Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.118.162.133 (talk) at 15:57, 13 January 2021 (→‎McConnell Speech Transcript: added plural). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

-- Removed "coup de force" French-language sources, as the French "coup de force" does not correspond at all to English "coup (d'état)". Alalch Emis (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. [2] 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]

  • not a coup There are some mainstream sources and dedicated articles that the event was not a coup. A problem with "a coup or not a coup, that is the question" is because of strong feelings of journalists, some have been very forceful to call it a coup. With polarization, nobody wants to compromise. To me, it was a riot but there was no concerted efforts common in a coup. That could change with a FBI investigation. How exactly was the man with the fur hat and horns going to be King of the US? And the man with his feet on Speaker Pelosi's desk; did he have secret plans to be the new Speaker of the House? The problem with the above list is that many of the articles have become politicized so that they are no longer reliable sources. That is sad to see. Vowvo (talk) 00:07, 13 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." [3] 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"[4]
  • PBS Classroom resource: Three ways to teach the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol[5]
  • Tampa Bay Times "insurrection at the Capitol"[6]
  • Fortune "the insurrection at the Capitol"[7]
  • National Geographic "the Capital insurrection"[8]
  • The Guardian's First Thing "insurrection at the Capitol"[9]
  • Aljazeera "US Capitol insurrection"[10]
Politicians from both parties
  • Statement of President George W. Bush on "Insurrection at the Capitol"[11]
  • Mitt Romney on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (NYTimes)[12]
  • Joe Biden on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (Sydney Morning Herald)[13]
Discussion and event names
  • Hammer Museum "Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s Next?"[14]
  • University of Denver "Insurrection at the Capitol"[15]

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:[16][17]

  • 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]
Thank you! In particular, this interview] with Ruth Ben-Ghiat is very helpful. This might be a bifurcation point in US history. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcomen ;-) Ben-Ghiat: "I’m very worried that this... “armed march” being planned for January 17th around the nation. And once you legitimize and give a presidential imprimatur to extremism, and once you convince — you plant people throughout federal agencies, you know, you radicalize law enforcement, as Bill Barr, who stepped away but has a huge amount of responsibility for this, it’s very hard to turn this back." Remenber, No public appearances with remarks from the AG or FBI director. Capitol Police haven’t held a single briefing. DHS secretary just stepped down. All since a mob just stormed the Capitol. --217.234.74.185 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what they are going to do next? "They were talking about 4,000 armed 'patriots' to surround the Capitol" [18]. Who knows? In 1999 Putin and his comrades arranged a series of terrorist acts to grab the power (that page was fixed for "neutrality" by one of Russian-speaking accounts [19]). My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking more about coups, the leader must have a support by organizations like the army, the secret police or political Parties in order to succeed. Neither seem to be the case here, except only supremacist organizations and some Republicans. However, this is hard to say with certainty at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 12 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]

I have verified that "coup de force" indeed does not correspond to "coup d'etat". Therefore I have removed the following sources from the list:
-- Alalch Emis (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that news outlets use sensational words to describe an event in order to get the attention of the viewers. Those that were protesting wanted their voice to be heard. Just a portion of the people that attended the demonstration were violent. Most of if not all of the priceless works of art were untouched. There were many videos of people in the capital just mulling around like they were on a guided tour. Almost in awe of their surroundings. The love of their country and their freedoms brought them to the capital. Many did not heed the words of the president when he asked his supporters to be peaceful. If it was a coup, who was the one calling for it? If it was an insurrection where is the evidence. The news outlets use those terms, but they do not provide any proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBehaving (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sweet, summer child. What sort of dull-eyed thugs are needed to overthrow the nation and keep power? The current president will use any support he can find, and did so, and as it became ugly, he reveled in what he had unleashed. In the Rwanda genocide, leaders announced over radio it was time to "cut down the tall trees". They don't say 'Ok, let's quite precisely knock on the door and demand control of the democracy.' I do think "Hang Mike Pence" is no construction of sensational words by a click-seeking media. This is technically a "reverse coup" I guess. I'm glad they only wanted to murder the vice president, rather than destroy priceless art. I don't believe they love this particular country, which is a democracy. And crushing the skull of a policeman isn't embracing freedoms. This is a coup attempt in plain sight, with all the ingredients. Mcfnord (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote earlier, a coup implies some actions by regular military or organization by ruling elites. If the action is done purely by normal civilians, no matter what their intentions are, no matter how organized they are, would still be an insurrection and not a coup, and as I pointed out there are other Wikipedia articles of similar events in Armenia and Serbia which aren't even called insurrections, but called protests. Media outlets may use sensationalist terminology to grab people's attention, or purposefully imply that the action was a coup, even if that is more flowery language. That being said, if there was any media outlet that proves the action was done by military or specifically orchestrated by Trump as an attempt to disband congress, then yes it would be a coup. So far, all we have proved is that Trump incited or inspired the action, and some police were delayed a few hours before intervening, and that's pretty much it right now. In fact, if the people are calling for hanging Mike Pence, who is absolutely in Trump's camp, that kind of invalidates the claim of it being an elite-orchestrated event, and therefore invalidating it being called a coup. QED. LutherVinci (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC) (forgot to log in earlier)[reply]
@LutherVinci: Having the military being involved is a common misconception; it just requires a violent attempt to overthrow a government. The New Yorker actually hypothesized a similar example in October 2020, stating "For example, Trump could summon federal agents or his supporters to stop a recount or intimidate voters. According to some experts, this would constitute an autogolpe, or 'self-coup'". This is almost what happened on January 6. However, it seems that the event has been consistently described as an "insurrection" by reliable sources, so we should use that description and then make comments about the term "coup" in the body.--WMrapids (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insurrection is what the United States government has declared took place.

Time to change the headline

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-news-01-12-21/h_ff48d5c57b86031716423f4c0b8b9940

--Caffoti (talk) 23:07, 12 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. [20] 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]

I agree not all the protesters were rioting. Many tried to stop the ones rioting. Those breaking into the Capitol building were rioting. The gates around the Capitol were opened up by the police in some instances. MissBehaving (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was mostly a peaceful protest except for a few clashes with police. The looting should not be considered violence. Given that, using the words "violent attack" in this sentence is unfounded as this produces the image of widespread violence. While there was some extreme violence, it seems like less than 5% of participants were violent, no? So replacing "a riot and violent attack" with "a mostly peaceful protest" would more accurately describe the footage. メガヒロ (talk) 10:22, 12 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

  • 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".
  2. ^ Borger, Julian; The Guardian: "Insurrection Day: when white supremacist terror came to the US Capitol" 2021 January 9 [1] Retrieved 2021 January 11.
  3. ^ Tucker, Eric. "Attack highlights challenge of pursuing domestic extremists". The Associated Press. Retrieved 12 January 2021.

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]
Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[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]
  • No. FOR NOW. Demonstrations which lead to occupations of public buildings aren't usually defined as terrorism in reliable sources. But we have to follow if the historical consensus uses that term down the line.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they were a protest that evolved into unlawful actions of serious caliber, but that's it. Even if a couple of protestors may turn out to have had terrorist intentions in my opinion it should not represent the whole event.Forich (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No That is ridiculous. Terrorism is conducted by a terrorist organisation, it's usually a violent act to cause fear in a populous - ie it causes "terror". This was simply a mob attacking a building, and at the heart of it, there is no "terrorist" act that causes "terror" (ie a bombing, or the taking of hostages, or someone being killed). I don't think the public are particularly afraid of these protestors, in the terror sense. The motivation of the crowd wasn't to cause terror in the public for a political cause, - essentially the protestors were pissed off at the government and wanted to vent their frustration. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No A no opinion does not mean support for the riot. Vowvo (talk) 00:10, 13 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]
Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[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

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

  • Occasionally repressive regimes attempt to stretch the definition of "terrorism" to include political protest of lesser or greater degrees of violence, we could perhaps include the Bolivian coup government of 2019-2020 in this, or the government of Belarus. However, terrorism is generally viewed as a military operation conducted by covert non-state actors whose goal is not to control territory or further some tactical or strategic aim within the context of traditional warfare, but to make a political point. I don't see any military aspect in this action, not were the participants behaving covertly. The violent demonstration in Washington was possibly, in the minds of some of its participants, an attempted coup, but even then, a failed coup attempt is not usually classed as terrorism. However, if by some miracle the balance of reliable sources in future (things like encyclopaedias and history books) refer to it as "terrorism" then I suppose it's ok. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a large number--if not most editors--have answered giving their personal opinion and analysis about whether this is or is not "terrorism." Isn't that WP:OR? How about we follow our most basic rules of Wikipedia and call it terrorism if and only if the WP:RS calls it that? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 white supremacists and militia types. I have little doubt it would be their preferred term, given the name of one far-right neo-Nazi publication, "The Daily Stormer," which is a reference to the original Nazi-party paper, "Der Stürmer." I'm not the first to worry about this name catching on for this event; here Jill Lapore's writing in the New Yorker: "A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a 'storming' of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a 'Storm' in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January 'the Storming of the Capitol.'" [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 ([22]). 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]
Support for the term Raid: The perimeters were breached, items were stolen[23], and offices ransacked.Tortillovsky (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of storm fits the act of overtaking the Capitol. storm - a direct and violent assault on a stronghold MissBehaving (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for referring to it as a "breaching" or a "raid", or even more neutrally/simply, an "attack"; while many notable news sources use the term "storming", they also use terms like "Capitol attack" and "Capitol siege" as shorthand (offhand example: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/fbi-warns-of-plans-for-nationwide-armed-protests-next-week/); there is so much variation that picking a less loaded & more neutrally descriptive term like "attack" or "breach" would probably be more appropriate Neonpixii (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree, storming seems to be a bit emotive and not neutral enough for wikipedia NPOV guidelines - its also strikes me as a military term. Breaching is marginally better. To be honest, I don't know that any other terms are ideal either, "attack" implies some sort of military attack, "breaching" I'm not sure is meaningful to the users, raid is incorrect as it implies there was some purposeful attack after which everyone would go back (which they didn't). Riot isn't right either.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose all three terms. These are American citizens, not a rabid horde. How about the term occupy, which I would point out is often used in incidents of protest and civil disobedience. Morphoditie (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were a rabid horde of American citizens (presumably). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stormed is the most used word in RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the word storm is too vivid for an encyclopedia article. I think that a more matter-of-fact term such as "attack" would do more nicely. Corrupt Cactus (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am for Storm or Occupy. Storm is not always violent and can mean "suddenly moving in". Raid sound too strong like an organized or military operation. Attack sounds like it involves a battle but there was little resistance by police. Breach is not accurate because police allowed them inside in many instances. Riot is not accurate either as the atmosphere was relatively calm inside. メガヒロ (talk) 14:30, 13 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

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]

Storming the US Capitol would be more accurate title. Trump encouraged peaceful protests. There is no evidence that he called for a riot or violence. A portion of the protesters acted on their own accord when they broke into the Capitol. Many of Trumps supporters were trying to keep people from breaking in, other areas had the doors opened for the protestors and still other instances rioters busted in the windows and crawled in. MissBehaving (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about: "2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol" or "2021 protest and assault on the U.S. Capitol"? This 2nd suggestion helps to differentiate between the crowd that stayed outside and the mob that raided the building Tortillovsky (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's name shouldn't be in it at all. We are completely uncertain of what his impact on the events was. Furthermore, aside from the peaceful protestors who have made their argument clear, we don't know who was responsible for the violence. Conflating both the peaceful march and the violence that might have been triggered by interested parties (Biden, Clinton, China, Antifa, whomever) is a violation of NPOV. Wait for more information to be released. Morphoditie (talk) 02:06, 13 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]
Incoorroect he lost the popular vote, which is what the rioters were trying to overturn.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturning a defeat = imposition Tortillovsky (talk) 17:59, 12 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. [24] [25] 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. [26] 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]

@Czello: can you explain why you oppose even the mention of Capitol Police Officer Liebengood's suicide on this page despite corroboration in multiple RS such as WaPo and CBS News? AlexEng(TALK) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided doesn't appear to state that the suicide had anything to do with the Capitol storming -- unless I'm being blind and I missed it. If so please do point me in the right direction. — Czello 21:59, 12 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]
On January 9, 2021, one week after the riot, Capital Police officer and former race car driver Howard Liebengood died by suicide.[1][2] He is reported as being on duty when a mob breached the Capitol.[1][2] Former police chief Terrance Gainer described Liebengood’s death as a “line of duty casualty” in an interview because “it was no different than the death of fellow officer Brian Sicknick, who died Thursday night from injuries sustained while protecting the Capitol complex”.[1][2]
  1. ^ a b c Klein, Allison; Tan, Rebecca. "Capitol Police officer who was on duty during the riot has died by suicide, his family says". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-01-13.
  2. ^ a b c McEvoy, Jemima. "Another Capitol Police Death: Officer Dies By Suicide After Responding To Pro-Trump Riot". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-01-13.
Please discuss and comment. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Christopher Stanton Georgia's suicide?

He was arrested with three others in GA for unlawful entry and curfew violation, and he killed himself on Saturday. See here: [1] I think suicides are an important consequence of this event and should be reported, as long as the suicides are reported by RS in the context of the story. Dcs002 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't include. It is one thing for a person to die during the storming or as a direct result of it. It is quite another thing for a person to die of suicide after having charges brought against them quite some time afterward.
That said, I am open to the creation of a separate article, List of prosecutions relating to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, in which the outcome of every prosecution stemming from the event could be recorded (where reported by RS). Zazpot (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to keep suicides out of the casualties in the infobox?

Regardless of the outcome of the above discussion, some people in the past few days have tried to count Liebengood's suicide as a casualty and, consequently, changed the infobox to list 2 police officer deaths (so 6 in total). The above debate seems to be focussed on whether suicide should be mentioned in the body of the article, but isn't addressing the infobox. I suspect that, if we decide to mention Liebengood in the body, some editors will try to re-add this to the infobox. I want to make sure we're all on the same page that it shouldn't be counted as a casualty given that it didn't take place during the event or as a result owing to injuries sustained during the event. — Czello 09:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should mention both suicides, but, yes, they shouldn't be listed as casualties in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/georgia-man-arrested-pro-trump-capitol-riot-dies-suicide-1561005

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]
@Trillfendi: American newspapers are written for American audiences familiar with the abbreviations. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, much of which is unfamiliar with those abbreviations. Zazpot (talk) 13:56, 13 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]

I don't see the need to mention the states of congressists in the article, since the subject is nationwide. "Democratic representative" or "Republican senator" are enough. --179.24.208.117 (talk) 13:47, 12 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.[27] 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[28]. --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]

I disagree. Using the word "peacefully" is the only explicit call to action provided by Trump, therefore it invalidates any suspicions of a call to violence. And this edit shouldn't have been made before consensus was reached. メガヒロ (talk) 22:49, 12 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]
  • There was a discussion about word choice in the lead. Pres. Trump did not urge any protestors/rioting at the Capitol. He did however "add fuel to the fire", so instigated was the best word choice decided in the discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out, upon reading the lede, it suggests that Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani and several speakers took part in the 'storming' of the Capitol, when in fact none of them participated in the actual march that took place after his rally. ---  Jrobb525 03:59, 13 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]
You have to be careful with further interpretation of chants. Otherwise, Wikipedia may someday report that there was a "effort to arrest and detain Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign when some people chanted 'Lock Her Up'", which is not really true. Or that Trump was an imperialist with plans to invade Canada and Latin America because he said "make America great again" and we all know that Peru is part of America (not part of the USA). True, do not go to Peru and ask a taxi driver to "take me to the American Embassy" because some taxi drivers will say "there are many American embassies in Lima, Mexico, Chile, Bolivia, etc" Vowvo (talk) 00:21, 13 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]
How about "Abduction of Vice President Mike Pence" in the goals then, without speculation on desired ultimate outcome? Reyne2 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think anyone seriously planned to abduct Pence. Some of the media are feeding the beast, but let’s not pretend like anyone was actually going to put Pence on the noose. In my view, that whole part is undue for the Infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 12 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]
Love of Corey: I think it would be best to wait a few weeks before creating a spinoff. It may be that we can most efficiently address the domestic responses in this article, plus in spinoffs like 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office. Neutralitytalk 00:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. But that's why it's a draft article, not an actual article just yet. Love of Corey (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, all, note: mere verifiability does not mandate inclusion. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to fanatically regurgitate every conceivable sub-aspect of a topic belched forth by click-bait hungry media, but to summarize the topic, treating significant aspects proportionally, but not necessarily exhaustively. A Wikipedian's primary role is as editor, not a compiler or archivist. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you suggest we start about a trim? Love of Corey (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Currently there are sections called "Reactions" and "Aftermath." Probably "Reactions" should remain part of the main article, at least for now, assuming it describes immediate reactions. However, "Aftermath" could easily be split off into its own article, especially as the aftermath will be ongoing for a long time. As a model: September 11 attacks and Aftermath of the September 11 attacks are separate articles. Another example: COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is an overview and Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States follows a specific kind of ongoing consequence. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree splitting the article is a good idea. Aftermath should definitely become its own article. It might work to split Reactions to its own article and merge the International reactions article (already exists) into that. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwennie-nyan, Animalparty, Tuckerlieberman, Love of Corey, Neutrality, OnePercent, Another Believer, and Tataral: The article has now been split at Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Further improvements should be made there and here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, Thanks for the ping. I've already made a few minor improvements. Please be sure to include split/attribution templates on this talk page and on the newly created talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 13 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]
@Tataral: The Washington Post reports Trump didn't initially respond to the riot he incited on Capitol Hill because he was enjoying watching it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mob-failure/2021/01/11/36a46e2e-542e-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html --217.234.74.185 (talk) 19:08, 12 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]

The causes section lists "Lack of law-enforcement caused by George Floyd Protests." I think that could be worded better. It makes it sound as if the George Floyd protests limited the number of law-enforcement available to respond, however the source describes reluctancy to deploy law-enforcement in the aftermath of the George Floyd Protests.StylishJumpsuit (talk) 11:51, 12 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 edits aren't an improvement. It comes off as childish finger-pointing. "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Biden, Pence and Pelosi each did." Is it a contest to see who is sorrier? If there is some significance to Trump not offering condolences, there needs to be an explanation of why, that isn't original research but coming from a reliable source. As it is, it's just trivia in an already too-long article.174.0.48.147 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, Trump is the sitting president. The officer in question died during a domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol. This is definitely something that it would normally fall to the president himself to do. --Khajidha (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain that in the article with information from a reliable source, otherwise, it is just your opinion. As it is, I see the response section has been expanded, and reads very well now.198.161.4.68 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this currently noted in the article?

From WaPo [29]

"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 [30] (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 [31] and White Americans [32] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPR also mentioned it: Now, the rioters, mostly white men, they left many clues, the video and photos that they posted of themselves while they were at the Capitol or afterwards. [33]
Wall Street Journal: The Capitol was more heavily guarded for recent Black Lives Matter protests than Wednesday’s demonstration, where Trump supporters were mostly white men. [34] — Chrisahn (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News: "...a crowd of what appeared to be mostly White protesters..." [35] — Chrisahn (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've now got enough sources (with diverse political leanings) to support the claim (and its relevance) that the protesters were mostly white men. I added the information to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Accusations of differential treatment section. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has a very long talk with others on Wikipedia about mentioning the color of people, it should ONLY (Please note the word only) be mentioned when 2 opposing political spectrum RS (Example being New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) mention it. An admin months ago gave me this piece of advice when I unintentionally began a very long and painful discussion about this topic on another thread...Bad enough to spread into 2 different admin noticeboards for warnings to various editors. So if we can find opposing political RS's that mention that, then we should add it. If only one political RS side (Meaning multiple liberal or multiple conservative) is mentioning it, then do not add it. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply incorrect. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT say nothing about needing 1 source from "the left" and 1 from "the right"; that would be a huge problem for Wikipedia if it were true. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Somedifferentstuff: It isn't in Wiki policies. Just going to be honest though, if every single "left" source says "White men" but every single "right" source doesn't, what do we do? We would have conflicting RS at that point. Again, this topic is not in Wiki policies...which is why that discussion I talked about earlier was painful and had multiple admin noticeboards for warnings to different editors. The admin said and I will quote it. "you appear to have a fairly strong bias in the area of race in the US that may make you likely to push certain points of view. I suggest you default to using the Walt Street Journal as your reality check on whether or not race is pertinent in a given article. If WSJ is noting someone's race, you can be assured that is not "creating a version of racism." Another editor mentioned this right after "Just a note, if anyone's going to use the Wall Street Journal as a reality check, just make sure it's the Journal's news reporting, which is justly acclaimed, and not its editorials, which can be seriously biased. A good doublecheck would be to look at The New York Times or The Washington Post to see what they do. While both are mildly liberal editorially, their news operations, like that of the Wall Street Journal, are first class." and the admin agreed to that. (All those quotes were from an admin board notice). So in short, no it isn't Wiki policy, but if we don't do that, it will end up causing more "discussions" (arguments) in the future on this talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what these people said but it is not true. WP:RSN discusses and decides what sources qualify as WP:RS; there's nothing more. But we are now off-topic of the above discussion so post on my talk page if you want to continue this discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this isn't off-topic. The entire discussion is about "Would stating color of people in this article be a good idea". We both laid out our opinions backing them up. This discussion defiantly belongs here instead of a talk page. (We can talk more in future 1 on 1 in a talk page discussion, but the discussion we have had so far is perfect for this overall discussion). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is here (it's hatted and viewable). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found a Wall Street Journal source saying "mostly white men". See above. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somedifferentstuff is correct. While having a wide range of sources would be lovely, it is by no means necessary. On issues of race and gender, I would encourage sticking to higher quality sources (e.g., NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, CNN, NPR, BBC) and avoiding some of the more clickbaity ones (e.g., HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, Vox, Vice). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance?

No where in this article do I see any mention of the numbers in attendance. In fact, I've found that very difficult info to come by. How many people attended the White House Rally? How many left White House and headed to the Capitol? Total attendance at Capitol protest? Number who breached the perimeter barricade? Number who actually entered the Capitol building? Number who actually entered the House Chamber?

No numbers have been reported. The best we have so far from sources is that the rally was attended by "thousands" and the Capitol was stormed by "hundreds". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (3)

My suggested change would be how in the first few paragraphs, it states that the United States President, Donald Trump's claims of election fraud are false. Whilst most likely to be true, I believe that this would breach Wikipedia's non-bias. I would ask that it be changed to 'false claim' to 'claim'.LoveBearMarco (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are customarily being qualified as false in RS, and this is merely reflected here. Omitting this word would be a spurious redaction of source materials. The media tends to include this qualifier to keep it clear that it's settled matter. When the article phrases it the same way it's clear to a future reader, several years from now, that during the relevant time, this had become settled matter already - as it indeed had. Alalch Emis (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done the claims are false, reliable sources say they're false, this is not a violation of WP:NPOV. See Talk:2020 United States presidential election/FAQ and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for more information. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. "false" is like "truth", like in "faith". I would prefer to read "unproven claim". --Robertiki (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

Under the headline for "Casualties", it states that Officer Sicknick was "injured while physically engaging with protesters".

It continues on to say "Law enforcement officials told The New York Times that he had been struck in the head with a fire extinguisher." and "Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,"

However later in that section it then states

There were calls for Trump to be prosecuted for inciting the violence that led to the five deaths, although it is not clear that the medical emergencies were due to violence.

Isn't this contradicting itself? On one part it states, clearly, that a death was due to a violent act, and on the other part it says "not clear"...

--203.213.224.63 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "medical emergencies" part refers to the two people who died of a heart attack and a stroke, respectively. I agree the wording is a bit unclear and should be improved. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "although it is not clear..." might be true but it was not supported by a cited source and was making a statement in WP's voice. I've removed it. Shearonink (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than just a contradiction. The "mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher" part is likely false. From https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol : 

While some news reports had said an unnamed officer was in critical condition after being bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher, family members did not have details of his injuries. They say Sicknick had texted them Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed, he was in good spirits. The text arrived hours after a mob’s assault on the Capitol had left more than 50 officers injured and five people dead.

“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”

But the day after that text exchange, the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke; a ventilator was keeping him alive.

-- Stefantalpalaru (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's old news, Pro Publica is Jan. 8! Read https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9139059/FBI-arrests-New-York-man-connection-Capitol-riots.html 15:45 GMT, 12 January 2021 --217.234.74.185 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The DM is not a reliable source.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction here. He is not counted as one of the "medical emergencies". He died of head injuries that resulted in a blood clot to his brain; another word for that is a stroke. Or the head injuries caused a subdural hematoma, another word for bleeding into the brain. It's not uncommon for the person to think he is OK for a while, and symptoms develop after hours or days. The blow to his head killed him. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The above sources are not helpful. Here is an official source that he "passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty." [36] Here's AP: "During the struggle, Sicknick, 42, was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher," [37] Here's his father: "He ended up with a clot on the brain."[38] -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to reckon with the matter of who killed Officer Sicknick. Since Officer Sicknick was an ardent supporter of President Trump it is unlikely that the protestors were responsible. What is more likely is a member of antifa, BLM or a hired rioter bussed in by either Obama or Biden was responsible. The fact is that it is still too early to assign blame. Morphoditie (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC) https://nypost.com/2021/01/10/what-the-left-wants-to-ignore-about-slain-capitol-police-officer/[reply]
NY Post doesn't suggest anyone other than the rioters killed him; that's your own irrelevant synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting regarding abbreviations of Washington, D.C.

It looks like there hasn't been any discussion or precedent set about whether or not "Washington, D.C." should be abbreviated to "DC" or "D.C." Both abbreviations are used throughout the article. Personally, I'm in favor of "D.C." as it corresponds more with the full name and would possibly prevent confusion. Sewageboy (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article about it is Washington, D.C., so absent some other WP:MOS guidance, I would assume that. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "D.C." per parent article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S. president had ordered an attack against the Capitol"

I didn't listen to Trump's complete speech, but I suspect that that language is probably too strong. The source says "incited". --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about this. Pres. Trump never used the phrase "Storm the Capitol" or things like that. "Incited" was the best word choice as he just added fuel to a fire. But surprisingly, he didn't actually advocate storming the Capitol during any part of the speech. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it says "ordered" now. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "ordered" is problematic at best, and flat-out misinformation at worst. It's also wholly unsupported by the citation. Fixing this now. — Czello 13:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edit conflicted with you as you were removing it. I was going to do the same. Good call; source text does not say "ordered", it says "incited" which is the same as what the rest of the sources say, and what the article already says. --Jayron32 13:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information about the Indian flag at Capitol Hill and what's the point of painting all Indians as Trump supporters?

The media tried to paint that flag waver as a Hindu nationalist but it turned out he was a Catholic man from Kerala. Tharoor, without knowing the name of the person tweeted and that thing is added here. It turns out that man is a BJP hater and Congress and Tharoor supporter but it is not mentioned here. No mention of the guy's name either and surprisingly, stuff are added to show that Hindus support Trump. Is this not false information and gaslighting of a community? How is this allowed on Wikipedia?Krish | Talk To Me 11:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS (https://www.thequint.com/news/world/us-capitol-hill-siege-indian-tricolour-vincent-xavier-palathingal-donald-trump) doesn't say the man is a Congress supporter, quite the opposite actually. His only professed Indian political stance is anti-communist, which could very well describe any right-wing party in India. His American politics is mainstream Trumpist. However, taking his views as representative of the general Indian population is WP:FRINGE and connecting it to Modi's Trump support reeks of WP:SYNTH. Since foreign leaders' reactions aren't entertained on this page, that entire section doesn't belong. 202.8.114.229 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant. I would like to notify Jayron32, the editor whose reply (most recent) I found on this page.Krish | Talk To Me 14:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? I have not edited, nor have I had anything to do with, the text in the article to which you refer. I hold no opinion on, nor do I have any additional information, regarding the information about Indian people in the article, so I am not sure why you think I did? Can you explain what you want me to do? --Jayron32 15:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 Sorry. I did not mean to say that you added those points. I was not clear above. I actually meant that "I would like to notify Jayron32 who has been replying & discussing on this talk page. I wanted you to look at the additions because you were frequently replying to every post discussion on this page and yours was the only recent replies to those posts which pointed towards you being online. That's all. I wrote a confusing statement above while pinging you. Anyways, the issue has been fixed. Sorry for the confusion.Krish | Talk To Me 15:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK can we have three RS about this so we can asses what they say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this whole paragraph. One of the sources cited is an op-ed from September 2019: op-eds should be avoided for statements of fact, and since that predates the Capitol insurrection is this is OR anyway. As for the rest, I don't think it meets the due-weight test at all. Neutralitytalk 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the misinformation. On a side note, the flag bearer said he was representing Indian Americans while the articles made it into Hindu nationalist and "Modi supporters also support Trump" thing. How can editors come to conclusion on their own based on Twitter opinions and speculations? Hindus have nothing to do with this incident and yet were being blamed in the article. Thanks again for correcting this in the article.Krish | Talk To Me 15:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is far too long!

This is a very heavily edited article at the moment, and I'm not very well versed in the subject, so I'm not going to fix it right now, but the lede is far too long. Maybe I'll summon the strength to hack at it over the weekend, though. --Slashme (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems of an appropriate length commensurate to the article length. As noted at WP:LEAD, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. and "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." It does say that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." (bold mine), a "paragraph" being an imprecise unit of length anyways, the current one is 6 paragraphs, but what is there is fairly tight and doesn't have anything I would consider bloat. It seems just about right to me. --Jayron32 14:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is great, informative and not too big. I would only exclude last phrase ("The following day it became known that senate majority leader Mitch McConnell supports impeachment of Trump"). Do you really believe he will bring this to Senate and support? But even if he will, this is hardly for the lead as something actually uncertain at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why Pelosi?

At the end of the second paragraph, the following is stated: "and attempted to locate lawmakers to take hostage and harm, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Pence, the latter for refusing to illegally overturn Trump's electoral loss." While an explanation is given as to why the mob would want to harm Pence, there is no explanation for why Pelosi would be a target of their ire. When I click on the biographical article about Pelosi, it does not mention that she is a particular target of alt-right vitriol. Is there something we are not explaining here? Or perhaps the mob simply targeted these two individuals in their capacities as the presiding officer of each house?--Bhuck (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pelosi has been the biggest target of alt-right vitriol almost unabated since she first became speaker of the House. If you hadn't noticed that, you haven't been paying attention. You don't see it in the Wikipedia article about her perhaps because Wikipedia is not the place to repeat such silliness. --Jayron32 14:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the factual veracity of your statement, I agree, and of course I noticed it—but I think it odd to suppress facts instead of stating them because they are deemed to be „silliness.“ The one-sided explanation giving reasons only for Pence, but implying that it is perfectly natural to want to harm Pelosi, still seems to need explicit justification.—Bhuck (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue against judging the motives or the morality of the protestors regarding Pelosi. There is still much we don't know regarding her involvement in the election fraud and, therefore, the actions of the protestors cannot be judged as morally right or wrong. Likewise, to state the the attempts to overturn a dubious election as "illegal" is loaded and highly NPOV. Morphoditie (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not advocating judging the motives or the morality of the protestors. The current phrasing in the article attributes motives in the case of Pence, but does not attribute motives in the case of Pelosi. I believe that both should be treated similarly, with or without attribution of motives. There is also a distinction between attributing motives and judging the morality of the motives. Theoretically, we could write: "including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for reasons which are unclear, and Pence, for refusing to overturn Trump's electoral loss." (not including a judgment as to whether the attempt to overturn the loss was legal or not) -- or, more absurdly, we could write "...for reasons which are unclear because the only evidence that she might be a target of alt-right vitriol has been judged to be silly and not worth mentioning here..." but that is probably not going to be the basis for a consensus here. What we should not do is have motives ascribed for harming Pence, but ascribing no motives for harming Pelosi, as if harming Pelosi would require no explanation.--Bhuck (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit reasons should be given when available. If sources show that the rioters were targeting Pence for refusing to overturn Trump's loss, we should say so. If sources show that the rioters were targeting Pelosi, but do not give clear indications of why, then we should say that they were targeting her and not attempt to explain it. --Khajidha (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems very reasonable. I examined the sources attached to the sentence in question. Two are very lengthy videos, where it is not clear exactly what part is being referenced. All but one (the Australian one) refer only to Pence, saying that rioters wanted to hang him, but giving no reasons. The final source mentions that rioters wanted to hang Pence "for being a traitor" and wanted to run over Pelosi with a car, but give no motivation for this desire (perhaps to improve tire traction?). Is it appropriate for us to make the connection between "being a traitor" and "refusing to overturn Trump's loss", or does that constitute "original research"? I think maybe the best solution would be to break the statement up into two sentences, along the lines of "Rioters wanted to hang Pence for refusing to comply with Trump's wishes. They also targeted Pelosi." Does that seem like a reasonable approach? By not being in the same sentence anymore, the lack of an explicit motivation becomes less glaring.--Bhuck (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too long and rambling

This article has grown to absurd size. It is significantly bigger than the article on WW2, or Jesus Christ, or ... pretty much anything. I suggest perhaps that the long rambling parts containing opinions of everyone be moved off to their own articles, probably at lest the aftermath and reaction sections at the very least. Thoughts?Dacium (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much detail that needs to be trimmed, not expanded into separate articles. --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This happens with developing stories, per WP:RECENTISM. It’ll probably stay like this for a while until the event dies down. Trim some now, some more fluff or long quotes will arrive in a week. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WW2 and Jesus each have myriad related articles that cover the entire topic. This event is currently only covered in one article. Over time, parts of it may be split off into other articles. Other parts may be deleted or trimmed. There's no deadline. AlexEng(TALK) 20:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to start spinning off and/or removing content ASAP. It's clear we've got a historic event akin to the September 11 attacks on our hands, and we don't have the appropriate amount of articles and content that cover its entire scope. Love of Corey (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not anywhere near comparable to September 11th... for one, the death toll is at less than 1% of the 9/11 attacks, for two, the 9/11 attacks were a coordinated attack which involved foreign nationals as opposed to domestic actors, and the 9/11 attacks resulted in many more consequences than this ever will (the US will never torture or kill [without trial] US citizens as happened after 9/11 with foreign nationals suspected of involvement).
Please do not equate this to 9/11 again - it is insensitive to the people directly affected by such event (who number in the hundreds of thousands) to equate what in comparison is a pissing contest to such event. I agree this is signifcant and may need some other articles in the future. But do not hyperbole it to 9/11 level of significance. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Drawing parallels to 9/11 are absurd and wholly inappropriate. The fact that people are making such parallels, itself reeks highly of WP:RECENTISM whipped up by a media and political frenzy, and a pertinent reminder that controversial decisions regarding content should not be made during the controversy itself. Regards. RandomGnome (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Army investigating officer who led group to Washington rally

Don't know if this info has been covered, or should be, but putting the source link here.

Army investigating officer who led group to Washington rally

— Maile (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is all that relevant, its one officer (who by the way has already resigned as a result of a warning over an earlier dmemo.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's speech at rally preceding the riot

There have been a few attempts to remove, or to water down, the statement:

Trump's speech, replete with misrepresentations and lies, inflamed the crowd

For example, this was recently changed to:

CNN wrote that Trump's speech was "filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd".

But this is improper. It is a fact, reflected in many reliable sources, that Trump's speech contained lies and falsehoods and inflamed the crowd. It is improper to give in-text attribution in this context, because it inaccurately suggests that this is just one view, rather than an accepted reality that the sources unanimously agree on:

  • Liptak, Kevin; Stracqualursi, Veronica; Malloy, Allie (January 7, 2021). "Trump publicly acknowledges he won't serve a second term a day after inciting mob". CNN. Trump, who has repeatedly refused to concede the election, on Wednesday egged on his supporters who would later breach the US Capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from counting the electoral votes cast in the 2020 presidential election. ... After a speech filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd, Trump returned to the White House to watch a violent crescendo to his constant spreading of misinformation about the electoral process
  • Morris, David Z. (January 7, 2021). "'We will never concede': How Donald Trump incited an attack on America". Fortune. At the rally, Trump delivered the same inflammatory rhetoric and false claims that have characterized his entire presidency. For most of an hour, the reiterated claims that the election had been stolen – claims which have been rejected as unfounded by at least 59 courts, including many headed by Trump-appointed judges....Trump also repeatedly intimated that his followers should take action. Near the beginning of his speech, Trump even made what appeared to be an indirect threat to Vice President Mike Pence, who, Trump incorrectly told his supporters, had the power to overturn the Nov. 3 election results....As the speech continued, Trump edged ever closer to calling for direct action by his supporters.
  • Rucker, Philip (January 6, 2021). "Trump's presidency finishes in 'American carnage' as rioters storm the Capitol". The Washington Post. Trump made a fiery last stand and incited his supporters to storm and sack the U.S. Capitol as part of an attempted coup...At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, meanwhile, Trump addressed his rally crowd at the Ellipse, with the White House as his grand backdrop. He began with a lie, declaring that there were hundreds of thousands of people there; attendance was far smaller. Then another: 'They rigged an election, they rigged it like they've never rigged an election before. ... We won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.' In fact, Biden won with 306 electoral college votes to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by 7 million votes, or a 4.5 percentage point margin. As he concocted his fantasy about the election, ticking through one baseless or debunked claim of fraud after another, Trump vowed, 'We will never concede.'
  • "Trump's Falsehood-Filled 'Save America' Rally". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. January 6, 2021. Prior to the violence that disrupted Congress' counting of the electoral votes, President Donald Trump gave an indignant speech filled with falsehoods about the presidential election he lost two months ago to Democrat Joe Biden. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  • "How one of America's ugliest days unraveled inside and outside the Capitol". Washington Post. January 9, 2021. During his speech, Trump reiterated multiple falsehoods, claiming the election was rigged and that Democrats had committed voter fraud. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

We have an obligation to state facts as facts. Our official policy is that "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice" and that we reject false balance, presenting context its its "proper context" as governed by the "beliefs of the wider world." --Neutralitytalk 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing information with tone. The article already states that Trumps claims about election fraud were false. The article already states that the crowd was incited by Trump's speech. The specific phrasing we choose to represent that information is different than the information itself; the information depends on sourcing, the specific wording and tone used in conveying that information depends on other factors, including choosing specific terms and phrasing that is appropriate to an encyclopedia article; which is different and distinct from other forms of written communication. See WP:TONE among other parts of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and the MOS. --Jayron32 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any of that content elsewhere in the "Save America March" section at all, and that doesn't address the improper use of in-text attribution/quotation here. In any case, I see no issue with stating the facts dispassionately and straightforwardly: the march preceding the rally was filled with inflammatory lies (or falsehoods). That statement doesn't endorse or rejecting a particular point of view; it states the facts. If the text at issue was something like "the mendacious speech dripped with perfidious lies" you might have a point about tone. But we state the facts as facts straightforwardly, without improperly distancing ourselves from them. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to repeat every part of the article all over the place. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section is the first time where BOTH things (the falseness of his claims and the fact that the mob was directly influenced and encouraged by him), as well as several other places in the article. If it needs to be mentioned in the Save America Rally section as well, perhaps, but we should make sure to get the tone correct. "Replete with lies" is vague and emotionally laden language. Instead, something like "During the Rally, Trump re-iterated many of the false claims he had made about election fraud". It DOES however, mention in the very first sentence of the next section that the crowd was "instigated by Trump". For narrative flow I'm not sure we can take that sentence out and move it elsewhere, and I don't know that we need to be repetitive as saying it twice in short succession. --Jayron32 17:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have restructured the speech section with some new additions (including to cut a block quote and add some content from NYT and WaPo annotated version of the speech) and reorganization. I don't think at all that "Replete with lies" is emotionally laden, but the new text includes a reworded version that modifies that text. See if you like it. If you want to cut redundancy out of other sections, I would not object, but I think when we are talking about the speech's content and effects, we need to put that material in the section on the speech. As for the lead section, that is of course supposed to reflect the body of the article. Neutralitytalk 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections, and think the whole section is much improved. Thanks! --Jayron32 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Neutralitytalk 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NY times mentioned that the barriers were breached 20 minutes before the end of the presidents speech. After that, the crowd departed for the Capitol.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

I have a simple request. I would like to know how many people attended the Trump "Save America" Rally prior to walking on the capital. I would also be interested to know how many people lay siege to the Capital building and enter the building.

I have Googled these question and the only information that comes up is in regard to the organizers of the rally increasing the permit from 10K to 30K a day or so prior. Thank you. 109.76.159.210 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the people who patrol this talk page do not have special information that you don't also have access to through the research you've tried through Google. Those values, if they were known, would likely already be in the article. --Jayron32 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The talk page of a Wikipedia article is for discussion about the article, not for general discussion or questions about the subject of the article. You're welcome to ask your question at the reference desk, but other than that Wikipedia is not set up to answer specific questions about article subjects. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this article should answer these kinds of questions! Mcfnord (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An IDEA:
find video coverage at broadcast and cable news sites, and online video sites and watch it all.
I have a simple request is a difficult research task.
Have fun with the heavy lifting.
....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (2)

At the end of the section labeled "Suspensions of other social media accounts", add paragraph:

On January 11, Ron Paul, a former presidential candidate, indicated via Twitter (@RonPaul) that Facebook had begun preventing him from managing his own page. Paul's post read "With no explanation other than 'repeatedly going against our community standards,' @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.'"

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ron-paul-blocked-from-accessing-facebook-page-over-violating-community-standards/ar-BB1cEZwR Freedom20082020 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It is not obvious to me how this relates to the subject of the article. Melmann 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: There is a pattern of administrative action against high-profile parties, most notably against the current President since this event. I suspect Wikipedia has a page about high-profile access restrictions where this coverage would be appropriate. Mcfnord (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislature stormings

See also has
See also previously had

Other recent stormings of legislatures:

Historical stormings:

both seem unsatisfactory, any comments? ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely back the creation of a broad list of attacks on legislatures as suggested by Neutrality. Love of Corey (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single picture in the infobox is from inside the building

From a visual standpoint, the article, and the infobox in particular, do not provide a comprehensive overview of what took place.

The events that took place inside are what give this event most of its significance, so I'd like to understand why the infobox only shows the rally and rioters outside the building. To someone with no prior knowledge of the event, the current infobox pictures make it seem as if the 'storming' was basically of the outside stairs/balconies, and do not convey that the rioters penetrated all the way to the Senate chamber.

I believe that at least one of the following three pictures should be added to the infobox: rioter in the Senate chamber holding zip-ties (to convey what some rioters' intentions were); lawmakers crouched for safety (to convey the imminent danger they faced); mass of rioters charging through the building (to convey the magnitude of the breach inside). These need to be included in the infobox and not relegated to halfway down the article. Z117 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea... assuming you can find these images under the appropriate license... Thrakkx (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a license for any of these photos? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a riot and it wasn't a storm it was an Insurrection according to the American government.

Time to change the headline

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-news-01-12-21/h_ff48d5c57b86031716423f4c0b8b9940

--Caffoti (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are already multiple ongoing debates about the naming of this article, including at the top of this page. Please contribute to that discussion rather than start a new one. — Czello 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Newsweek, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are calling it a "violent riot".[1]
  1. ^ "Joint Chiefs issue rare political rebuke, remind armed forces of oath to "defend" the Constitution". Newsweek. 2021-01-12. Retrieved 2021-01-13.
What do you think? Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quoted wrong!?

Please excuse my disturbing of your discussion, but I think the last part of this sentence is wrong: Speaking in Congress immediately following their return to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" and affirmed that Trump's claims of election fraud were false. At the time of me writing it is this version: Old ID = 999985687. I just saw McConnells speech in its unedited form on C-SPANs original YouTube-channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PWnyvYVVI Or could you point to the precise position in this video where McConnell "affirms that Trump's claims of election fraud were false"? Thank you! 77.118.162.133 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the sentence doesn't appear to be sourced or match content elsewhere in the article, so it probably should be removed.
(I think two different speeches by McConnell on that date may have been conflated. The Mitch McConnell article describes two different speeches with separate references.) 2600:8801:8203:600:936:E7F4:746:369 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the full transcript below from CSPAN. (All statements said as part of Congress are public record and thus public domain.) He didn't necessarily say Trump's claims were false. However that could be an interpretation based on his statements about how Congress was there honoring and formalizing the will of the American People, that interpretation feels a bit WP:OR for my taste.  Second opinion requested ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't directly quoting McConnell with the line that he "affirms that Trump's claims of election fraud were false." We don't need to source that as a direct quote. We should be consulting secondary sources to see if that matches their description of what he said. Knope7 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell Speech Transcripts

I want to say to the American people the United States senate will not be intimidated. We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs, or threats. We will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation. We are back at our posts. We will discharge our duty under the constitution and for our nation. And we're going to do it tonight. This afternoon, congress began the process of honoring the will of the American people and counting the Electoral College votes. We have fulfilled the solemn duty every four years for more than two centuries. Whether our nation has been at war or at peace, under all manner of threats, even during an ongoing armed rebellion and the civil war, the clock work of our democracy has carried on. The United States and the United States Congress have faced down much greater threats than the unhinged crowd we saw today. We've never been deterred before, and we will be not deterred today. They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the congress. This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation. Not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will. Now, we assembled this afternoon to count our citizens' votes and to formalize their choice of the next president. Now we're going to finish exactly what we started. We'll complete the process the right way by the book. We'll follow our precedents, our laws, and our constitution to the letter. And we will certify the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Criminal behavior will never dominate the United States Congress. This institution is resilient. Our democratic republic is strong. The American people deserve nothing less.

— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 2
(added by ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
(Thanks Gwennie, I manually added proper capitalization. 77.118.162.133 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

We're debating a step that has never been taken in American history. Whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a presidential election. I've served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I've ever cast. President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. I supported the President's right to use the legal system, dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms all across our country, but over and over, the courts rejected these claims, including all-star judges whom the President himself has nominated. Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity, and of course, that's unacceptable. I support strong state-led voting reforms. Last year's bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm. But my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election. Nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence. The constitution gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a National Board of Elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the states have all spoken. They've all spoken. If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. This election actually was not unusually close. Just in recent history, 1976, 2000, and 2004 were all closer than this one. The Electoral College margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We would never see the whole nation accept an election again. Every four years would be a scramble for power at any cost. The Electoral College, which most of us on this side have been defending for years, would cease to exist. Leaving many of our states with no real say at all in choosing a president. The effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. Self-government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground rules of our system. We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes with a separate set of facts and separate realities. With nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share. Every time, every time in the last 30 years that Democrats have lost a presidential race, they have tried to challenge just like this. After 2000, after 2004, after 2016. After 2004, a senator joined and forced the same debate, and believe it or not, Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Hillary Clinton praised, praised and applauded the stunt. Republicans condemned those baseless efforts back then, and we just spent four years condemning Democrats' shameful attacks on the validity of President Trump's own election. So look, there can be no double standard. The media that is outraged today spent four years aiding and abetting Democrats' attacks on our institutions after they lost. But we must not imitate and escalate what we repudiate. Our duty is to govern for the public good. The United States Senate has a higher calling than an endless spiral of partisan vengeance. Congress will either override the voters, overrule them, the voters, the states, and the courts for the first time ever, or honor the people's decision. We'll either guarantee Democrats' delegitimizing efforts after 2016 become a permanent new routine for both sides or declare that our nation deserves a lot better than this. We'll either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of an election actually accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic courage that our forebears showed not only in victory but in defeat. The framers built the Senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our Republic. So I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the states on this extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it.

— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 1
(added by 77.118.162.133 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Removal of the year 2021 in the title.

As can be told by the article itself, the Capital has not been occupied previous to the storming, except for the Burning of Washington. That led me to think, we don't call the Burning the "1814 Burning of Washington", so why do we call this storming the "2021 Storming"

I think the "Storming of the United States Capitol" is a far better title, and until another event like it takes place, I recommend we forego the year in the title.

I do not know how to formally request a page move from Wikipedia mobile, if someone else could do that for me, I'd appreciate it. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested grammar correction

Hi,

I found a grammar error in the article.

Under "Damage, theft, and impact":

"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces was tracked into several hallways."

It should be:

"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces were tracked into several hallways."

I would appreciate someone with edit permission making this correction. Thank you! :)

Done. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I see that someone reverted the edit. I would like to point out that the word feces is in fact plural. It is one of the rare English words that is always plural. The correct word is were. Citation: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feces --Corrupt Cactus
From the Wiktionary page you linked to: "This word can be used with plural verbs ("feces have a strong smell") or singular ones ("feces has a strong smell"). Use with plural verbs is more common, especially in Britain, and is the only use recognized by some dictionaries,[1] while others recognize both plural and singular use." --Khajidha (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melania section lacks

There have been several accounts in the press of Melania's staff pleading with her to talk to Trump during the rioting and her ignoring them. Immediately following the events her chief of staff resigned. Can someone get some of this detail into this! The section seems so bland as it is that it feels like something that should be edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:5CA6:C093:537:EEB6 (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. --87.170.207.193 (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Change title to "Storming of the United States Capitol". The US Capitol has never been stormed before (burned once, yes), so the year is not relevant. Hopefully, the new title would stick through the years. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no Invalid and  Denied — This is not a move request. If it was, it would be denied, as we aren't considering move requests currently per consensus. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was against adding Trump's name to the title. If you go up a little bit, you'll see a two (with me, three) person consensus for this title. 64.190.226.125 (talk)
The consensus that you can see if you go through the archives is after the initial huge 200+ response community survey on the issue, this name was selected and the community has procedurally-rejected all move requests since then as too soon. After this article stabilizes and a WP:COMMONNAME develops, perhaps, but not now. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested split in 4 parts

This article could be split in 4 parts:

  • Storming of the United States Capitol (the year is not needed, because it is the only one)
  • Reactions to the storming of the United States Capitol
  • Aftermath of the storming of the United States Capitol
  • Proposal to remove Trump for his role in the storming of the United States Capitol

That would result in more readable, and more easily editable parts.--Robertiki (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should have this conversation later after the chaos dies down and the frequency of new additions to this article decreases drastically SRD625 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SRD625, the article is becoming difficult to edit and unwieldy. This is the perfect time to split the article, as it already hasn't solidified. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could at least split away all that follows the history of the event, starting from the reactions section (to a reactions and aftermath article ?). --Robertiki (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robertiki, A lot of recent editing is also condensing sections. I wonder how it will compare after such. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mostly white men

We have a section waaaay down there about capitol protesters being "mostly white men".

This seems kinda basic Who stuff. Second paragraph stuff.

We say what they did, and what they wore. We say what flags they waved. We say what they yelled. But we don't say until waaaay later that mostly white men did this.

If mentioning this much sooner is contentious, why? Mcfnord (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfnord, you can read WP:RAE for more details, but essentially unless it's absolutely necessary for Wikipedia to mention, it's best practice we steer clear of race. They can function as a WP:LABEL with WP:NPOV insinuations.
If it is crucial to mention for some reason, then we better also have very good sourcing and analysis of the issue. We're still going through RFCs to decide whether or not referring to the insurrectionists as "domestic terrorists" and what they did as "domestic terrorism" across the board and not just "they're been described as <x> by <ref>". ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it's best practice we steer clear of race." really? even when it is self-evident that this was a white nationalist demo with a significant showing of various far-right, racist, anti-BLM factions? Call a spade a spade. Acousmana (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is probably appropriate to mention race in this case, as there were Confederate flags involved, which are racially charged emblems. I think the "good sourcing and analysis of the issue" is probably doable, and would encourage someone to take on this project. Whether mention of gender is appropriate or not, I don't know. In the video footage I saw, while women were not represented proportionally to their representation in the population as a whole, they were not rarer than they are in a number of other roles not traditionally ascribed to women, such as on corporate boards or in the military.--Bhuck (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Previous discussion for reference / "The article needs to state who was there: mostly White men"

Is this currently noted in the article?

From WaPo [39]

"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 [40] (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 [41] and White Americans [42] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPR also mentioned it: Now, the rioters, mostly white men, they left many clues, the video and photos that they posted of themselves while they were at the Capitol or afterwards. [43]
Wall Street Journal: The Capitol was more heavily guarded for recent Black Lives Matter protests than Wednesday’s demonstration, where Trump supporters were mostly white men. [44] — Chrisahn (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News: "...a crowd of what appeared to be mostly White protesters..." [45] — Chrisahn (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've now got enough sources (with diverse political leanings) to support the claim (and its relevance) that the protesters were mostly white men. I added the information to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Accusations of differential treatment section. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has a very long talk with others on Wikipedia about mentioning the color of people, it should ONLY (Please note the word only) be mentioned when 2 opposing political spectrum RS (Example being New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) mention it. An admin months ago gave me this piece of advice when I unintentionally began a very long and painful discussion about this topic on another thread...Bad enough to spread into 2 different admin noticeboards for warnings to various editors. So if we can find opposing political RS's that mention that, then we should add it. If only one political RS side (Meaning multiple liberal or multiple conservative) is mentioning it, then do not add it. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply incorrect. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT say nothing about needing 1 source from "the left" and 1 from "the right"; that would be a huge problem for Wikipedia if it were true. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Somedifferentstuff: It isn't in Wiki policies. Just going to be honest though, if every single "left" source says "White men" but every single "right" source doesn't, what do we do? We would have conflicting RS at that point. Again, this topic is not in Wiki policies...which is why that discussion I talked about earlier was painful and had multiple admin noticeboards for warnings to different editors. The admin said and I will quote it. "you appear to have a fairly strong bias in the area of race in the US that may make you likely to push certain points of view. I suggest you default to using the Walt Street Journal as your reality check on whether or not race is pertinent in a given article. If WSJ is noting someone's race, you can be assured that is not "creating a version of racism." Another editor mentioned this right after "Just a note, if anyone's going to use the Wall Street Journal as a reality check, just make sure it's the Journal's news reporting, which is justly acclaimed, and not its editorials, which can be seriously biased. A good doublecheck would be to look at The New York Times or The Washington Post to see what they do. While both are mildly liberal editorially, their news operations, like that of the Wall Street Journal, are first class." and the admin agreed to that. (All those quotes were from an admin board notice). So in short, no it isn't Wiki policy, but if we don't do that, it will end up causing more "discussions" (arguments) in the future on this talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what these people said but it is not true. WP:RSN discusses and decides what sources qualify as WP:RS; there's nothing more. But we are now off-topic of the above discussion so post on my talk page if you want to continue this discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this isn't off-topic. The entire discussion is about "Would stating color of people in this article be a good idea". We both laid out our opinions backing them up. This discussion defiantly belongs here instead of a talk page. (We can talk more in future 1 on 1 in a talk page discussion, but the discussion we have had so far is perfect for this overall discussion). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is here (it's hatted and viewable). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found a Wall Street Journal source saying "mostly white men". See above. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somedifferentstuff is correct. While having a wide range of sources would be lovely, it is by no means necessary. On issues of race and gender, I would encourage sticking to higher quality sources (e.g., NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, CNN, NPR, BBC) and avoiding some of the more clickbaity ones (e.g., HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, Vox, Vice). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protected Edit Request

In the second paragraph of the lede there is a phrase "assaulted and killed Capitol Police police officers". This implies that the rioters both assaulted and killed multiple police officers. I think that this should be rephrased to avoid giving people the impression that more than one officer died, which is false. The text can be rephrased to either:

  • not mention the killing

or

  • say "assaulted police officers, resulting in the death of one officer".

There is another issue that may have to be rectified in the same paragraph. The phrase "a gallows" may have to be rephrased to avoid confusing non-native English readers (though I have no idea how we can rephrase the text without making it awkward). 45.251.33.25 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) last rephrased at 07:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the text is changed to "assaulted police officers; killing one" as for the gallows I can't think of a clearer rephrasal either. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we could use a parenthetical "(used to execute people by hanging them)" or something of the sort after the mention of the gallows. It's not perfectly encyclopedic, I'll grant you, but it would provide a quick clarification. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think "a gallows" would be confusing to non-native speakers? And wouldn't the link be enough to clear up any such confusion? --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link is sufficient to clear up any confusion around what is meant by "gallows"; we risk overloading an already lengthy and complex article if we start to explain every single term used. --Bhuck (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a" in front of a word that may be misunderstood to be plural would appear to be a basic grammatical mistake though it is not a mistake. But if we can trust readers to just click on the link and resolve any confusion they may have, then I suppose there wasn't any problem there. 45.251.33.25 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on "insurrection", but what title?

It seems that reliable sources have given the event a WP:COMMONNAME, which has been described as an "insurrection", not a coup or something else (see previous discussion). Before we make a potential move proposal, we should agree on the format of the title. Should it be 2021 United States Capitol insurrection, United States Capitol insurrection or neither?--WMrapids (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choices

Add an appropriate comment of support to only one of the two designated sections below.

While still recognizing WP:NOTAVOTE, it would be easier to see a possible consensus of comments using the following format: "# Support: example comment here "

Which looks like:

  1. Support: example comment here

If you do not support one of the two choices below, please participate in the discussion section so we can determine a consensus among ourselves.

2021 United States Capitol insurrection

  • Support. Although there may not have been many prior violent breaches, I'm fairly sure in its more than 200 year history you could find incidents at the Capitol that might be referred to as "insurrection", even if in a metaphorical sense. To ensure clarity and ground the title in time, I support including the year in the title, although I'm still undecided if I'd support "insurrection" over "storming" in a move rfc. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States Capitol insurrection

Discussion

Until there are multiple insurrections at the United States Capitol, I think it is redundant to specify that we mean the insurrection in 2021 instead of the 2022 insurrection. If we want to speculate on the possibility of future insurrections, we have no way of knowing whether we might need to distinguish the January 2021 insurrection from the May 2021 insurrection. So at this point, I see no need to specify 2021 at all, since I do not know of other insurrections at this location. That is different from the "Storming" situation, where there was an 1814 storming and a 2021 storming.--Bhuck (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Wikipedia:Article titles states that articles should be named based on Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. Also for anyone (like me) who needed to find out the differences between coup, insurrection and sedition CNN did an explainer. John Cummings (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-proposal – Insurrection at the United States Capitol (see: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral); example of this used in a headline, in own voice: Insurrection At The Capitol: Live Updates. There was already some support for this specific name during the original move discussion. IMO this is by far the most encyclopedic name. Alalch Emis (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's too early to determine there is a common name so in the meantime it's best to keep what we have. Insurrection is probably incorrect because it implies "an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds."[46] Hence the Upper Canada Rebellion is described in the lead as an insurrection. Armed militia planned to arrest members of the government and declare a republic with themselves in charge, but were quickly defeated. That didn't happen here. TFD (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put 2021 in the title SRD625 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FBI issued internal warning of 'war' at Capitol the day before the riots

The FBI issued a dire internal warning on the day before the Capitol riots that violent extremists were planning an armed uprising.

Contradicting earlier statements that they were caught off guard.--87.170.207.193 (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of police officer

Death of secret service or Metro Police officer or Capital Hill officer? 180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States Capitol Police Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that. I heard that another officer dies later from his injuries. Can this death also be added to the infobox?180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike pence??

In the opening paragraph, it says "Hang Pence". This does not make sense. Mike is Republican, like Trump. 180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet that's what happened. The mob saw Pence as a betrayer. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, betrayer!180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pence refused to give Trump a second term as president, for some reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

I've created the redirect 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but should this point to a specific section or display links to the domestic and international pages (serving as a sort of disambiguation page)? Another thing to consider: should we merge the domestic and international reaction pages into this one? Food for thought. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1000101427"