrection at the Capitol"[10]
  • Mitt Romney on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (NYTimes)[11]
  • Joe Biden on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (Sydney Morning Herald)[12]
Discussion and event names
  • Hammer Museum "Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s Next?"[13]
  • University of Denver "Insurrection at the Capitol"[14]

An important reliable source is from the the Congress. The Article of Impeachment describes the event as an insurrection which had 4 elements in it:[15][16]

  • Beaching and vandalizing of the Capitol
  • Injuring and killed law enforcement personnel
  • Menacing the Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel
  • Engaging in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts

I think the word breaching is similar to the current word "storming" that is used as the title. That is just one element of the overall event in which it is known in the article as an insurrection. By leaving the title to just one element of the event, it may not capture the overall picture of what it is as many reliable sources now describe the overall event than just as the "storming" part of it. Z22 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a coup d'état

I am looking at this new article in CNN, Investigators looking into planning of Capitol riot. Indeed, it is highly probable that the planning and participation involved well prepared groups of rioters in all gear (they even brought restraints to capture the members of Congress, just as they wanted to capture the Michigan governor), some police (who did not stop the mob and allowed everyone to leave when the rioters realized that lawmakers are gone), possibly some Pentagon officials (who did not sent the guard even after the request by DC mayor), and possibly even Republican lawmakers and the president. There is a lot of chat about it, including even some analysis by Michael Moore and separately by Yuri Shvets who is definitely an expert (here (Russian)). The purpose of the coup was to prevent the inauguration of new president. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A coup d'état attempt (so far).
The Capitol siege was planned online. Trump supporters are now planning the next one
"Given the very clear and explicit warning signs – with Trump supporters expressing prior intent to “storm and occupy Congress” and use “handcuffs and zip ties,” clear plans being laid out on public forums, and the recent precedent of the plot to storm the Michigan Capitol building while Congress was in session – it is truly mind-boggling that the police were not better-prepared,” said Rita Katz, executive director of SITE Intelligence Group, which was among the research groups that detailed what was coming in the weeks before the Capitol was attacked. It recapped much of this evidence in a report published Saturday." ... "ARMED MARCH ON CAPITOL HILL & ALL STATE CAPITOLS” for Jan. 17, the last Sunday of Trump’s polarizing presidency."
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, wrote the book Strongmen: How They Rise, Why They Succeed, How They Fall: “Historian of coups and right-wing authoritarians here. If there are not severe consequences for every lawmaker & Trump govt official who backed this, every member of the Capitol Police who collaborated with them, this 'strategy of disruption' will escalate in 2021.”
This Is a Coup. Why Were Experts So Reluctant to See It Coming?
Fascinatingly, fascist-natingly, the Defense Department is referring to the pro-Trump riot as “the January 6, 2021 1st Amendment Protests.” https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/1/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC.pdf ← This memo tells you all you need to know.--217.234.68.109 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French-speaking sources cited

I am a native French speaker, and it seems that some French newspapers in the list above don't actually qualify this event as a coup, but as a « coup de force », which Wiktionary defines as “A suddent, violent act.” The word “coup” in English would be translated as « coup d’état » instead. The affected sources are Le monde diplomatique (both), BFM TV, Orange, Euronews, Ouest-France, and La Voix du Nord (which uses « coup d’état » in citations only). Also, I couldn’t verify the citation for the France Info article, “Pro-Trump coup” is just « États-Unis » in the title of the article on my computer. In fact, the article says that « Didier Combeau estime qu’il s’agit plus “d’une manifestation d’extrémistes peu nombreux” qu’une tentative [sic] coup d’État » (“Didier Combeau believes that it is more “a menifestation of few extremists’ than a coup attempt.”) Nicolapps (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Not a bad way to break it down. Thank you Elijahandskip. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So with this suggestion, "On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they occupied, vandalized, and ransacked parts of the building for several hours." remains consistent with this definition (that is not supported by sources). Those who stormed the Capitol are rioters, and the original wording should be maintained. Reywas92Talk

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

100% agree. Keep up the good work! Also note "riot" and WP:BLPCRIME DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given this, we should probably refer to "thousands of protestors", since most sources indicate that there weren't a thousand in the capitol. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that actions outside the capitol did not include rioting is absurd. They were attacking the officers outside (the officer who was murdered was killed outside), they were smashing windows outside, they scaled the walls and vandalized outside. RSes call the entire event around the Capitol a riot. The doors are not a magic barrier that changes the characterization of those who enter them. Reywas92Talk 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory... The doors - or the barriers - do appear to be magic, though. "Entering a restricted area" and "remaining in a restricted area" both appear to be crimes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

"Protestors" is a weasel word that makes these treasonous insurrectionists appear to be roughly equivalent to BLM protestors (who actually protested). This story is about the attempted coup and the terrorist infiltration of the Capitol. They weren't protestors, they were terrorists, I even think "rioters" is weasel wording. This seems like whitewashing that we'd find in Conservapedia. Disgusting. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire to use a word with as negative a connotation as possible, but it's our job to use a word that is as neutral as possible while containing all the facts. See protest and riot. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, the consensus is protestors outside, rioters inside. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see this video. This is not merely a "protest". Perhaps a violent protest. The article calls it a riot. [17] Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With that, you could call all the BLM "protests" as riots. The consensus is they are protesters until they break the law, aka entering the Capitol, then it becomes a riot. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a consensus yet, or should the topic continue to be discussed? This is relevant since the current lead has the word ‘Riot’. Earlier today, we had a “consensus reached” moment, but since then, an edit came and opposed the consensus. So I want to know if we got the consensus to close the discussion, or discuss more? Elijahandskip (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rioters — inside versus outside is nonsense. As soon as they passed the bollards, they were violating the law. As soon as they rushed the barricades, they were violating the law. All visitors must go through the visitor center. Unless you have the appropriate lapel pin or placard, you are not allowed on the steps. This is not new.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that, however, if we do have a consensus for that, the lead should be more specific. Technically, there was a roit and protest going on at the same time. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of riot is a "violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." (Oxford dictionary). Unless the group in question broke the law, aka the ones being peaceful outside the barriers, they are protesters. Keep that in mind. Protests can happen during a riot. It changes names once it is violent and breaks the law. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC);[reply]

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

How is this not a terrorist attack? 9/11 targeted the World Trade Center. This targeted the Capitol. They literally built a gallows. How can something not be terrorism if it involves publicly displaying a gallows? Are white men just never terrorists? This is like saying "some people have described Mike Pence as a human" because technically no one has really checked that he isn't an undercover space alien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Yes: clearly described as such by reliable sources and by influential people across the political spectrum. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Yes, applicable to all articles that mention this event., per Bongwarrior's reasoning. Jdphenix (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • (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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "28 CFR § 0.85".

Oppose

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)[reply]
I would not have a problem with that either. Many of the BLM/Antifa riots were far more violent than the Capitol Hill Storming and tactics used certainly checked the boxes for terrorism. Similarly, there were certainly participants of the storming who had terroristic intentions at very least. I would be supportive of both this, and the BLM/Antifa riots being categorized as terrorism. History Man1812 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
No As said above, most if not all reliable sources call this a riot, at most it is referred to as an insurrection, which is a dubious claim in it of itself JazzClam (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Obviously no. Even the question of this RFC is ridiculous, terrorism is milestones to the power of infinity far cry away of this event. I heavily agree as well what is coined on the top of this thread about NPOV and double measure, on the other hand quite sad political soapboxing became so widespread in WP, seeing the number of votes to support, incredible! Not knowing/understanding what terrorism really is raises a huge concerns. Btw. I am not watching or editing this page, just by coincidence I saw this RFC, so without any ping will ignore any further here, I hope sane thoughts will trial here, not political interests/propaganda/agenda.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Other

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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.[1][2]

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

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

References

  1. ^ "Terrorism". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2021-01-10.
  2. ^ "Terrorism 2002/2005". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2021-01-10.

"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 black 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.'" [1] 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
De bestormers van het Capitool
„The Storm“ stürmt das Kapitol
--93.211.211.47 (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([19]). Storming appears to be COMMONNAME EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support Not only is the term "storming" tied to Nazis as explained above, it is also a Q Anon term. It is how them want to see themselves rather than conveying some criminality or impropriety. The events have also been described as an attack, an assault, a riot, trespassing, and insurrection. There are a lot of other terms available besides "storming." I'll note Washington Post refers to it as an attack multiple times.[2][3]Knope7 (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Despite being generally understood, the term "storming" is not appropriately neutral. The neo-nazi implications have been noted, but historically those "storming" have generally been viewed as righteous actors (such as in the "Storming of the Bastille"). It is the preferred term of those who undertook the attack. The article should be renamed with a more neutral word replacing "storming". It does not appear to be the commonly used term in media coverage. The New York Times has called it a "Siege" [4]; as has Foreign Affairs [5]; the Washington Post has called it an "attack" [6]; the BBC has called it a "riot" [7] So has the Wall Street Journal.[8] The term "storming" does not appear frequently in traditional media, and when it does it seems to appear inside articles or reports when variation is being used to avoid repetition. Insurrection, seems to be applied more regularly. See e.g. CNN [9]; NPR [10]; NBC News [11] Treko (talk)
Oppose as Czello already mentions storming seems to be the overwhelming COMMONNAME right now Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ what-should-we-call-the-sixth-of-january
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-trump-impeachment-attack/2021/01/09/62e4aea0-5289-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/antifa-far-right-doxing-identities/2021/01/10/41721de0-4dd7-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html
  4. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-siege-security.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
  5. ^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-01-07/capitol-siege-wake-call-america-shouldnt-have-needed
  6. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/antifa-far-right-doxing-identities/2021/01/10/41721de0-4dd7-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html?itid=hp-top-table-main-0106
  7. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55611630
  8. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-prepares-for-trump-impeachment-could-add-charges-on-georgia-allegations-11610295488
  9. ^ https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/07/us-capitol-riot-extremist-groups-griffin-sot-lead-vpx.cnn
  10. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/09/955289141/as-inauguration-nears-concern-grows-of-more-violence-to-come
  11. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/at-least-20-suspected-ringleaders-charged-in-capitol-insurrection-99240517558
Support for the term Raid: The perimeters were breached, items were stolen[20], and offices ransacked.Tortillovsky (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN broadcast of the chambers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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[1] when the Senate when into recess.[2] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hobbs, Kathleen M. (14 December 2020). "2020 Electoral College Results; Arizona Certificate of Vote 2020". National Archives and Records Administration. Phoenix, Arizona. pp. 1, 2. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  2. ^ "User Clip: Final Minute in Senate | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
@Kingsif:The article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (this version) now has this, which seems reasonable.
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. [1](At clip 44 min 15 seconds, four gavel bangs are heard followed by Mr Grassley saying)
Finally, the C-SPAN2 audio picks up someone (probably the person who had approached from Langford's left) saying at 44 min 2 seconds
apparently to Langford.
Lent (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 1 | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved 2021-01-09.
@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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TapTheForwardAssist wow, thank you for taking these and sharing! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were there, TapTheForwardAssist? That raises some questions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you! Small note to reverse the image. You can see "Trump" is printed backward. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@TapTheForwardAssist: These are great! Thanks for sharing them Bravetheif (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looks good, and I would support if proposed or done. Qexigator (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm refraining from voting since that photo is mine (flattered!), but I would submit that with all due respect to the folks who uploaded the images initially used in the infobox, I and others have uploaded more photos in the following days and we arguably have even more suitable images to put in the infobox now that our selection is broader. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TapTheForwardAssist, very useful. /Julle (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Trump said “fight” 23 times in his January 6th 2021 speech. In every every other use of “fight” Trump was referring to an intellectual and political “fight” with words and ideas rather than physical violence. Why would the article assume that Trump’s “fight like hell” statement encouraged unlawful violence? Trump instead encouraged his audience “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Here’s 3 quotes from Trump’s 1-6-2021 speech that tells his audience to peacefully cheer on the elected officials “to take back our County”.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (18:16)

“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women” (16:25)

“So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” (01:12:43)

Before we state a POV that Trump incited an insurrection, let’s at least read Trump’s actual speech.

Trump 1-6-2021 speech full transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6 Harpervi (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New title: Trump Capitol riot

This is not an RfC (so stop the !voting), just brainstorming. What about a better title?

  • The Trump Capitol riot
  • The Trump Capitol insurrection riot
  • The 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
  • Comment Believe it or not, we have standards on here. Trillfendi (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What "fringe groups"? "OK" is a well-documented far-right hate symbol. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it wasn't a siege in any usual sense of the word, which involves waiting for the inhabitants of a surrounded area to give up after you've cut off their food and other supplies. Calling it the "siege of the Capitol" would not only by a misuse of words, it would give entirely the wrong impression of a quasi-passive action as opposed to an active one. As we say with the footage of people breaking down windows etc., this was not a crowd sitting around waiting for something to happen, it was a violent action to breach what should have been a secured area. "Siege" is a military word, describing a military operation. Using it metaphorically is fine, but it's got to have a clear relationship to what the actual word describes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it's an obvious injection of POV. The current name is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello 23:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly this is the best title. And it could be discussed if the court find Trump guilty at the future. But now I don't think that this is possible at wikipedia. Mayby the most apropriate title is 2021 Invasion on the US Capitol. (or 2021 pro-Trump Coup d'Etat attempt, if the court prove it)
I'd just remove the year and call it the "Storming of the United States Capitol". Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't work since there have been previous events of the same actions. OnePercent (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the name Trump should not be in the title. It insinuates various misleading things in addition to alleging a federal crime.OnePercent (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

There was an RfC with more than 200 participants.[21] The current title was the result. We should wait at least a week, probably more, before reopening that question. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, probably much longer than a week. As long as the media cycle focuses on the transition, we aren't going to get proper retrospective terminology. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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? [22] 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source is mostly op-eds per WP:RSP. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused. Is that a problem? Most of the other sources there are also opinion pieces or Op-ed. Not really sure what the problem is? 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@3Kingdoms: Yes, we want to minimize use of op-eds. Currently in that section, in order:
  • refs 352-354 are not op-ed
  • 355 is an op-ed
  • 350 is quoting a politician
  • 356 is not an op-ed, but quotes Roxane Gay and Adam Serwer
  • 107 is an op-ed
  • 356 is used again
  • 357 is RS but quotes a politician
I think we should try to get more non-op-ed pieces in that section. I'll try to make some edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've WP:BOLDly made edits ([23]) to focus more on RS and less on op-eds. I tried to highlight prominent figures (e.g., Biden) over pundits/commentators. The statements about differential treatment are now sourced to RS without the bevy of "claims" and "Smith said..." I started with the overall issue, then federal/Trump/White House as highlighted by nearly all sources, then social media coverage, and finally political response. I wavered on the Trump/federal paragraph a bit, but given that Trump and the White House (secretaries of various offices) organize law enforcement responses in DC including on January 6, I thought it appropriate in that section. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I understand what you are saying. Would you prefer just a quote from Stephen Miller, no relation to the other Stephen Miller? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

All I've seen in Reliable Source reporting is that there were "thousands" at the rally and "hundreds" in the invasion force. I believe that is still what we say in the article. If we get better/more official numbers we should use them. Ironically, helicopters had been grounded for fear of seeming too "military", so we don't have our usual means of estimating crowd size. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


🇳🇵 I'm glad others are talking about! I was curious about other users' thoughts about adding attendance, even though it hasn't been a much discussed item by news sources. I think we should try and add it in the main infobox. Jccali1214 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is almost certainly copyrighted, so I don't think we can use it. — Czello 11:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Czello Maybe mention some of the things said/done in the article, instead of using the video itself? 119.82.84.240 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The video is a primary source, Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources – see WP:PSTS. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about asking protestors to donate footage or photos (form inside the capitol). But they would be incriminating themselves if they did. Journalists are unlikely to want to release their bread and butter under a our license. The best we can hope for is govt. footage, but that may be delayed because of criminal investigations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The Trump administration gutted ...

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?

Thanks

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion on a timeline article is above... somewhere Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvtonightokc: Just do it Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TVTonightOKC! I agree with Kingsif that splitting out the timeline of events into a separate article will be helpful. This proposed split was only mentioned in passing elsewhere on the talk page. It would be brilliant if you could go ahead with this. I would be happy to do some clean up edits to support you with this! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Neutralitytalk 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The fact that the rioters explicitly called to harm Pence makes it notable information. Kingsif (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can see that consensus is leaning toward saying something, so let’s talk about wording. I object to the "appeared unconcerned" part of the original material, which is mind reading; let's talk about actions. Reviewing the sources suggested by Neutrality (giving less credence to the AP article since it does not say where it is getting its information), how about something like this:

Sources close to the vice president said that Trump never reached out to Pence during the siege or inquired about his safety. (NBC News) Aides believed that Pence was being set up as a scapegoat for Trump’s failure to overturn the results of the election. (CNN 1) Pence was described as very angry with Trump, and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incident. (CNN 2)

Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't confirm the lack of concern for Pence, but I can say that I saw footage over and over on CNN and MSNBC where the mob was inside the Capitol asking, "Where's Pence? Where's Pence? Where's Pence?" However it arrived at that point, at least part of the invading crowd was looking for Pence personally. — Maile (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN: I'm OK with something like that. Neutralitytalk 17:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incident will get outdated at some point, but otherwise that sounds good. Majavah (talk!) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've been a bit too quick to declare a consensus here. The arguments for not including this sort of thing are obvious to me. We have plenty to say about what did concretely occur, based on sources that are unequivocal and fact-based; we don't need to rely on on-background sources about what didn't happen and how it made people feel. It's possible, as Jd2718 says below, that at a later date there'll be lots of coverage of this – that's a good reason to wait until that happens. We don't need to try to get ahead of the story. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Maile's concern: Should we add something to the first sentence like even as protesters inside the Capitol were seeking him out and chanting “Where is Pence?” (NYT) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's relevant context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And I think consensus is shaping up in a positive way. Thank you all around. The rupture between Trump and Pence is a very big deal. I could imagine, a year from now, that it might be a central part of the telling (we are too close to it as a news item to know how it will eventually be viewed). Jd2718 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Neutralitytalk 22:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll add it. I agree that a split between Trump and Pence could prove to be one of the most important results of this thing. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the "Reactions/Mike Pence" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do we have something in the article already, about the protesters looking for Pence and threatening to lynch or execute him? Plenty of sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Answering my own question: yes, we do. It's in the "Senate evacuated" section, I think, although that may not be the best place for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

P.S. The Washington Post says “woman”.[24] So does the New York Times.[25] So does NPR.[26] Those were the first three stories that came up when I googled her name. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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." --Neutralitytalk 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

In this case, Recently dead or probably dead applies. Regardless of how someone is described in reliable sources, we cannot accuse her of a criminal offense, such as rioting, per People accused of crime. While she cannot be charged with an offense, her culpability will no doubt be determined by proceedings against the police officer who killed her, lawsuits and public enquiries. TFD (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, BLP applies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the best adjective for anyone or any other issues but rioter and protestor are arguably not mutually exclusive. In other words, Babbitt could have been both a rioter and a protestor. If she was, this means 'a rioter and other protestors' is a valid even if a bit weirdly phrased construct. One person who was both a protestor and a rioter died, while three other people who were protestors but potentially not rioters, also died. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this and The Four Deuces above. There's really no justification for calling specific people rioters, even if the sources do so, and no advantage to doing so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was already a discussion on this, and the consensus was that: if they were outside, they were "protestors", but once they entered the building they became "rioters"... I have chanced the beginning of the last paragraph to "participants", as it seems some were inside and some were not... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a consensus, but merely one person's idea liked by another person. There was rioting outside as well as on the inside. Alalch Emis (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: I couldn't find that discussion, so I'm not sure if it's relevant, but I'm not opposed to using "rioters" to refer to groups of people, but only to using it to refer to specific named living or recently-deceased people. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have been so many posts an discussions on this page, I admit I can not keep up with them all... Which is why I said "I believe..." previously... either way, I still believe the same is true myself, ALL of the participants in the event were "protestors", but once someone starts breaking windows, vandalizing property, overtaking security forces, forcing their way through a barricaded door (with armed police on the other side), intends to harm the people inside the building, etc., that person can clearly be labeled a "rioter"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem a stretch to say that all the people involved are protestors, and some of them are rioters. Unless things have changed, none of the three medical emergencies have been identified as rioters, though it is possible one or two might have been.

Therefore it is correct to say "4 protesters died", it is also (almost certainly) correct to say "1 rioter and 3 protesters" - but this may be considered misleading if it transpires that more than one of the dead can be classified as rioters.

Whether we should describe Babbitt as a woman or a rioter in text seems a fine point. It's clear that one or more riots occurred, but not what the temporal or spatial limit of a riot is. I don't know what the benefit of calling her a rioter, as well as saying that she was climbing through a just broken window in a barricaded door which was being held by armed guards, which conveys far more information. It's also obvious from her name that she is a woman.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This is why I had changed the opening of that last paragraph to read "3 other participants died...", we were not sure if they all were simply "protestors" or if they had taken part in the rioting... the one individual possibly died inside the building, which would make them part of the riot, but one of the three names has no information at all as to where or how... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Essentially Domestic Terrorists"

In the opening line, it refers to the rioters as domestic terrorists. In the citations used in the opening line (21 and 22), nothing implies that these people were terrorists. The words "Domestic Terrorist", "Terrorist", or even "Domestic" were never used. And as a matter of fact, using a random sampling of 30 or so citations in this article, the words domestic terrorist or their constituent words, words that have alternative meanings similar to that of domestic terrorist or terrorist, wording that would imply these rioters were terrorists or domestic terrorists, or a quotation stating or implying that these rioters were domestic terrorists is nowhere to be found. Calling someone a terrorist is a severe accusation, and if there is no evidence to back it up, it has no place in this article. In the meantime, I am placing a "Citation not found" inline on that line. JazzClam (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know none has been charged as a terrorist. Mentioning what offenses have been charged if/when there is information would improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, this is a BLP. We canot say people have commited crimes if tehy have not yet been prosecuted.17:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the term is best avoided unless there is consensus for its use. I notice that Jake Tapper on CNN is calling it a terrorist attack, like it was America's version of the Gunpowder Plot or the Reichstag Fire. TFD (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the term should be avoided outside of quotes, though the reasons presented above are not convincing – there would be no (or minimal) BLP implications in calling it a terrorist attack if no culprit was named, and we shouldn't choose vocabulary based on what police or prosecutors charge people with, because legal categories are at a remove from everyday speech and prosecution is not the same as conviction. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can one attempt to overturn a defeat?

The first sentence of the lede in Special:PermaLink/999522346 says:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.

This sentence reads quite oddly to me. I can see one attempting to overturn a result (as Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election puts it), but I can't see one attempting to overturn a defeat. Perhaps better would be:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.

Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can overturn a defeat, he was deafeted and that is what they tried to overturn.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could say "attempts to reverse his defeat", although I have no problem with "overturn" and that is what most sources are saying. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, —PaleoNeonate – 18:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with "overturn his defeat". A defeat is a kind of result. The proposal loses the central, if obvious, fact that Trump lost the election. Something like "the result of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost..." or similar, could work, but I don't really see the need for it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with "overturn a (/his) defeat". What is overturned is victory. Overturn is synonymous with topple. Something is standing up, gets brought down. If there is insistence on this verb, the object should be Biden's victory. Overturning a result is more like legal jargon, as in overturning a decision (in abstract terms), and you can't go from there to "overturning a defeat". Alalch Emis (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch Emis: Overturning as in toppling is a red herring; we're clearly using the word in a sense much closer to the legal sense. In which case what I said above still applies, a defeat is a kind of decision just as it's a kind of result, and it doesn't strike me as a leap to go from one to the other. I wouldn't necessarily object to something like "overturn Joe Biden's victory", but we'd need to be able to make plain that Biden's victory was against Trump. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arms & Hearts: It's not a red herring. The appropriate usage of overturn here is not the one in relation to a legal act of some kind (judgement etc.), but primarily to a political phenomenon. There is a mix-up of registers, the general register with the legal one. The latter does not really apply to Biden's victory because we're in the realm of politics not procedural law. If we try to identify a moment where the legal PoV would work, we find that this moment hadn't yet happened, because the votes of the electors weren't counted yet. Legally, that's when Biden became the winner. If we're using legal jargon, we need to be accurate. This is why "overturn the defeat" makes no sense. Simply "overturn Joe Biden's victory" is enough. Alalch Emis (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot overturn something that did not exist. Trump wasn't "defeated" until January 7th at 3:40 am when congress certified the vote and Joe Biden the winner. Up until that point there was nothing to overturn. These people were protesting the election results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnePercent (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Police Officer dead by suicide

News is circulating that an off-duty capitol police officer, Howard Liebengood, has committed suicide following the events detailed in this article. Should this be included in the article? The fact that he died is confirmed, but the suicide doesn't seem to be official yet. [27] [28] Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait until reporting draws a clearer link to the riot. GABgab 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We need WP:RS to say it was related to this insurrection before we include it. Currently, NY Post says "It was not immediately clear what spurred the act." I'd also prefer a better quality source than these. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somedifferentstuff EvergreenFirI have two sources, one of which says he was present on January 6 and died off-duty, possible suicide. The officer's father had been Sergeant at Arms for the Senate in the 1980s. Here are the refs I propose to put in the infobox and then again in Casualties section, one is USA Today, the other is FOX 5 Washington DC. I read the New York Times article as well, which lines up with USA Today. Matthews of FOX5 puts the death as related. Okay or not okay? [1][2] --Prairieplant (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Brown, Matthew; Hjelmgaard, Kim (January 10, 2021). "Politics updates: Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, 51, dies while off duty; cause not released". Retrieved January 10, 2021.
  2. ^ Matthews, David (January 10, 2021). "Capitol police officer dead by suicide after responding to Capitol riot". Fox 5. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 10, 2021. A 15-year veteran of the U.S. Capitol Police has taken his life after responding to Wednesday's deadly riot in the halls of Congress. Howard Liebengood was 51 years old.
There's no indication that this is related to the riot at all, so it shouldn't be included. — Czello 20:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Czello Please note that another editor has added 2 police officers dead in the text, after David O. Johnson deleted it from the infobox. Oh this is fast-moving editing! I will step back; my goal was simply the format of that now-deleted TMZ reference. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prairieplant: We need sources to unambiguously state the connection. Them mentioning to related thing isn't enough (WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is drawing a direct line between the storming and the suicide.Óli Gneisti (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's op-ed, unfortunately. We need RS to state directly. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HuffPost has an article that links to a social media post from another officer confirming the officer died by suicide. Doesn't link it to the riots, though. [29] NDfan173 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready for inclusion. Wait for the authorities to tell us a cause of death and whether it was or was not related to the incident. Wait for something official; I'm sure there will be all kinds of unauthorized information and speculation from family members and others. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article because I heard that another Capitol Officer had died recently. I was confused to not see any mention of it. It should be mentioned, but provide context that there are no confirmed links to the event. Epideme12 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, everyone at the protest/riot will die. That does not warrant a mention here. WWGB (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be added to the article?

Former Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W. Gainer says the death is connected. I edited the article accordingly. However, my edit was reverted pending consensus here. As a straw poll, please could other editors indicate whether they support or oppose my edit (or one like it), and ideally also explain why. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like most people who commented above, I strongly believe that we should NOT add anything about this to the article until we have 1) official confirmation of the cause of death and 2) official confirmation that it was connected to the January 6 incident. A "former senate sergeant at arms" does not count as an official source. Particularly if the cause was suicide, as some have suggested, let's keep it out of the news and out of Wikipedia. The family has enough to deal with without that. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Liebengood's suicide has not been shown to be related in any way to the Capitol attack. Gainer's opinion is just another opinion; he was not present, nor has he been shown to have any "insider knowledge" about the death. WWGB (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzenegger video

Former Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger drew parallels between the storming of the Capitol and the Reichskristallnacht in a video he posted via Twitter and urged his fellow Americans to support President-elect Biden to bring us all together. Should this be added to the "reactions" section? --Nomentz (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added. riffic (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here is what he said: ABC news, in which he compares the Wednesday rioting to his WWII life in Austria . — Maile (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't, he wasn't alive during the war. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He said post-WWII, natch Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of party and state abbreviations

This article currently makes extensive use of abbreviations for politicians' parties and states after their names ("(D-CA)", "(R-GA)" etc.) I've removed them at least a couple of times but clearly at least one person thinks they're appropriate; I'd be interested to know why. In my view they're meaningless to readers who aren't familiar with states' postal abbreviations and/or who don't follow the minutiae of U.S. politics (i.e. most of the world). Per WP:EASTER this applies even when the states are linked; information conveyed only behind a piped link is as good as no information at all. We're not going to run out of page space or bytes, so if someone's party or state is relevant (the former might often be, the latter rarely will be) it can be conveyed using words. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is inappropriate, and runs counter to WP's status as an international encyclopedia. I don't know of any MOS bits that specifically forbid it, though. Tbh, I don't see the point of adding something like "R-GA" in any event, because all these people have articles that an interested reader can just click on. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree SRD625 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Provided a suitable alternative to the shorthand for party affiliation and office held is listed in prose in a similar location, I see no issue with substituting the shorthand for longhand. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one that initially started changing them, for overall readability and article length... not byte-wise length, but word-wise... also because a number of names had redundant and/or non-uniform titles attached (e.g. "United States State Representative from STATE NAME", "STATE Representative NAME", "United States Senator NAME from STATE", etc.)... also, on other articles that list REPs/SENs, this is how I see it written (not sure if MOS or not, but pretty standardized)... someone else has come in behind me and piped the state articles into the abbreviations, so someone not being familiar with the abbreviations is now moot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a link means that something is moot; most readers don't follow links and articles work better if you don't have to. I still think AleatoryPonderings's point stands. /Julle (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: The links make a negligible difference. People read Wikipedia articles in printed format where links are lost; millions of people also read them on phones where there's no option of hovering over a link to find out its meaning. I'll direct you again to WP:EASTER where this is explained, and will say once more, "information conveyed only behind a piped link is as good as no information at all." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to assume for the sake of argument that you’ve never, ever, read an American newspaper. These are to describe political affiliation and where they represent (and yes, they are necessary). Chuck Schumer (D-NY) means Democrat of New York. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) means Republican of Kentucky. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) means Independent of Vermont. That’s how they are assigned in official government websites. So since this is an American political topic, Americanisms still have to be used even when internationals who most likely have no idea who these people are read the article. Trillfendi (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some benefit in naming the party of a senator or representative, but I see no benefit in naming their state unless directly relevant to their comment or stance. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how it works. At all. Trillfendi (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How what "works"? No-one is capable of answering why reporting a politician's state is either necessary or helpful to readers. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: I'm not sure if this was directed at me or if you screwed up the indentation, but I'm very obviously aware what they're used for, having been writing Wikipedia articles about U.S. politics for over a decade, and have made that very plain above. The fact that they're used in newspapers and on government websites has no bearing whatsoever on how we should write encyclopaedia articles. There is absolutely no requirement that we use "Americanisms" in articles about U.S. politics, and WP:BIAS lists a great many good reasons why we don't. Inanely saying "yes, they're necessary" does not make it so in the absence of a coherent argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arms & Hearts: So it really boggles the mind why you want to edit the subject of an attack on the United States Congress then remove official representations of Congress members, which aren't adjectives or embellishments, just because you assume other people won't get it. Hence the reason you kept getting reverted, obviously. The idea of removing them would insinuate that these are just people who work in a building in Washington, D.C., a city whose population doesn't even have representation in Congress, instead of respectively representing all states and districts in the entire country, which their job is. It's part of the multiple manuals of style for political science. In fact, if the uninformed reader is really the true area of concern here, it wouldn't have the trouble to just change the hyperlink to fit the state party since that's what the redirects already do anyway. The only people down here who seem to be confused on this are not from the United States. And since this is an encyclopedia, there is not a more apt place for it to be. Trillfendi (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would a sane person reach the conclusion that someone explicitly designated as a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative is not an elected official representing U.S. voters? What are you talking about? Perhaps no need to answer since the consensus in this discussion is very clear: six editors clearly in favour of removing them; against yourself and SRD625 – whose two-word comment carries about the same argumentative weight as yours – opposed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't needed. We have articles on each of these politicians which people can refer to, to find out whatever they want (well, whatever they reasonably want). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Every other Wikipedia article does this so why should this one be different? SRD625 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include a sentence in the background about ...

Include a sentence in the background about the other times the capitol building has been attacked? It might be useful for readers (especially non American readers who don't have as much of a background in American history) to include one sentence in the Background section mentioning the other times the capitol building has been attacked, perhaps something like:

The capitol building has been attacked on several occasions; during the 1814 Burning of Washington, a dynamite attack in 1915, in 1954 by Puerto Rican nationalists and the 1983 Resistance Conspiracy' bomb.

Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but not using that wording SRD625 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the best wording, I think:

While there have been other attacks and bombings of the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British Army during the War of 1812,[1][2][3][4] and the first time that a president had incited an attack against the Capitol.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Amanda Holpuch (January 6, 2021). "US Capitol's last breach was more than 200 years ago". The Guardian. For the first time on Wednesday, it was the site of an armed insurrection incited by the sitting president....Not since 1814 has the building been breached. Then, it was by British troops who set fire to the building during a broader attack on Washington in the war of 1812.
  2. ^ "Has the US Capitol ever been attacked before?". Tegna Inc. VERIFY. January 6, 2021 – via WXIA-TV. While this is the first large-scale occupation of the U.S. Capitol since 1814, there have been several other instances of violence at the U.S. Capitol, particularly in the 20th century. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Marc Fisher, Meagan Flynn, Jessica Contrera & Carol D. Loennig (January 7, 2021). "The four-hour insurrection: How a Trump mob halted American democracy". Washington Post. The attack, which some historians called the most severe assault on the Capitol since the British sacked the building in 1814{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Ted Barrett, Manu Raju & Peter Nickeas (January 6, 2020). "US Capitol secured, 4 dead after rioters stormed the halls of Congress to block Biden's win". CNN. The stunning display of insurrection was the first time the US Capitol had been overrun since the British attacked and burned the building in August of 1814, during the War of 1812, according to Samuel Holliday, director of scholarship and operations with the US Capitol Historical Society.

--Neutralitytalk 22:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality:, good job! Your proposed wording is concise, informative, well-sourced, and encyclopaedic. I would be happy to see it used, Zazpot (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State capitol buildings have also been occupied. For example Wisconsin in 2011. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sine there seems to be agreement I've added it to the background section. John Cummings (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stories about reporters

There are several stories about reporters in this article. All are sourced. Several (all?) of them do not contribute to the topic. Which should be kept?

  • After the evacuation, reporter Nicholas Fandos spent four hours in a secure location within the Capitol that police asked him not to share.
  • Reporter Emily Cochrane pulled out one of the aluminum bags that were stored under the chairs for emergencies and removed the emergency hood, "a sort of hybrid gas mask with a tarp, which made a loud whirring noise and had a flashing red light."
  • Photographer Erin Schaff said that, from the Capitol Rotunda, she ran upstairs, where rioters grabbed her press badge and "threw me to the floor." She screamed for help as "they ripped one of my cameras away from me, broke a lens on the other and ran away." She ran to Pelosi's balcony to hide her camera. After police deployed tear gas, she had to run into a hallway. There police found her, and, as her press pass had been stolen, they drew their guns and pointed.

Perhaps the Schaff story is part of the narrative of events? I don't see the Fandos and Schaff stories as anything more than human interest. Jd2718 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaff one only. And shortened. Maybe:
Photographer Erin Schaff said that she ran upstairs from the Rotunda, where her press badge was grabbed and she was thrown to the floor. One camera was taken, another damaged. When police encountered her they held her at gunpoint, as she had no pass.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I've made more or less this change. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should mention rioters' call to murder VP Pence in the lead paragraphs

The call of many of the Trump rioters to murder VP Pence by hanging is documented by Reliable Sources (as defined by Wikipedia), as well as video. This extraordinary fact should go in the Lead, as it speaks to the intentions of the rioters. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the article. I don't think it should be in the lead (which is already way too long, but we won't be able to trim it back until the situation cools down and we stop getting hundreds of edits a day). -- MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Should this be categorized under Category:Attempted coups d'état and Category:Fascist revolts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8800:2110:1902:5481:BEA8:CC8B (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No on the first, absolutely not on the second. There is still discussion about "coups d'état" but there is not a clear consensus to call it that. "Fascist" has no place in this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, I disagree. Fascist definitely belongs when we discuss how certain reliable sources have described them in such terms. However only in that context. (Though as a leftist anarchist, I will say that Trump and those groups that follow him can be accurately described as fascists. We literally have neo-nazi groups and equivalents as part of the insurrectionists.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is nothing in the article calling this situation or participants "Fascist". And if it isn't mentioned in the article, it can't be in a category. You could start a discussion, if you wish, making a case why we should describe the incident or people in the article as Fascist. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the first, coups d'état are synonymous with military involvement. Strongly disagree with the second. "Fascist" does not belong here. That would be generalizing and labelling comparable to having a categories for "Fat and Ugly", "Clerks", or "Handicapped".OnePercent (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praise of certain individuals

I think this addition by Ethanwa probably should be discussed. It might make sense to incorporate such information into the article, but perhaps not as its own stand-alone section. The way it was added also seems to be problematic because basically it was inserted as a level-3 section into the level-2 "Aftermath" section after the level-3 "Criticism of the Capitol Police"; the latter, however, had two level-4 subsections added to it which now are completely out of place in the "Praise of certain individuals". (see before and after for a comparison). I get WP:BOLD and that people want to contribute. but it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS and slow down a bit when expanding like this, just to (1) see whether there's a consensus and (2) try and avoid mucking up (even unintentionally) the overall layout of the article. This article is under WP:ACDS and WP:1RR which means everyone needs to be as careful as possible when editing it. This content might actually fit better in the "Other domestic reactions" section for the praise aspects of it and in the "Rioting in the Capitol building" where the actual actions taken by these individuals might be OK to add. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it pending discussion. I agree it is out of place and probably TMI. I will find a place to add the information about the parliamentarian staffers saving the papers. I don't see any need to mention one Capitol police officer who took one action. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the bit about safeguarding the documents to the section about evacuating the Senate chambers. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Possibly — Agree a section for notable individual actions/confrontations is merited. Eugene Goodman, whom this addition mentioned, has become notable for his actions, as have others. These notable actions should be included in an appropriately-placed, NPOV-worded location. However this attempt at this was poorly-placed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Peacefully" in the lead

I think this addition, adding "peacefully", is WP:UNDUE for the lead. The fact that Trump once mentioned the word "peacefully" during an hour-long speech at a rally filled with "trial by combat", "total war" and "fight like hell" rhetoric, and explicit calls for a coup and false claims about a "stolen election," doesn't mean that his use of that particular word is important enough to be highlighted to such a degree in the lead, given the overall context, which also includes the rhetoric by himself and his associates in the planning of the rally. It's simply not representative of his overall message at the rally or in the post-election period. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, Trump’s praetorians ludicrously claim that the word “peacefully” lets the president off the hook for the violence that followed. First, the whole protest was premised on a mountain of lies about the election being stolen. Convincing people they need to prevent a coup when no such coup exists is a recipe for violence.[30] We can discuss his speech in more detail, including the one time he mentioned "peacefully", in more detail below instead. --Tataral (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The "peacefully" addition has now been removed again[31]. --Tataral (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see more neutral wording! ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "peacefully" has no place in this article. People who experienced this raid were terrified for their lives, and for good reason. --Petrichori (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwennie-nyan: I think we have another word for it. —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me how are Trump's words encouraging his supporters to march to Capitol and make their voices heard "peacefully and patriotically" "loosely related"? And how is adding his three phrases from one-hour speech without context, while ignoring "peacefully and patriotically" part "neutral"? —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of Trump's speech and overall message to his supporters doesn't justify highlighting the word "peacefully", of everything Trump has said, in the lead. This is about the relative prominence of that utterance in reliable sources, and its broader context. Whether it should be mentioned in the body of the article is another matter. --Tataral (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tataral: "Fight like hell" statement doesn't represents overall message of speech better than "make our voices heard peacefully and patriotically" statement, in fact, It is disputed and up to interpretation what Trump meant by fighting "like hell". —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone can interpret a speech differently by taking various words in different weights. Just because Trump uttered the word “peacefully” doesn’t mean his supporters took it equally seriously as other words in his speech. The fact that the rioters did “fight like hell” as reported and no evidence of false-flag operation by antifa justify the omission of “peacefully” from the lead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sameboat: What small part of protesters did is irrelevant to discussion of Trump's speech given before storming of the Capitol. Taking controversial statements from the speech and putting them in the text to match how events unfolded looks like attempt to push narrative that Trump is responsible for storming of the Capitol.
“fight like hell” statement is taken out of context. Here is the excerpt from the speech:
"I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were, and again most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life, but I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can't have happened and we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country, and I say this despite all that has happened, the best is yet to come.
So we are going to--we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give--the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try--give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try--going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."
So "fight like hell" is used in context of protection of elections, not to encourage supporters to act to "take our country back" (like it is stated in the article). Nowhere in the speech does Trump incites violence and promotes physical assault on Capitol. —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue that the following quote “if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore” is Trump’s attempt to urge his supporters to take action. First the quote is in present tense, not past tense to denote what Trump (and his team) did to stop the steal; second Trump specifically used “you” to address his audience unmistakably, after he used “we” to address he and his team. —-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, there!

Lede first sentence now reads (at Special:PermaLink/999625334):

The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a failed armed insurrection by Trump supporters against the United States government on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.

Was there consensus for this change? Language was much, much weaker when I last checked. Not necessarily opposed, but I think this deserves some discussion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Yeungkahchun changed it, as can be seen in this diff here: [32]. I'm not aware of any consensus to change it. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also don't see any consensus and I remember the language being much less charged last I checked. I propose reverting to the old language and opening a discussion on the proposed language. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Insurrection appears to be the most common description by U.S. reliable sources, with coup more common internationally. I'd support leaving the language as-is Reyne2 (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it.

The previous lede was way too long, it has to be a brief description. For example on 9/11 page the first sentence reads "The September 11 attacks, often referred to as 9/11,[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Wahhabi[3] terrorist group Al-Qaeda[4][5][6] against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001" rather than fully describe the event in the first sentence,

The first sentence of this page should read The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was ___________ on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. You can fill in the blank how you see fit.

If you have a problem with the description, change the description, but don't remove the bolded event title and date name. Before my edit, the bolded event title wasn't present

Anyhow, I don't see any problem with the current lede though. I just used language that was most common by US reliable sources. Was it not an insurrection? Did it not fail? Was it not carried out by Trump supporters? Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to shoehorn the article's title into it because this is not a natural universal name. The previous version was fine and the new first sentence is unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 04:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it. This is not true, see MOS:BOLDLEAD and WP:BOLDITIS. There has also been significant discussion on this talk page about the wording "insurrection", without a clear resolution in favor. I recommend a revert to the previous version. — Goszei (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not violent enough to be called an insurrection" and riot is more common word hence the previous words should be restored.Galesburg777 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Merriam-Webster definition of insurrection is "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government", it does not define the act as necessarily a violent one. The event appears consistent with this definition. See Insurrection definition OnePercent (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bold title is back.[33] Do we maybe need a hidden comment explaining that it is a descriptive title and shouldn't really be bolded? --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've put back the first sentence we had earlier. I agree there is no need to shoehorn in the exact title and bold it in this case; indeed MOS:LEAD recommends against doing this. --Jayron32 15:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaand it's back again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's worth mentioning that the House has introduced articles of impeachment literally entitled "Incitement of Insurrection". I'd support having the lead include it at this point. Jdphenix (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To bold or not to bold: format of the first sentence

It seems that over the course of the past 24 hours, the first sentence of this article has alternated between two forms.

Option A (current version):

The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress on January 6, 2021, carried out by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.

Option B (version before today):

On January 6, 2021, supporters of United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the November 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.

Which version do we prefer? Personally, I'm partial to Option B. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy. Mz7 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AP article

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace reports details about several people who took part in the riots. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Accusations in the Lead?!

This articles lead is ridiculous. It outright accuses a sitting US President of a federal felony crime in stating that Trump "incited" violence. This is in the sentence beginning with "Incited by President Donald Trump to overturn his ..." and elsewhere in the article. Stating he in anyway "urged", "incited", "solicited", "motivated", or any other synonym indicating intentional or unintentional responsibility of violence is making an accusation of a federal crime and WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NEUTRAL.

Federal law at 18 U.S. Code § 373 states that anyone "... with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct" is commiting a federal felony.

This is exactly what this articles lead is alledging and insinuated elsewhere in the article.

Federal law enforcement, lawmakers, and multiple media outlets agree that this crime was not committed and the DOJ has announced that no charges will be filed on any speakers at the event, much less Trump himself who would be included in that statement. See ABC News Article, Speakers won't be charged in Capital siege

The wording, and accusation thereof, is WP:LIBEL and a relative opinion contradictory to other opinions which are supported by facts surrounding the event. See Wall Street Journal Article - Trump not guilty of incitement

This is additionally evidenced by Trump's call for protests to be peaceful prior to the event, during the event, after the event, and further condemned the event as has every single other politician and by the hundreds of times in 2020 he has requested "peaceful" protests and "law and order", including on January 6th.

I did not change anything yet (there are better authors for that), but this should be changed and this article in general should present the information of this event accuarately, factually, and neutrally and free of opinion, defamation, and federal felony accusations. OnePercent (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an international encyclopedia. Whether someone holds a particular status as "sitting" this or that in their own country has no bearing at all on how we describe them and their actions. All the reliable sources of the world have stated that Trump incited the riots, mostly by using that very term, so that will stay in the article. --Tataral (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it is irrelevant what "reliable sources" state when it comes to federal law. These references should also be cited because the only references I see in this regard are written opinions of journalists and outdated. They are not judicial legal opinions nor are they submitted by an attorney as a legal opinion which would be a "reliable source". Additionally, they are outdated having been published between the 6th and the 8th at which point the DOJ was not ruling out charges for anyone, however, on January 8th, the DOJ said that after further review, they would not be charging Trump, or any speaker, with any crime which supersedes previous statements and subsequently the premise of any previous "reliable source". It is my understanding that on this platform, articles should not make accusations of criminal activity without validity and validity cannot exist if federal law enforcement has currently ruled it out nor can references based on prior statements of law enforcement having "not" ruled it out be considered valid. Moreover, even if these "reliable sources" were 100% valid and current, which they do not appear to be, WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly states that any such accusation should state a reference alleges a crime, and not state that a crime occurred and should include denials or contrary references WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:NPOV if they exists. As such the lead and this article is still in violation and needs to be changed. This article repeatedly asserts allegations of a federal felony violation of 18 U.S. Code § 373 in contradiction of the United States Department of Justice findings in addition to other reliable sources and is premised by referenced opinions that lack current validity. OnePercent (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this an international encyclopaedia, but it is still subject to US law (at least). The article is also subject to WP:BLP. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Summary execution of Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Summary execution of Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being added to the Infobox without clear sources there has been no attempt on the life of either of them hence it needs to be removed.It lacks reliable sources this is very serious charge.Only one person lost his life due to the rioters a police officer this will be UNDUE to add it.Galesburg777 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, reporters have heard talking about, that would be "stated to execute", but it is a far jump to write "intended to execute". There is a long jump from talking to intent. --Robertiki (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been widely reported both nationally and internationally that the rioters intended to execute VP Mike Pence; "Hang Mike Pence" was loudly chanted as a slogan while they stormed the capital, a gallows was built, and a reporter heard multiple rioters mention additional detail about plans to hang the Vice President [e.g. from a tree], indicating that the slogan was likely more than talk. You can say that the slogan was exaggerated perhaps, but in their own words, this was a goal of the rioters. Reyne2 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is hearsay and alleges a crime without anyone being legally accused, not even those who have been arrested, and as such should not be present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnePercent (talk • contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should not state in Wikipedia's voice that any specific person actually intended to execute Pence or Pelosi, at least until possible future convictions on such charges. But we can report on chants and social media posts expressing that rhetorical intent. Allow the readers to decide how credible these threats were by summarizing them neutrally. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing it in the infobox made me think "wtf?" tbh. It appears quite dubious, at least undue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an insurrection in the first sentence lede

To settle the edit warring re: use of "insurrection" in a lede let's do a vote on whether to call it an insurrection, as most US and worldwide reliable sources call it an insurrectionYeungkahchun (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, i was merely proposing a discussion of a vote on the talk page whether or not to use the word. I highly oppose unilaterally adding the word "insurrection" to the page before a group consensus. To be clear, I did not revert anyone's edit once the word "insurrection" was removed. My stance is that I strogly oppose adding the word "insurrection" unless there is a group consensus. Also, I was topic unbanned.Yeungkahchun (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My topic ban has been lifted according to user Mz7. 05:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of riotous legislators in the lead

Surely the article should state early on that elected Republican Party officials were among the attackers? I don't see mention of it in the lead at present. I also think the bombings should be mentioned in the first paragraph. GPinkerton (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to mentioning the officials - the officials involved were fairly low-level (state legislators/etc., not state legislative leadership), so would appear to be WP:UNDUE Reyne2 (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources cover it? Yes they do. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
Also, I wouldn't call state legislators "low level". A councilperson of a small town would be "low level". State legislator is actually a pretty big deal (which is why they're notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.) Volunteer Marek 06:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, agreed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's little sense in declaring state legislators per se to be "low level" or not, when members of the California State Senate have more constituents than members of the U.S. House, while members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives represent districts around one three hundredth of the size. And, as Reyne2 suggests, there's a significant difference in profile between a majority leader or speaker, on the one hand, and someone like Derrick Evans, who'd only been in office a month, on the other. So the argument that state legislators are inherently high-profile enough to warrant a mention in the lede seems shaky. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't for us to decide. It simply depends on whether it's covered in reliable sources. And it is. We don't necessarily have to name all of them by name (aside from those such as Evans that have received much more attention). Just state that such and such a number of Republican lawmakers were involved. Volunteer Marek 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's covered in the sources doesn't mean we have to cover it in the lede, which is what this discussion's about. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threats against the lives of government officials

I don't have a strong view whether we have a Threats against the lives of government officials section or not, but at this point it looks like threats against Pence were covered earlier. Perhaps threats against Pelosi could also be handled with Pence. Or migrate all the specific threats into the new section. One or the other. Mcfnord (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put it in the general overview of events, if you can fit it in? Or put it in the section of notable charges. I edited the template that another of the rioters' aims was killing Pelosi along with Pence, but it seems that when I insert it into the template with multiple reliable sources cited, it gets undone, and I'm not interested in getting into an edit conflict. Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A man who had an assault rifle was charged with threatening Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, after he traveled to Washington for the pro-Trump rally on Wednesday and sent a text message saying he would put “a bullet in her noggin on Live TV,” the federal authorities said. - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/pelosi-cleveland-grover-meredith.html Mcfnord (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting/Shortening the article

As this article gets longer and longer, I'm starting to think about the possibility of spinning off some of this content into related sub-articles, or at the very least removing some of the excess information. What does everyone else think? Love of Corey (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removing excess information. It is overly filled with irrelevant information, unrelated information, and unbalanced opinion. For example "the spread of COVID" or "Social media platforms" and especially things like "plans that included abducting and killing senior politicians" which has no verifiable premise and alleges a federal felony violation of 18 U.S. Code § 956. Crimes should not be baselessly alleged without a legal and referenceable indictment and this is especially true for regular citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnePercent (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not filled with "irrelevant information" and there are no "baseless" claims anywhere, only verifiable material published by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not based on your views on "legal and referenceable indictment", but on reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that the page is "overly filled with irrelevant information, unrelated information, and unbalanced opinion". No objection to forking content appropriately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with this notion in particular. The sources regarding the potential COVID spread and the social media platforms have a clear A-to-B reference with this event. Love of Corey (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we may have to move some of the content to sub articles (like International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol), particularly material on the aftermath including any criminal investigation(s)/prosecution(s). --Tataral (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A spinoff for details on the criminal prosecutions may be worthwhile, like Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Neutralitytalk 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and create a draft article on the suggested topics. Love of Corey (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a draft if anyone's interested in editing and improving it: Draft:Domestic responses to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Love of Corey (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump "Pleased" with Riots

This needs to be properly cited or removed. WP:NOTFALSE The reference cited contains one sentence of hearsay regarding an unsourced relative opinion. This is a relative opinion: "Pleased" needs premise of which is not present. Unsourced material has no merit: references needs credibility. Additionally, the opinion is inconsistent with the words and actions of every single public statement of every single political figure, Trump included. The reason this is unsourced in this reference is because it actually refers to hearsay of hearsay or heasay where it was reported that this information comes from one individual who says they heard this from a Congress member who claimed they heard from an unsourced and unquoted "Official" something that he interpreted as "Pleased", which is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay and an interpretation of hearsay on top of that (this is referenced in the following couple sentences). This needs better citations or removal due to the weight of the allegation. OnePercent (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant and properly sourced in the article. --Tataral (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's speech in the lead, again

This edit changed the established consensus wording by adding a lengthy and UNDUE intepretation of Trump's speech to the lead to try to "get him off the hook" and that portrays him as just calling for "protection of elections." The shorter version without the original analysis and POV should be reinstated. --Tataral (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list of causes in the infobox sufficient?

Currently the infobox lists the causes of the storming as:

  • Opposition to the results of the 2020 United States presidential election
  • Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud

It reads as though there were no causes before the November election which doesn't seem to be accurate. Any suggestions?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the proximate causes of the event; as with any string of causal events we could just start with the Big Bang and move forward; the systemic environment that created the Trumpist movement is certainly a cause, but is outside of the scope of the infobox, and the two that are there are sufficient. --Jayron32 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contentious article. As such any of these need cited by the highest quality sources we have. I've tagged them with {{cn}}s. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include death causation

Deaths and/or causalities need to include causation to prevent false notions. 2 of the 5 deaths were due to natural causes from a heart attack and a stroke. Joustice (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources state those as the causes of death. Jim Michael (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the article already gives those exact causes of death. It actually states the cause of death for all 5 casualties. What do you want us to change? --Jayron32 16:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction from Howie Hawkins

Green Party former presidential candidate Howie Hawkins has spoken about the Capitol insurrection on the "All Exits Closed" podcast.[1] I'm not all too experienced with sourcing, so would a podcast as a source be appropriate? Nekomancerjade (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://allexitsclosed.com/2021/01/09/howie-hawkins-talks-about-the-riot-in-washington-dc/
The podcast could be an appropriate source, but what makes Hawkins' comments worthy of note? He's clearly much lower-profile than the individuals currently covered in the Other domestic reactions section. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkins is the founder of the Green Party, which is now the second-largest third party in the US and is on ballots for the majority of states, and was also a contender in a major elections. I feel as if he's relevant enough. Nekomancerjade (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not appropriate to include, because it has not been reported on by secondary sources. At present, this is just a WP:SPS. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkins has now released a press release condemning the riots: [40] . Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask who? I am not sure he is all that relevant, when RS give a damn so might we.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkins is definitely notable enough to be included on this page - he is the founder of the Green Party of the United States and was a 2020 presidential candidate. If secondary, reliable sources cover Hawkins' condemnation it should be added. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be included. First, it's primary sources (press releases and podcast statements). Second, even if this picked up minor press coverage, I would not include as a due-weight matter. Plenty of people have commented (including a few dozen celebrities, e.g., here, here); we have length limitations, and Hawkins is simply not a figure of particular influence or prominence. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as if Hawkins is important enough as a figure, he's the founder of the second-largest third party in America, so his commentary would be relevant, but I do agree in hindsight that a secondary source should emerge first. Nekomancerjade (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include per WP:DUE. The remarks have not been picked up by secondary sources and compared to other domestic commentators, Hawkins is not of a similar stature having never held office. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the LEAD

Given how contentious the article is, I believe the typical guidance of WP:LEAD in allowing uncited statements on the top and in the infobox to be insufficient. While this would be acceptable for a typical article, this isn't a typical article. This is probably going to be one of the most controversial events of the decade. My attempts at tagging things with CN templates was reverted by EvergreenFir. So I'd like to get other input on this. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwennie-nyan: The material is in the article. Are you willing to add the citations yourself? I'm not opposed to their addition, just the tagging is unnecessary. I do worry some that the infobox will become harder to read if full of references. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indictments and Arrests

A good bit of the story are the people who performed the storming of the US capital. Why is there not a section showing all those charged??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverGoneWild (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Criminal investigation and prosecutions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences to Sicknick's family

Article currently reads: "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Pence did.[241]" This seems POV and unencylopedic, more like gossip than information. Would suggest something like "Vice President Pence offered condolences to Sicknick's family on behalf of the White House." The reader can read into it what he wishes.198.161.4.68 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to state who was there: mostly White men

Is this currently noted in the article?

From WaPo [41]

"After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution."

I find Wikipedia to be invaluable, and deeper analysis of this event would be invaluable to readers. Here's a start [42] (Scroll down within the article)

-- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I'm not sure if that's exactly relevant. Love of Corey (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be relevant if it was, for example, 80% African-americans in attendance? or 50%? (for clarity, White men (non-Hispanic) make up roughly 30% of the U.S. population) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's relevant that they were protesting mostly white men who were finalizing the election? TFD (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you restate your question another way? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant but we need RS to say it for us. I've heard some on NPR about the race of the crowd, but not a whole lot. We have a section on differential treatment already. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EvergreenFir, what you mentioned (differential treatment) has to do with the interaction between the police and protestors; although related, I'm talking about something else. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It might be a bit longer before we get some of the deeper sociopolitical analyses of this insurrection. I 100% that the participants being overwhelmingly white men is relevant. But I'm not sure we have RS to say that for us, or at least not enough (WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to say they were white. It isn't really related, and might look like pushing an agenda. I think saying they were Trump supporters gets the point across. Though if a reliable news site (ie Reuters, AP) were to describe the crowd as white, or per-dominantly white, I see no issue in that. SuperHeight (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by pushing an agenda? by who? Here's a good source for White men [43] and White Americans [44] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Large Deletes that should be reviewed

I noticed some Large Deletes, between now and a couple of days ago, that should be reviewed:

Baragona, Justin (January 6, 2021). "Fox News: 'Peaceful' MAGA Mob Storming Capitol Is 'Huge Victory'". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Retrieved January 6, 2021.
  • Martha MacCallum later called the images "stark and so disturbing" without apologizing or retracting her on-air statements.
Jones, Tom (January 6, 2021). "Fox News host Martha MacCallum: 'We are witnessing something beyond our comprehension'". Poynter Institute. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved January 6, 2021.
Swaine, Jon. "Man who posed at Pelosi desk said in Facebook post that he is prepared for violent death". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
  • <code>| side1 = <b>[[Donald Trump]]</b><ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/trump-speech-capitol.html</ref><ref>https://time.com/5926883/trump-supporters-storm-capitol/</ref><ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/07/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-capitol-riots-mob-criminal-charges/6588112002/</ref><br>[[Rudy Giuliani]]<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/07/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-capitol-riots-mob-criminal-charges/6588112002/</ref><br>[[Donald Trump, Jr.]]<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/trump-speech-capitol.html</ref><br>[[Proud Boys]]<br>[[Boogaloo movement]]<br>[[Three Percenters]]<br>[[Oath Keepers]]<br>[[QAnon]]<br>[[Groyper Army]] − | side2 = <b>[[United States Congress]]</b><br>[[US Capitol Police]]<br>[[D.C. Metropolitan Police]]<br>[[D.C. National Guard]]<br>[[Virginia National Guard]]<br>[[Virginia State Troopers]]<br>[[New Jersey State Police]]</code>
  • There is a general consensus among America's military allies that Trump and elements of the federal government "... were attempting a violent coup that ... appeared to have at least tacit support from aspects of the US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex... [and there is]... circumstantial evidence available pointed to what would be openly called a coup attempt in any other nation." They believe that there is "serious credence to the idea that Trump deliberately tried to violently overturn an election and that some federal law-enforcement agents — by omission or otherwise — facilitated the attempt".
Prothero, Mitch. "Some among America's military allies believe Trump deliberately attempted a coup and may have had help from federal law-enforcement officials". Business Insider. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for Arnold Schwarzenegger quote from video

I think you will find the following correction is necessary: "they shattered the ideas we took for granted" → "they shattered the ideals we took for granted". The subtitling is also wrong and possibly where this mistake arose. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 deaths resulted directly from what occurred, 1 death was a suicide that is unclear about weather or not it had anything to do with the siege. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Deaths

How many deaths occurred during the storming? I believe it to be 5 (3 of natural causes, 1 rioter shot, and 1 officer), however it is saying 6. SuperHeight (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=999782733"