The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The page's title was decided by this move request to be 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Further to the above, I've moved the discussions on the title prior to the move request here; please contribute there rather than here. Sceptre (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
"Rally" title?
Extended content
Resolved
Is this really a "rally" as the article title suggests? A rally usually refers to a lawful gathering of citizens and is largely peaceful. This is an unlawful protest and there are already reports of gunshots. We should consider moving the article to a "protest" or perhaps a "riot." AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Coup attempt" exaggerates or overstates the power of the actions to the protesters' benefit. Protest can be violent. It is slightly more accurate than "riot" in that the main purpose of this gathering is political. That you do not agree with them does not make them not protests. — Bilorv (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support - This is hardly a protest. Armed domestic terrorists carrying deadly weapons, waving flags, and shouting slogans attempted to storm a national institution over a free and democratic process in order to instigate an authoritarian regime. This maybe a riot at the least, if not an attempted coup. ZorpTheSurveyor — Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is obviously more than just a simple protest, it is a violent seizure of the capital in an attempt to install an unrecognized political power on the United States, that power being Trump as the next president. Drdak
Whatever what, it should not stay "2021 United States Capitol protests". There are sure to be multiple protests and demonstrations of some sort near/at the capitol in 2021. Could be renamed "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol protests", or something other than "protests", as has been suggested. SecretName101 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rename to 2021 United States Capitol riots
Extended content
These are riots, not protests. I'd like to suggest that this page be moved to 2021 United States Capitol riots. --Poklane 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I do need to find actual sources to support this, but: it seems that there is a group of peaceful protestors and a group of more destructive protestors present, who are acting separately, based on what I'm seeing, though this could be false. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team M (talk | worse talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest they are both, it seems that in these instances we go with 'protests'. I'm not really in agreement with that but it at least helps to be consistent. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with User talk:Mtaylor848. When there's ambiguity, we go with "protests" or "unrest".
I do agree with Poklane (talk) that the title should be changed to riots, as “protests” do not seem to do it justice, because raiding the capital is much more than just a protest, it is much more like a raid/riot. It may also be worth it to change it to raid. Just my opinion. --Bdub 604 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change name of article to "coup d'etat attempt"
Extended content
From what i can tell from the news these are no longer protests. It is a violent storming of the Capitol where lawmakers had to be herded into secure bunkers. There are reports of tear gas and shootings as criminals illegally enter the Capitol building threatening the lives of others.
This is obviously an attempted coup d'etat, not a protest. Do you guys think we should change the name of the article to reflect this, or does this come off as too biased or unfactual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.cal.69 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that The Hill is a reliable enough source and the fact several government members are using the terminology is certainly enough to justify renaming the article. zacthebard (zacthebard)
I can see why someone in the heat of the moment would describe it as a coup d'etat attempt, but we should wait until a consensus of reliable sources agree that the intent of the people storming the Capitol was to attempt a coup d'etat. "Coup d'etat" has a rather specific meaning that may not necessarily apply to this particular situation. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a third-world country, it would have been called a coup d'État seconds after happening, but because it's the US, it's just protesters exercising their free speech. 5.186.121.181 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parliaments get stormed more often then one would think; it's typically labeled as something else than coups d'état, depending on circumstances and so on. The act of storming the building would probably not have automatically been called a coup had it happened elsewhere. /Julle (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Defeinitely not a coup; a coup is led by the military. You could perhaps call it an 'attempted revolution' without being egregiously wrong, but we would still be playing very fast and loose. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the definition of a coup d'état attempt as stated by Wikipedia. This is the attempted "removal of an existing government from power" through "violent means." This is an "illegal" and "unconstitutional" attempt at "seizure of power" by a "political faction." A coup does *not* require the military. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under what definition is a coup only "led by the military"? Here's the actual definition of a coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." That's it. The word coup fits here, and calling it anything else is merely a racism-based defense of those involved. Had this been any other country, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But because it's white Americans, suddenly it's "not a coup" even though it fits the definition exactly? Reality does not work that way. This was a coup attempt, and the article should be titled so. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence[reply]
It should be noted that the AP is advising journalists to not refer to the events as a coup, as they do not see the objectives of the invasion as being overthrowing the government. Riots or insurrection seem more likely changes, but coup should not be considered. Spengouli (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A coup carries the connotations of a "stronger" action - for example, the Turkish Coup of 2016 saw attacks on multiple cities, with various media and state institutions falling under attack. The Soviet coup was well organized, with multiple organizations opposing each other across the scope of the entire country. In contrast, this was a relatively localized incident. And similar things have happened recently - the Armenian parliament was stormed after their defeat in November, nobody called it a coup [1]Nmurali02 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "2021 United States coup d'état attempt"
Extended content
Armed insurgents are storming the capital of the country... this is a coup and most media are calling it a coup.
this was going to be exactly my suggestion. So I second it. Several sources have reported that the intent was to burn the electoral college ballots. And this was at the urging of the sitting president attempting to maintain power. RobP (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From NYT: “This is what you’ve gotten, guys,” Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, yelled as the mayhem unfolded in the Senate chamber, apparently addressing his colleagues who were leading the charge to press Mr. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election. “This is what the president has caused today, this insurrection,” Mr. Romney furiously said later. RobP (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Move: 2021 United States Capitol insurrection
Extended content
This is not a fucking "storm" (whatever that is), and whoever titled this a "protest" should win the euphemism of the year award. Riot does not begin to cover the intent of overthrowing the American government and ending our 300-year tradition of democracy and installing Trump as un-elected dictator for life. The most appropriate words would be Insurrection, Putsch, or Coup.
OpposeSupport, I would expect an insurrection to be better organized, and as it stands it seems like a needlessly inflammatory term that does not appear to be used by any reliable sources for this event.--Beneficii (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC) I'm updating my vote, now that I see multiple media outlets using the term, even Biden.--Beneficii (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My only opposition was procedural, since when I wrote this we had four separate move discussions proposing moves to four different page titles, and I did not think we could hold a series of different active move discussions in different sections of the talk page. Having people support moves to multiple locations at the same time is incoherent; I thought it should be considered as an alternative proposal in one of the pre-existing discussions, which have already had numerous amendments offered in those discussions. I do not know how we will get consensus if multiple move discussions close as successful. But it looks like other people did not share that confusion, so fair enough, that's what discussion is for. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multiple reliable sources and highly notable public officials have used the term insurrection directly to refer to this insurrection.
Support As listed, this better fits described as an insurrection. We have not seen the likes of this in centuries and to simply call it a "protest" or even only a "storm" is mind-boggling to me. Nekomancerjade (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Protest is way too mild, but "Storming" doesn't seem specific enough. Multiple sources including Biden have also referred to it as an insurrection. Geekgecko (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Improper capitalization of "Insurrection." I do not think this was an insurrection, and neither do most reliable sources. As for sources provided by Ottoshade, Biden, Romney, and a CNN opinion piece calling it an insurrection does not make it factual. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe 8 people in the "storming" discussion below have spoken about this title, myself included. It's the most accurate. It's not a "storming" because most people are interested in staying outside, whether peacefully or not, and of those people, indeed, there are many who have chosen to remain peaceful. Insurrection will not force those who are not being violent to be included with those who are. My proposal: call it 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection and mention in-article the division, that there are a small group of the "protest" who have turned the effort into an insurrection, though they are just that, a small group within. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team M (talk | worse talk) 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calling it a protest in no way comes even close to describing what's happening. People, this is the United States Capitol being overrun by armed gunmen. The frickin United States! When was the last time something like that happened? And to call it a protest? Please... Matronator (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think this can be a term that appeases the need to compromise between "protests," which this is much more than, and "coup," which while I think this qualifies, has some connotations I can accept as unideal. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As one of largest anti-trump supporters we should hesitate to use POV terms. I would be fine with the term riot however Insurrection (in my view) isn't a good description of the events, we usually use this term for a extremely specifically overthrow. I think it would be best to entitle this to "2021 United States Capitol riots" instead. Best regards. Des Vallee (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was very clearly an insurrection, based on the definition of the word: "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government". User:Des Vallee, who are speaking for by saying "As one of largest anti-trump supporters"? PerhapsXarb (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is how PBS and other fairly impartial news outlets are describing it, and therefore the term seems pretty universally accepted. U-dble (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The words “protest” mislead readers because a raid on the capitol is much much more than a “protest”. I think that an “insurrection”, “Riot”, “Raid”, or “Coup” would all work. Bdub 604 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Insurrection. Protest is way too insufficient, riot is insufficient, but coup gives too much credit - coup has the connotation of a broader and better organized action with the seizure of multiple institutions simultaneously. Insurrection strikes the correct balance. 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Support. Calling it merely a "protest" only serves to normalize the nature of the event. Let's not mince our words - if numerous government officials and news sources (e.g. CNBC) calling it an insurrection, we should too. Shuvuuia (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The above pretty well covers why “insurrection” is a much more apt and precise description of the events than “protests”. Safesler07:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: 2021 United States Capitol incursion (or incursions)
Extended content
Throwing out another idea, with no preference on singular or plural. "Incursion" focuses (accurately) on the physicality of what's happening. A quick search online defines it as "an invasion or attack, especially a brief or sudden one." One advantage of "incursion" (or a similar tactical word) is to avoid politically-freighted terms about what is happening, such as protest, riot, coup d'etat, or insurrection. It's also kind of a synonym for "storming of" -- yet more elegant, Wikipedia-like, and sort of recognizing that today's events are not likely to have the same impact as the storming of the Bastille. Dss16 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know everything about this, just the media feed as it happens. Yes, I agree Trump's tweets are to blame, but we don't know if others have worked behind the scenes for this. We may not know all the background yet. Other factors may surface. I think there is possibly more unknown than known about this. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. News media seem to be converging on "insurrection" and "riot", but the situation is still developing and we should wait rather than wasting time on page moves while facts on the ground change. --Calthinus (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Things like this, of this magnitude, do not happen because some public figure shot their mouth off on one occasion, or even whined in tweets for weeks before. Or even a handful of occasions. This just seems too successful, with everyone seeming to be caught by surprise. And if there's one thing we've learned over the last 4 years, there are sometimes contributing factors that don't surface for years. We have time to wait, a day or two perhaps, and keep building the article. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that the current title is highly misleading, but it seems that there is still uncertainty around what happened. Lood1234 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Protest" is probably inadequate, but trying to define exactly what something like this is as it's happening is probably beyond us. /Julle (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(ish) Why not rename it to "Conflict" if it's going to take time to arrive on a consensus on what to rename it? I think renaming away from "Protest" should be a relative priority, since it's gone so far beyond that. NHCLS (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an armed white supremacist insurrection by a mob intent on overthrowing the incoming democratically elected government and installing God-Emperor Trump as dictator for life, motherfuckers! Open your eyes! Why some of you want this to be titled "rally", "protest", or "peaceful gathering of friends" is beyond me.108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Renaming this an insurrection should be the default response based on the reliable sources and plain meaning of an insurrection versus protests. Its title is simply misleading and incorrect. I can accept that further precision may be required later on. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Rename ASAP. There is overwhelming support for renaming in the actual, genuine, and only relevant discussion below. There's a healthy discussion on what the best name is and there are at least two quite good options. Either is okay. If one is better than the other, a subsequent rename is also just fine, and that, subsequent, rename can wait. Not this one. This one needs to happen now. If a rename is done now, there will never be going back to "protest" that is clear at least.
Support Wikipedia will ultimately use the WP:COMMONNAME that is determined over time and is compliant with normal WP practices (e.g., 2021 preface, etc.) for such events. No need to rush a change from an reasonably descriptive term that exists at this time.
As one who was inside my high school building in a prior decade when an organized "protest" (attended my many; with many merely protesting various events and public policies) was turned into a "riot" when a group of troublemakers joined and threw molotov cocktails against the building, I get how both events can happen in the same few hours. But we need not sully the many "protest"ers with the obviously smaller group that actually did the law-breaking and riotous behavior. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might even say days, but yes, this is currently an unfolding situation and we should see what the general consensus is before coming up with a more concrete name, as well as the above. Wikipedia isn’t a news source, it should be up-to-date, but we shouldn’t be worried about the title. The idea is to have it be what people can find to get information on it, not necessarily the best title with the most clickability. Sorry if that makes no sense I’m tired lol. —Bam.zander (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 6 January 2021 (coup attempt)
Extended content
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Wikipedia is a objective fact-based encyclopedia. Subjective opinions and feelings aren't tolerated. It is objectively not a coup, if that changes then it can be changed. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021
Might I suggest; 'Un(?)organized group of rowdy people who are doing VERY naughty things and should all go home and have a beer or something before this gets more out of hand'
“2021 Attack on US Capitol” should be the title
Extended content
It’s an attack, not a protest. And a violent one at that.
But calling it a ‘siege’ or a ‘coup’ (even failed) confers an undeserved level of notoriety, and those are also inaccurate descriptions as the terms have been used historically. Runnamucker (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it will need to include the specific date of the attack (Jan. 6) if they allow another.....
Disagree Only part of it is an "attack." This article is about more than the break-in of the capitol. It is a broader article about the protests in general. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Calling it a "protest" gives a misleading impression. A woman died, and the national guard in DC and three surrounding states had to be activated to restore order. It should certainly be changed to denote the violence. ThirdDolphin (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
United States Capitol protests Article name change
Extended content
My thoughts are that its unnecessary to call it "Storming" we need to keep wikipedia as bipartisan as possible and non hostile to our readers.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.188.131 (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Oppose for multiple reasons. Not used in reliable sources, "the" should generally not be in page titles, and the year should be before the event title, not after (and honestly, the year should probably be removed altogether, see my comments in the earlier discussion). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request to expedite renaming
Extended content
There is a clear consensus that protest is inadequate to describe these events, and more than enough people have weighed in to adequately represent the community. Considering the large number of views the article will receive early on, waiting a week to correct the name is a disservice to readers while not serving any discernible purpose.
For these reasons I want to encourage someone with the necessary agency to be bold and fix the name. If no clear front runner among the alternatives can be identified, picking any one of them will still be an improvement, and there is no harm in possibly fine-tuning with another move later on. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's unlikely very many people are even reading this article as neither the current name, nor the proposed alternatives, are very discoverable (the article is so new we won't have pageview statistics yet). WP has no WP:DEADLINE and is not a WP:NEWSPAPER. We can take our time and proceed deliberately over the next several months. Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this article is linked in the news section on the front page, so it probably is getting a decent number of views. – numbermaniac06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People just don't interact with WP this way. On Dec 30 2020 Aden attacks was on the main page. It got less than 40K views over three days. Considering the number of editors working on that page and going back to it repeatedly, this probably represented about 2,000 actual non-WP humans on the planet Earth that the news section drove to the article. Our editing shouldn't be influenced by concerns about how people sourcing articles for spot news will consume the information because WP just isn't really an important outlet for breaking news. Our focus should be on long-term quality and we should go as slowly as necessary to achieve it. Chetsford (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
several months? Nope. Requested Move discussions are generally open for 1 week; I assume this one will not be open as long as that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, I mean editors will undoubtedly be working on this article for many months and we can proceed deliberately over that time - not that the move discussion should go several months! Chetsford (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support All proposed titles are better than the current one, and there does seem to be agreement that the title should be changed. Skrelk (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I conceivably could be bold and make the change, but I don't want to yet. I oppose "protests" and oppose "storming", but support "2021 United States Capitol Siege" or "2021 United States Capitol Breach". Either way, I would rather that a clear alternative to the current name emerge. Matthias Winkelmann, what would you say the approval rating is for each of the frontrunner words is (i.e. what is the approval rating for "protests" versus "storming" versus "siege" versus "breach")? -- RobLa (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is malpractice to leave this at the original name for any longer. Discussions are typically left open a week or more to allow for adequate editors to come across it and reach a consensus: here we already have scores of voters with an overwhelming consensus to move. Reywas92Talk07:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calling it a riot or uprising fails to take into account peaceful Trump supporters at the building. We used the same logic to not call the George Floyd protests the George Floyd riots, because violent rioters do not take away from what peaceful protesters do. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did see them. That section is for discussions that have been closed, and none of them involved using the word "attack" in the name.--Beneficii (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lede has been somewhat buried, not in the article per se, but in the title of the article. What's important about the events of yesterday was not that there were protests, but the riot through the U.S. Capitol. I can understand why "insurrection" or "attempted coup" would not be used per WP:NPOV, but the article's title should clearly be "2021 United States Capitol riot". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention at the previous section, the apropriate title is 2021 Far-right attack at the US Capitol.
Whatever term RS use would be the best term, though we should wait for some time until they've more or less settled on one. (As far as I recall, as the terms are used and understood in English, a coup d'etat is an attack against the executive by another apparatus of the government, an autogolpe is an attack against the legislative by the executive, a mutiny is an attack against military authority by lower military authority, and an insurrection is an attack against the state by its citizens or some component thereof. But this is all dalliance as we don't have the editorial scope to independently select nomenclature, we have to chronicle what WP:RS say on the subject.)Majavah fastposted me! Chetsford (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC); edited 11:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's not clear that that is the right infobox to be using. It is not clear why certain names are included and others aren't. This is breaking news, obviously, and we should not be rushing to fit it into a template. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed the sides part of the infobox 'as per weight of support' with only 4 or 5 users even weighing in their opinion. I believe it's necessary to know the involved parties, and that the only problem was overcomplication. I think that it should be re-added, but kept simplified. Such as Pro-Trump protesters, and then just DC, VA, MD, NJ and the national guard or something? I'm not sure but I feel putting the involved parties in the infobox will help give a better overview. FlalfTalk00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this suggestion doesn't really cover the reason given by Bondegezou and DenverCoder9 for why they opposed it. Maybe you should make a sandbox version of this proposed change with citations so that it is a bit clearer and to try to resolve the issues. So far, I am in agreement with their responses. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest it should eventually be added back, but only after the dust has settled a bit and we can get a good sense of what happened from the sources. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 6 January 2021
Extended content
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.
This is perhaps the best attended RfC I've ever seen, some 200 !votes after less than 12 hours. Thanks to all who participated. I understand I am closing this quite early, but given the sheer volume of comment, it is unlikely that additional input will change the situation. Furthermore, the format of this RfC has gone off the rails, and there are now multiple sections for multiple names and folks are casting votes without a common format, so it will only get harder to close from here.
There is a clear consensus that the title should not be "2021 United States Capitol protests". The alternative was less clear. "Storming" seems to have a very rough consensus by !vote count and by the sources (at this time). A great many votes here were simply "I like it". That's not how we generally do things. Thankfully folks provided a policy driven reason: WP:COMMONNAME, citing the many major reliable sources that are using "storm" as their language. An option for "riots" or "insurrection" (among others) has also been floated, but the poor structure of their additions has not made them viable alternatives to the original, COMMONNAME proposal. I also note that very few sources were floated to back up "riot", and that it seemed to be the WP:OR interpretation of events by editors, along with terms like "coup". We say what sources say, and for the moment they seem to say "storming".
This is a stopgap measure, and is not meant to be a permanent solution. Once the issue calms down, I encourage folks to tackle this again. Please wait at least a week until further renaming, so that the media can agree on a WP:COMMONNAME. I also suggest that if an RM is going to have multiple options to use things like "Option A" or "Option 1", so that it is easier to close :) CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓08:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Wait to see what RS call it, say, tomorrow. Atm, I'm seeing "protests", not so much "storming". History is happening in real time and we should take a breath. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this gives the conspiracy theorists involved undue credit. Nothing has been "stormed". Protests have led to some Trump supporters entering the Capitol but they are not going to "take" it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support using coup or insurrection. As someone else stated, "storming" is too poetic; this is no romantic "Storming of the Bastille." This was also not simply a protest, and "2021 United States Capitol protests" is way too vague and will become outdated as soon as there is another protest at the Capitol this year, which is certain to happen. This is an article for the events of today (and the past few days for context), not a catch-all for all 2021 Capitol protests. Duey (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the statement that Duey made. We should call it like it is, a Coup d'état. The definition on the referenced page (as of now) is "the removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means." The attempts to disrupt the count was an attempt to prevent Joe Biden from taking office. I see no issue with calling it a Coup d'état. --MinerRo (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What Biden called it is completely irrelevant (I say this as a Biden voter). We go by reliable sources. Biden is not a reliable source. Tamwin (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On grounds that it is currently happening. Wait for the end of the week, when media coverage is less sensationalized. When things cool off it will be easier to see what really happened. Mulstev (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the fact they stormed the Capitol is surely going to be one of the most notable things about it unless something even bigger happens. "Protests" is too vague, I'm sure there's protests near the Capitol all the time. —ajf (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems to be the best description of the situation for now, although I suspect this will need reevaluation over the coming days. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stronger language seems to be necessary for what is going on. Still think this should be described as a coup attempt, but a Storming would also be an accurate description.District9123 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Particularly now that the article has been posted in the main page. Content regarding previous protests, or those taking in other states, can be merged or split into other articles. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on clerical reasoning -- the major media outlets seem to have converged on the this phrasing, and will likely reflect the term people are looking for when searching for information. SpurriousCorrelation21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is more than a "protest", stronger language is necessary: something like "insurrection" or "riot", I think, would be appropriate. GyozaDumpling (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An event done by a couple of dozen people is not comparable to the thousands of protestors. It's an important part that needs to be included but should not be the main focus. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what feed you were watching but there were literally hundreds of people that went inside the Capitol, and thousands more that breached the security perimeter outside. Benicio2020 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with alternative. This should be moved to 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection. As someone has already mentioned, the definition of insurrection much better fits what is taking place here. Whichever term Biden had used doesn't really have any bearing on this but that is helpful to know. I similarly oppose the term "storming", citing WP:NPOV; the word isn't supposed to be used here because not all of the protestors were also rioters. Compare the article on the Storming of the Bastille as someone stated above; everyone there was prepared for violence, while many, though not all decided to keep it peaceful at the Capitol. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team M (talk | worse talk) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection definition of insurrection: "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence". * Oppose "storming"; this word does not represent the full scope of the event, and whether Capitol was physically stormed in full sense of that word is questionable from my perspective. Also, as I'm typing this, Biden called it an insurrection. Alalch Emis (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNBC ("POLITICS National Guard will head to the Capitol to tamp down pro-Trump insurrection").
Business Insider ("Biden calls violent pro-Trump siege on US Capital an 'insurrection'").
Unlike what some say, some reliable sources have called it insurrection. These sources bear much more weight than sources containing the verb "storm" (and not the noun "storming") for the purposes of this discussion. This is what the media that is actually making a call on terminology predominantly going with, it's increasingly becoming clear. The media just saying "storm" in the headline has not yet made that call and relying on that to change the title to "storming" is premature. I can keep adding to the list of sources.
Facts of the event meet the definition of an insurrection: a group was present at an organized event (the protest which was organized), a radical element of that organized group which acted in unity with the whole of the group (the protesters who didn't enter but exerted pressure on the authorities with their presence, and they knew that Capitol would be breached), this radical element attempted to disrupt the government in a sensitive moment by severing constitutional continuity which "defeats" the government on an existential level, in order for the political faction they associate with to unlawfully remain in power when it would have lost power, and violence was used to this effect. And on top of it there were guns, and a woman was killed.
(edit conflict) Support Or even call it Insurrection as the news did. By definition it wasn’t a protest because their intent was to infiltrate the building and disrupt the constitutional process. Trillfendi (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This is an attempted coup. This is an insurrection. Call it what it is. I understand waiting a few days to finalize an answer, however do not romanticize this. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for at least the next few hours) – overly headlineish and doesn't reflect the content of the article, which also covers events leading up to the people entering the Capitol. Also oppose the various other alternatives proposed, for various reasons, with the same caveat. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for now - currently ongoing, and the current title can serve well for the next few days (or hours?) until we can see what more RS's call it. Seagull123 Φ 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to add that I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it later, as it seems clear this is more than a protest, but I think it would be better to wait a bit before moving it. Seagull123 Φ 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (at the moment). Let's wait a couple of days at least for any name change. The events are still in early development and the current title covers them well anyway. We still don't know where this will go from here. Maybe protests continue and the storming is only a facet of them, maybe violence scales up, maybe... we'll see. --MarioGom (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And now protesters stormed the Governor residence. 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is just not sufficiently descriptive of all the events going on during the protests. Also, for those arguing for the move that this is not a protest because they stormed the Capitol, I'd like to remind that Wikipedia (and reliable sources) routinely describe similar events as protests. --MarioGom (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The situation is still moving too quickly to decide what to call it. This is particularly true if it continues to include (as I think it should) the section on related events outside DC, and probably also material the attempted bombing(s), which I imagine should all be treated in one article. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The actions have gone way beyond "protest" criteria. They ran towards a building, broke windows, climbed in, and sent politicians running, all while armed. That is literally a storming.
Oppose, per GorillaWarfare. "Protest" is probably going to be inadequate, but waiting a little bit to see what terminology reliable sources end up using sounds like the best solution. (Risking, of course, that we to some degree might unwittingly end up influencing that to some small degree. But I see no way around that.) /Julle (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this has ceased to be a protest and does not deserve to be referred to as such. Keeping the title the way it currently is would be disingenuous to readers. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Comment To everyone calling it an "insurrection" or something similar: they don't seem to be well-armed, so if you do want to call it that, it's quite a poor attempt. Esszet (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-reply that's too high of a standard. There was violence, that's the bar that needs to be met, not that the group was armed, least of all well-armed. The definition of insurrection: "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence". That being said, some in the group were armed.
Reply No, that bar is too low, a bunch of people breaking into the Capitol and throwing rocks and things is not a serious attempt to overthrow the government. If there were firefights with police, alright, but this is a poor attempt at an insurrection at best. Esszet (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support can always rename it again later if the need arises. "Protests" were people waving sings outside; clearly the main focus of this article goes way beyond that. Media is referring to it this way too. Benicio2020 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using the verb storm and it's gerund by the media does not mean that they qualify the event substantively as "storming". BBC headlines do not use the verb storming as a noun, nor do most other headlines. Noun =/= verb.
Support At this time, the storming is the most notable event. If the violence spreads beyond the capitol building, I'd want to rename it a riot or split into multiple articles. --Furbybrain (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The main focus was the storming of the Capitol building however I think protests is a more descriptive term. I would be open to one which takes into account both storming and protests.Des Vallee (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Clearly a descriptive name, it appears the entire focus is based around the taking of Capitol Hill, therefor we should entitle it as such. Des Vallee (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose storming as both too emotive and not conclusive enough. While storming may be used to describe a part of the events, the total of the events are better described as riot, unrest or protests. I would support "riot".Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Protests" may describe some of what happened today, but when people invade the Capitol building with weapons, that is NOT a protest. That's an invasion. (At least one person has been killed.) "Attempted coup" or "riot" would be appropriate, but definitely not "protests". Brettalan (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calling it "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" is just stupid, it sounds like something that would be on an TV Movie of the Week, I would like to see it stay 2021 United States Capitol Protests. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Individuals stormed the Capitol and occupied it, and this is the most notable part of the event. "Storming" is the most accurate description of what the individuals involved did. --Aabicus (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support We seem to have dueling requests to move this page. NPR guidance is to call this an "insurrection". We should follow that. They stormed the Capitol. This is not a "protest". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as others have said, storming is an accurate description and the most significant aspect of the event. "Protest" doesn't accurately communicate the scope of what happened. Sectori (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To call it a mere "protest" is at odds with the facts. People can protest without violence. That was not the case here. Kablammo (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title, "protests", is grossly misleading. It's notable for being an attack on the capitol building, widely described as domestic terrorism or riots, not for being "protests" (which occur on a daily basis in DC). I would support "2021 attack on the United States Capitol" or "2021 Unites States Capitol terrorist attack" or similar wording as well. --Tataral (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the "riots" or "storming" formulation or "coup attempt". On the matter of "insurrection": Calling it the "Capitol insurrection" implies, by metonymy, that Congress rebelled against the legitimate government; in that case I'd much rather go with 2021 Capitol Hill insurrection. Sceptre (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - This event is still ongoing. Protest is obviously no longer the correct word, but I do not believe "storming" is a correct term either. "Storming" suggests that they successfully captured the Capitol, such as Storming of the Bastille; it has been confirmed that the National Guard was able to take back the Capitol. I believe there is a better word choice. I also believe that there may be other events that develop from this. NDfan173 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the aggression is the by far most significant and reported aspect of the event. Additionally, there is no shortage of sources calling i a "riot" – I've seen the exact use of "storming" in many of the sources linked above as well. The Floyd protests are uncomprable did not involve a significant occupancy of a major federal building in the US's capital. Aza24 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I mean perhaps we could wait a bit longer, but I fear as "protests" is an incredibly misrepresentation term for the scope of the event. I mean realistically this is the first time the Capitol building was breached since the British did in the War of 1812. Maybe riots could work too, but "protests" is strictly a euphemism in this case. - 18:24, 6 January 2021 (EST)
Oppose "storming", propose 2021 United States Capitol attack or 2021 United States Capitol assault. Storming is an euphemism here. If this had happened in Africa or South America, we might be talking about a coup or a putsch. Case it point: the storming of the Venezuela legislature in 2017 resulted in injuries to staff and legislators, and it is called 2017 Venezuelan National Assembly attack. As we speak, we have at least 1 - perhaps 2 - deaths related to the attack on the Capitol. Assault or attack seem appropriate here. Beisbol (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A person was shot and killed at the US Capitol, this is a bit more than being rowdy in my opinion. In Venezuela, protesters/rioters managed to get their hands on legislators, while at the Capitol people managed to evacuate and escape the mob. At the very least, it was an assault. Beisbol (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "protest" is relatively vague, most news articles describe it as storming or rioting to differentiate this event from other events. Catiline52 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. More descriptive. Sticks to what RS say. If RS begin to use harsher language, then the name can be changed again at a later point. What is clear is that simply saying "protests" is unacceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support either "storming" or "riots"; sources at their mildest refer to the event as both and seem to be in agreement that this is long past a rally or protest. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the word feels a little dramatic. GorillaWarfare put it well. I would support protests or riot or whatever we're calling rowdy protesters these days, but I think it is probably wise to wait a bit. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Recentism -- Too soon on all grounds. On true definition, Insurrection fits the bill, as this is an attempt to overthrow and object to the election results. OfficerManatee (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support any move, and suggest speedy close (can always relitigate later) as "protests" is clearly no longer accurate. Lightly prefer nom's "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" title but the suggested "riots" variant is still better than the current "protests." SnowFire (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's at the core of the events and overshadows the rest. To those who say wait, I say that I do not mind giving it a second look later. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Every news source I have read has reported that the Trump supporters have entered the Capitol building by force. JIP | Talk00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iteration of 2021 United States Capitol insurrection – Insurrection at the United States Capitol; this is an unprecedented event, no need for a year (see: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral), and "Insurrection at" construction is a much nicer way to put it than "X insurrection"; some headlines: TV News Scrambles to Cover Insurrection at US Capitol, George W. Bush slams pro-Trump 'insurrection' at US Capitol
On second thought, Insurrection at the United States Capitol is actually much better. Not sure who left the comment above me, but I agree with their reasoning. This is the only time this has ever happened. Still, I support the suggested title over the current one. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's give it a few hours and see how the WP:COMMONNAME settles. Also, likely want to stay away from non-neutral descriptions, especially in the early days before the historians weigh in. N2e (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose "Storming" is not neutral language. When BLM anarchists burned down cities they were called "protests" by wikipedia. When Trump supporters breach the security check, you try to call it storming. Left-wing, biased wikipedia back at it again. Any semblance of impartiality is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.208.45 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The BLM "anarchists" want black people to be treated as human beings. These Trump supporters are violently trying to overthrow a legally elected presidency. There is quite a difference here, dear far-right pro-Trump zealot. JIP | Talk01:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The framing of this as a 'protest' is very disingenuous, but that's because this article was made way before the 'storming.' SWinxy (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was not a simple protest. Armed insurrectionists stormed the US Capitol building while the US Senate and US House of Representatives were holding a joint session of Congress to ratify the electoral vote from the 2020 presidential election. They vandalized the US Capitol building, fired shots into the Senate chamber, and required a mobilization of National Guardsmen and police from MULTIPLE different states, as well as US federal agencies. If you don't want to call this a coup attempt, fine. But to call it anything less than a storming of the US Capitol is simply wrong and anybody who feels like this was a simple protest is a Trump apologist. Storming isn't neutral language, and this was not a neutral act. Domestic terrorists charged a federal building with US lawmakers inside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobbins847 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wording of "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" and oppose moving the article right now. Let's wait a bit to see what the media calls it over the next few days. Format should be "2021 United States Capitol ___" and I'm leaning towards using the word "insurrection" in there. NixinovaTC01:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (sort of) I see that many do not want the term 'protest' used, and I am in agreement with that. Usually when this sort of event occurs, the term 'riot' is used and that is the term that I would prefer for consistency's sake. However, I wouldn't mind if a term other than 'riot' becomes chosen, such as the terms 'inserrection' or 'storming' should consensus choose one of those. -boldblazer (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some elements of the mostly peaceful protest entered the Congress causing disruption—nothing different from the norm of the last months, but as soon as realized they weren't socialists it surely became a sediction. Please avoid "coup", "terrorism", "insurrection", we're not a partisan newspaper. --Foghe (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (somewhat) This event was clearly not a protest, and after hearing Congressional leaders including the Vice President call it an insurrection, as well as almost all major networks, it's clear that the title should be changed to Insurrection at the United States Capitol. The 2021 isn't needed, no source is calling it "the 2021 Insurrection at the United States Capitol". Foxterria (talk)
Wait I think that we should wait a day or two and see what the media comes up with, but the current title is fine for now. However, the use of the word riot in the article is inaccurate. "Riot," as defined by Oxford Languages, is "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." The majority of the protesters, minus the ones who stormed the Capitol, were peaceful, and anyone who watched the live feed today would agree with me. To call them all rioters is an act of bias against them. Springfield2020 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Storming" is used by major media outlets (CNN [18], Fox [19], NY Times [20], Washington Post [21], Wall Street Journal [22]). The protests beforehand are of questionable notability, but the storming of the U.S. Capitol is covered internationally. It's affecting Senate votes that are happening at this very moment. I think it's clear that "storming" is a neutral and widely publicized account of what happened. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose,Violates Wikipedia's neutral language policy to call it "storming." When BLM riots resulted in the death of police (david dorn), fiery destruction of cities, and looting of small businesses, wikipedia simply called it "protests." But when trump supporters get past security and pose for selfies in Pelosi's office Wikipedia has the chutzpah to call it "storming." Sad.
Strongly Support, this clearly has gone far beyond mere "protests". Wikipedia neutrality doesn't mean we should mince words or speak euphemestically. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I'd prefer insurrection or coup, this is better than the current title. I also think that if we go with storming we need to include the year, as the Capitol was stormed by the British Army during the War of 1812. (As it was a foreign army, it was not an insurrection so it's not a problem if we go with that title.) Smartyllama (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But would prefer using the term riot. To me that is stronger than "protest" (and more accurate) but more neutral than "insurrection" or "attack" or "storming." While there are certainly valid arguments for using those stronger terms, to my riot captures the violent nature of the event without passing judgement. —Schistocyte(talk)02:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While some pro-Trump protesters entered the Capitol building, they didn't manage to hold it for a very long time. The event was a part of the 2021 protests that have taken place outside the Capitol, so am against the renaming proposal. Fernsong (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly peaceful and yet they stormed the damn Capitol. "George Floyd protests" is used because that's the most common name, it's not Wikipedia making a judgement. Meanwhile, this event is so far typically identified as a "storming" or "insurrection". Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's being constantly referred to as a storming by multiple major outlets, because it literally was one, with many Trump supporters clearly making it into the Capitol building to cause violence and disarray. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would prefer "storming" since almost all news outlets are referring to it as such, and would probably be ingrained into the public memory (and history) as a "storming" more than anything else. Spykryo (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support: I think it would good to separate the protests and the storming of the building which are two different (although strongly connected) things. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. "Storming" works, in parallel to the very similar event Storming of the Legislative Council Complex. "Riot" is more accurate than "protests", though riots are usually more distributed geographically. "Insurrection" is also applicable, preferred to "protests" and supported by sources. -- Beland (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support the rename as requested. I'd also support 2021 United States Capitol incident. The current title is inadequate. C(u)w(t)C(c)02:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reliable sources are referring to the mass as a "mob" + the LA and New York Times explicitly stated they would not refer to the group as protestors. "Storming" is a suitable word as it accurately mirrors notable sources referring to it as such and isn't as strong/inciting as other terminology, such as "insurrection", etc.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is not a protest. Not only do many media, but also most Senate call it as a insurrection because all of them consider that those Pro-Trumps actions were disrupting value of democracy. It is also not a peaceful protest because there was the dead due to this tragedy, and because Electoral vote count was stopped by those pro-Trumps. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Protests don't include mobs of crazies breaking into the United States Capitol building. Call it what it is. It was a riot. Sad for democracy. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: to "Storming of the US Capitol" or similar title. This was no ordinary protest. It was the first time the Capitol was breached since the War of 1812. Yekshemesh (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The trespassing into the Capitol was a brief part of several days of protests and several hours of riots. Either create a new article for the insurrection part alone and keep the title as is, or keep the title and refer to riots/instructions in subsections. Sinsoto (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given what took place, I think "protests" is at best an understatement, and in the most critical lens, is a whitewashing of the horrific acts that took place and their impact going forward. As for the best word to use, I lean against "storming"; I would lean towards "riots" or "insurrection". From the media I have personally consumed, "insurrection" is the word I have heard the most from journalists and politicians. –Erakura(talk)05:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support storming, with riot as second choice. Storming seems to be widely used today, and precisely describes what happens. Oppose "insurrection" for now. power~enwiki (π,
Oppose/Comment: Should be "2021 United States coup d'etat attempt".
Support. This was far more significant than a protest, this will be regarded as a major historic event. “Insurrection” has been used to describe this event by several lawmakers in subsequent remarks made at the Capitol. I think “storming” is the most accurate, non-political description based upon similar events that have occurred in the past, e.g. Storming of the Bastille. AChakra California (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SUPPORT. This was an unprecedented and huge event in the course of the nation's history. The main event was the insurrection. The protests just led up to it. Like most major media organizations, we must call it what it is. IbexNu (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We shouldn't resort to labeling what could, and will, someday be referred to as a potential major historical event. That is not our job, that is more or less the media. When a term starts getting thrown around a fair lot, we can and will discuss again. Bigtime_Boy (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is an over-the-top designation and we need to wait until there is more information. The mention on the main page is irrelevant, and in any case it was over-hasty. We don't know how many people entered the building, how they were armed, or what sort of resistance they encountered. "Stormed" makes it sound like an elite military operation. StAnselm (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Storming feels informal - "insurrection", "riot", or any other word to indicate violent protest. Stormed doesn't hit the mark. But by all means, WP:NPOV doesn't mean we can't call this what it is. Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Support 'Insurrection and Storming' as it:
accurately reflects both the legal act, and the manner in which the event took place.
neatly encapsulates any aftershock events which will likely follow this historic incident.
While I am in concurrence with many of the arguments from the "wait" camp, the article can be renamed more than once as the situation develops or is rebranded. Given its importance, the article should be renamed without further delay. Don4of4[Talk]06:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature. I may change my !vote later but, given the situation remains fluid, and we don't know what all future subjects this article may come to encompass, the proposed name change may be too limiting. Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: what happened is way beyond anything resembling a "protest". Other alternative wording could include "riot" or "insurrection"; but "storming" still is the most adequate way to decribe what just took place. Azurfrog (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the current word "protest" is far too vague and weak. storming, insurrection, or coup attempt, yes. Protest just doesn't sufficiently cover what happened. --Zippy (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above. "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" is a very un-wiki-like title to use; a riot is a riot, and should be known as such. (I do agree broadly that "protests" is an insufficient and inaccurate description for this incident.) RexSueciae (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above. This would account both for the forceful entry, which is more of a source of notability than merely the protests, and the naming conventions on enWP. Assem Khidhr (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any change for the next 4 hours. It's certain these are protests. It's pretty clear the title will be changed once the dust settles, but nothing else seems clear now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer something like 2021 putsch at the United States Capitol which seems to more accurately describe the event but obviously that will never get consensus. Neutrality is correct that reliable, independent, secondary sources seem to no longer be referring to this event simply as a protest. — Wug·a·po·des20:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support storming, but even that doesn't describe the scale of what's going on. I know I'm a IP, but frankly this is close to a coup seeking to overturn the will of the American people. When you're recovering IED's and gunshots are being fired into the Senate chamber, this isn't a protest. This is a coup. 2603:6000:A507:C600:6428:15B7:CA4E:181C (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose premature name change until dust settles a bit. I also think "storming" is too flowery a term, and we should see what the RS decide to call it with the benefit of some hindsight. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature. The current title is more neutral — we should hold off until we know how the dust settles, as others have said. Tamwin (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Putsch or Insurrection this is not a protest or a riot or a storm, this is an attempt to reject the democratic election which Trump lost by 10 million votes, overthrow the incoming U.S. government and end the United States's 300-year tradition of democracy, encouraged and abetted by Trump's own, criminal failed attempts at a self-coup. Wikipedia editors are so mealy-mouthed it disgusts me. You have encouraged this.108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per this precedent - the events as unfolded thus far meet similar terminological grounds. Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC) ADDITION: As someone has kindly taken it upon themselves to remove my comment: this support is conditional on "insurrection" not emerging as common use, which would of course call for revision in coming days following WP:COMMONNAME. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Albertaont, uh, Joe Biden isn't president, and regardless, him saying something does not make it so. Also, the Storming of the Bastille was an insurrection, and a much more violent one at that. 98 people were killed. Please read some history. Display name 99 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I watched the event unfold live on TV, and there was a large crowd of people on front of the Capitol who apparently forced themsleves inside by sheer numbers. This is not a riot because there was no violence, at least outside the building. It is also not an insurrection, because the protesters did not attempt to take control of the government. Storming is also inappropriate because the protesters did not succeed in taking control of the Capitol. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most sources I've seen refer to the event as a "storming" of the capital. "Riots" could be sufficient enough but "storming" is more precise and indicative of what actually occurred.Yeoutie (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. By definition of the word riot(noun) a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets. [23] The storming of the US Capitol fits the definition. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something similar happened in Australia, 1996 Parliament House riot, similar things have likely happened elsewhere. Therefore riot (or riots presuming occurring in multiple locations?) seems appropriate.
Oppose-BLM and antifa assaulted random people and burned down buildings for much of the summer and yet we at Wikipedia label these the "George Floyd protests." In this case, a handful of conservatives, responding in part to unprovoked attacks by police, got past some security guards and walked around in the Capitol building, causing minor property damage, and that gets called a riot. Welcome to globalist fantasy land and double standards. Display name 99 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to "riots". "Storming" sounds too romantic, and "insurrection" implies too great a level of organization and duration, while "riots" is more neutral. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this was a riot, due to loss of police control. "Storming" suggests some degree of organisation that didn't exist. Jw2036 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from the above discussion that there is consensus to move the article to a different title. The two main suggestions have been "storming" and "riots". Which of these would editors prefer? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is false, there is no such clarity on which of the pro-move suggestions are the main ones. Insurrection is also a top contender, and perhaps some others. This thread is a pseudo-move discussion and needs to be closed. Alalch Emis
What does it mean for a thread to be "false"??? There is consensus that "protests" is not adequate (approx. ~100 supports vs ~25 oppose). Insurrection is mentioned a lot (more than "riots" from what I can see?), but "storming" seems like it pretty clearly is the main contender by a quite wide margin, so that's what I'm supporting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give it some time. The WP:COMMONNAME will emerge over a few days, not in the early hours of news media sources hitting the newswires and web. Let's face it, the daily media news circuit naturally has an incentive to, shall we say, embellish the title of various news articles to get the clicks. In a few days, we'll have the benefit perhaps of a few historians weighing in on the matter, and looking at it from a bit more of an arm's length. N2e (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"insurrection" is probably the most "correct" term; "storming" is the term that has become the de facto description of the event by WaPo, the NYTimes, and similar large news orgs. I would be fine with either, leaning toward "storming" as it best serves the goal of Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia. SpurriousCorrelation01:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any of these four terms (storming, riots, insurrection, attack) would be technically accurate. I'd recommend insurrection, which not only multiple lawmakers are referring to it as, but is also I think the most encyclopedic and least emotionally charged. --FlagFreaktalk01:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell us more about the term that settles, but right now in the Capitol and on news stations (see NPR) the term insurrection is being used. "To rise against a civil authority" is the definition from Merrium-Webster dictionary, whose editors have already created a special page for the term ("lookups have spiked 34,450%" the page says) [24]Comm260 ncu (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, NBC News and other networks have systematically called it a terrorist attack during the last few hours. It was called a terrorist attack by Schumer in the senate as well. I think we should also consider a title that includes that word in some form, e.g. 2021 terrorist attack on the United States Capitol. --Tataral (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support using the word "insurrection." "Terrorist attack" is OK. But anything stronger than "protest" would be an improvement. Maurreen (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the George Floyd protests, which were mostly peaceful but did notably erupt into violence sometimes, the "protests" at the Capitol are very unusual and would be better described as riots. The January 5 events can be considered a part of the background leading up to the riots. However, I would wait until we know what the sources will call it. FreeMediaKid!02:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, it seems that insurrection would be more accurate than simply riots, as it describes the motive behind the autocratic sabotage. Nevertheless, I would still wait until the sources have a consensus on what to call it. FreeMediaKid!02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support storming This insurrection was much more than a protest, and the word storming is the most accurate description of what actually happened. The word riot can be used to describe a variety of activities, but this was a deliberate attack on a specific building, so storming is the correct term.Calmecac5 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference to storming, then insurrection, then riot. Protest vastly, vastly understates this, as multiple people have mentioned. Nmurali02 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The name of the article should include the word "storming." There were many hundreds of people on the steps of the capital, which is a restricted area. Dozens of individuals broke through the windows and occupied the offices of members of Congress. A woman was shot inside the Capitol building. Mediaexpert3 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support at minimum using storming, but prefer2021 United States coup d'etat attempt. Taken in context with ongoing objections to the certification of electoral votes, I believe what is happening now sufficiently constitutes a coordinated effort to overturn the established political order of the United States federal government. SweetFruityKindOfSad (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the usage of insurrection or riot, with a preference for the former. "Storming" seems a little too informal for an article title, honestly. -Pikavangelist (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most reliable sources refer to the overall events as riots. The storming was a very specific part of the riots. "Insurrection" is a purposefully dramatic term and not appropriate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the use of "storming" over "insurrection". Although the exact chain of events and motives that lead to protesters trespassing the Capitol is a bit murky and would direct the naming of this event, "storming" is a better description of what they did, which was to forcefully enter a particular institution and act offensively and seditiously inside a government building, though seemingly without the knowledge and organizational wherewithal on how to follow through with overtaking a government. (Perspective from the Philippines) LionFosset (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prominent individuals, prominent media outlets and recognized news sources have interchangeably used riots and insurrection. However, for the record, I do believe riot is more encompassing of the overall intent and lack of coordination of the individuals. In turn, the majority of the individuals who were at this protest were not violent nor was it a coordinated effort of armed violence. That is why I do not believe it should be considered an insurrection by definition, but rather a riot. --- Jrobb52505:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support storming its the better descriptive term than riot or protest given the events. Although this term is not used very often, these events don't fit into other, more typical, categories. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was not simply a storming, siege or anything of the sort in any way shape or form. The "storming" was only a small (even though very prominent) part of these protests. Much of the article does not even regard the supposed "storming."Nathanzachary56 (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose storming This word would only excite the white supremacists that read the Daily Stormer white supremacist Nazi publication. And "storming" is too soft a word. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenorTwelve: I think it matters not what reactions a word choice could incite, and "storming" somehow feels right, at least for me; stronger than "protests" but not at the level of "coup attempt", with the added benefit of specifically referring to people forcefully trespassing an institution. English-speaking historians themselves didn't think it was too soft to be applied to that prison insurrection of 1789. LionFosset (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support storming, as it leaves absolutely no dispute as to the subject of the article. Insurrection is okay, but may be premature as I suspect we're going to see far more examples of insurrection in the near future. The majority of coverage and noteworthiness has to do with domestic terrorists gaining access to the Capitol, the evacuation of lawmakers, and the subsequent destruction of property and loss of life. We do not have the luxury of being unspecific with so many eyes on this page today. TritonsRising(talk) 06:23, 7 January 2021(UTC)
Oppose as premature. I may change my !vote later but, given the situation remains fluid, and we don't know what all future subjects this article may come to encompass, the proposed name change may be too limiting. Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but open to alternate phrasings. "Protests" is certainly an inaccurate and misleading descriptior of what happened, and I don't see any RS referring to the incident as a "protest". Other commenters make good points as to why "storming" might have other connotations. I don't think "riots" is a good description, since the key event was not a riot, but a focused attack. So, perhaps another title to consider would be "2021 United States Capitol mob attack". I don't think "insurrection" is a good term, because I've never heard that term being used to describe a single event. Skrelk (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer riot, but support storming as well. "Insurrection" is apt, so if it were to come out on top I wouldn't be unhappy, but I think it's just a little too pointed at the moment. If time shows that "insurrection" has become the WP:COMMONNAME, then it should be changed at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose storming This word would only excite the white supremacists that read the Daily Stormer white supremacist Nazi publication. And "storming" is too soft a word. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenorTwelve: I think it matters not what reactions a word choice could incite, and "storming" somehow feels right, at least for me; stronger than "protests" but not at the level of "coup attempt", with the added benefit of specifically referring to people forcefully trespassing an institution. English-speaking historians themselves didn't think it was too soft to be applied to that prison insurrection of 1789. LionFosset (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support storming, as it leaves absolutely no dispute as to the subject of the article. Insurrection is okay, but may be premature as I suspect we're going to see far more examples of insurrection in the near future. The majority of coverage and noteworthiness has to do with domestic terrorists gaining access to the Capitol, the evacuation of lawmakers, and the subsequent destruction of property and loss of life. We do not have the luxury of being unspecific with so many eyes on this page today. TritonsRising(talk) 06:23, 7 January 2021(UTC)
Oppose storming. While storming is a better descriptor of what the situation was, I agree with others here that the word is too "soft" to describe the situation. On the contrary, I also think words like "coup", "insurrection", "rebellion", and others may be too charged. Unless a great majority of outlets begin to refer to this event as such, or perhaps national security officials describe it as such, a different word, should be used. Maybe 2021 breach of the United States Senate. Miss Show Business (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but open to alternate phrasings. "Protests" is certainly an inaccurate and misleading descriptior of what happened, and I don't see any RS referring to the incident as a "protest". Other commenters make good points as to why "storming" might have other connotations. I don't think "riots" is a good description, since the key event was not a riot, but a focused attack. So, perhaps another title to consider would be "2021 United States Capitol mob attack". I don't think "insurrection" is a good term, because I've never heard that term being used to describe a single event. Skrelk (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incident Incident is a catchall term that would encompass both events of today and any events that occur tomorrow that may be more pedestrian. Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support insurrection. Nicely clinical and descriptive. "Storming" has all sorts of unwelcome Third Reich undertones (stormtrooper, Der Stürmer, etc), which would doubtless please the perpetrators and so the word should be avoided. Ericoides (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to suggest closing the above discussions when so many people have already !voted, but it's very difficult to discern any emerging favourites when the options are so loosely structured. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Flickr is usually where I go. You can also filter by CC-licensed images using Google Image Search. I doubt any photographers currently in DC have sat down to upload and license their photos yet, though. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd suggest 1.) make a keyword list of things that people might upload footage under, like: MAGA, DC, Capitol, Capital, Revolution, Protest and so forth. 2.) look for new uploads 3.) Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud all have cc-licenses. This guy in particular is prolific: https://www.flickr.com/people/95413346@N00 4.) VOA is useable if its made by VOA staff (which is like 10% of the time) 5.) be careful of license laundering
Donald Trump should be added in the "leadership" section on the insurrection side in the infobox given that he blatantly incited the attack on Capitol and that the entire faction looks to him as their leader. Not listing him and painting this as a movement without leadership is blatantly whitewashing Trump of his part in the affair. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He did not tell them to attack the Capitol. He in fact eventually told them to leave the Capitol. I don't think he is really leading the protesters/rioters in any meaningful sense. Tamwin (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's tepid message to the insurrectionists doesn't change the fact that he'd spent months inciting exactly this kind of action. There is also no question that the groups involved in the insurrection look to him as a leader/figurehead -- they have directly acknowledged his orders before, notably when obeying his now-infamous "stand back and stand by" comments last year. Even if one takes his backing down as genuine, he was blatantly the inciting figure and leader of the movement at the start of the attack on Capitol. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't he essentially giving orders? In various videos he's released condemning them, he uses the first person plural ("they stole the election from us"), identifying himself with the protestors and the rioters, and then talks about "the other side". He's aware that these people see him as their leader, and rather than dismissing them, he continues trying to appeal to them, telling them gently, "you have to go home now". You could say he's taking advantage of the fact that they see him as their leader to try and order them to leave peaceably and get them to dispel the violence. But he's not exactly distancing himself from them. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Short description
I changed the short description from "Storming of the Capitol Building in January 2021" to "Protests inside and around the Capitol Building in January 2021" since there is no consensus to support "storming" as of yet. Putting this in the talk page since I could not add an edit description in shortdesc helper. lovkal (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of us agrees that this is not an ordinary protest, and a storming at minimum. However, there's an ongoing move discussion on this page above that is, as of yet, unresolved. The short description should match the article title, so until the discussion is resolved, "storming" is not warranted. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be easier if this was "is this a protest, yes or no?" to which I think most would say that sources seem to indicate "no, it's something else", but is that something else a ... storming? A coup? A riot? An insurrection? That will take longer time to agree on. In the meanwhile, the description should match the article. /Julle (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's agreement that this is a protest, which includes violent protest. The question is whether that's the most appropriate, balanced title for the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I think we should wait for the renaming discussions to end and then change the short description accordingly. lovkal (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
America First/Groypers and neo-confederates
@Saxones288: The only sentence in the Times of Israelsource related to Groypers/America First is "Wednesday’s event is being touted on social media by a string of far-right extremists, from the Proud Boys to right-wing militias to Nick Fuentes, head of the white supremacist Groyper Army." This does not support that America First was a "side" in the conflict. Please stop warring it back in. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of why I think we should scrap that whole section of the infobox. It's just going to be endless stuff like this until things settle down. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Snopes says that someone raised a Confederate flag and some folks were waving them around. It does not say that neo-confederates were a prominent group in the events today. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neo confederates were present, so were "QAnons" all sources describe this extensively. I am not sure if "Groypers" were present. If sources could be provided for this it would good. I think there is a difference between Groypers being present and them organizing into blocks, I mean you could most likely found an immense amount of wacky ideologies present that does not mean they were organized. Neo-Confederates and "Qs" were extensively present. Des Vallee (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on scrapping the box. This does not live up to Wikipedia's standards. I doubt we will be able to discover whether each of the protestors is associated with a group, and whether those groups coordinated it. This is not the same as "France" and "Netherlands" in American Revolutionary War where there is clear attribution.
Arms & Hearts, you are correct. However, if people are mistakenly typing it often looking for this article, then it is a good redirect. Unless it was referring to a different incident? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t there be a separate but linked article entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”? Why does this specific event not have its own article? It is unprecedented in modern US history.
I don't think that this event could be considered a coup, the thing is too unorganized. I was sure that Trump, despite his questionable actions, I don't think that his real intention was to block in this illegal way the certification of votes. In my opinion, it lacks the assumptions to call this also an attempted coup. DR5996 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caused By
Since a major cause of the protest was President Trump's claims of election fraud, should that be added to the infobox in the "Caused By" section? Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll need to demonstrate that this is the mainstream view among reliable sources, which to my observation it is not. He certainly helped to incite the protest, as did quite a few other people, but I don't think it should go in the infobox. GorillaWarfare(talk)01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oregon, for the "Outside the District of Columbia" section
There are currently several different standards for recording time within sections. Just under reactions there are a variety of styles including 2:38 p.m. EST, 3:35 p.m., and 4:11 EST. At some point the article should be cleaned up and standardized using MOS:TIME. Majorberg (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I on behalf of all readers express enormous gratitude for the contributions & editing here. A hugely impressive page on an ongoing event. Wikipedians at their best. I really hesitate to clutter this page even with this note, so feel free to remove :) Perhaps there is space in the wiki model for an additional tab to allow readers to express gratitude. Thank you all contributors for your diligent work. A European reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.66.189 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LikeAll of the contributors should be commended, and by that I mean those contributing in good-faith, which is the majority. I'd also like to say that I'm particularly impressed with GorillaWarfare's fair and extended engagement with various editors on the talk page, as well as their quick handling of some minor bits of disruption. I was going to leave something saying as much on their talk page, but I might as well leave it here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am more mixed on this. There have been far too many edit conflicts, and clearly there is need for a type of protection that has a higher requirement than 500 edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too am mightily impressed by the work of my peers. I have started several breaking news articles during my 200 years on Wikipedia and know how frustrating and exhilarating it can be. Brilliant efforts all round today. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think page protection is an appropriate solution to edit conflicts. If more protection is needed to avoid edit wars, sure, but this would be unnecessary otherwise. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If edit wars aren't considered disruptive, then I disagree. There have been silent edit wars on this article, where the same content has been added, removed and re-added multiple times. This is allowed due to the significant amount of edits being made, which makes community enforcement of WP:BRD impossible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it was enforced too, but it seems that there are far too many edits, making it too difficult to enforce. Due to the high likelihood of edit conflicts, edits were making their edits smaller and more numerous, which creates more edit conflicts and increases the difficulty in identifying and enforcing edit warring behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought I’d see the day (besides Olympus Has Fallen in real life) that people genuinely appreciated Wikipedia. This is why we do what we do, at the end of the day. Trillfendi (talk)
I've just read the entire article and am greatly impressed with it. Even if many conflicts had to be undergone by the editors, this is an astonishing production in a very short time. DSatz (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New page for efforts to remove Trump via 25th Amendment or Impeachment.
Should we start a new page dedicated to the efforts to remove Donald Trump? Even if these efforts are unsuccessful, articles of impeachment are already being drawn up by Ilhan Omar, and I would say it would be likely they will be voted on tonight, which would warrant a separate page. A vast number of Democratic members have said he should be removed via 25th amendment or impeachment, tonight. So I think we should make a page now, and if it turns out to not happen we can just merge it back into this page as its not really that notable (members have called for trumps impeachment and removal 100s of times, not really that notable unless at least there is a vote).
I would make it myself, but it would likely get deleted or by the time I was finished writing it there would already be another page lol.MarkiPoli (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the section titles as NPOV as possible in these early hours of fast edits
Let's try to keep the section titles as NPOV as possible in these early hours of fast edits. One of the truly great benefits of coming to this Wikipedia article is to get a good descriptive summary of what went down in these events, without all the breathlessness and click-bait headlines of many media outlets.
For example, the subsection on events at the US Capitol covers many things that happened at the Capitol They include that the Capitol was breached, that riotous behavior took place, including rioters doing some things, and Capitol staff and legislators doing others, and someone was shot, etc. etc.
I'd suggest, as several editors have edited in the past couple hours, that the section simply be titled
Capitol buildingrather than the more WP:POV approach of "Shooting in Capitol building" or "Rioters break into Capitol building" or "Shots fired in Capitol building" or, as it is now, "Rioters break into Capitol Building"
Then, we just let the sourced prose of the section describe all the events; and the title need not necessarily set the framing in these early hours. N2e (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recently added a citation of a PolitiFact article claiming that what occurred can be reasonably considered a coup, but this citation was removed in another edit by another user. The removal was unexplained by the user, and I think the source (including the quotation) should still be there. AndrewOne (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem supported by the source. PolitiFact only concludes "a good case can be made" and, throughout the article, the author hedges his bets, never coming right out and saying yes or no. (In any case, if it could be defined in these terms it would be an autgolpe and not a coup, but I don't think PolitiFact is probably sophisticated enough to have landed on that word yet; maybe they will in a few days. I don't say that disparagingly, just that their writers don't have any real expertise in this area and seem to be learning on the job at the moment.) Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewOne: - that "other user" was me, I'm afraid. I intended to make a simple one-word change to a different section to improve readability, but there was an edit conflict. I cancelled it completely and made my tiny change again, and I have no idea how it picked up this other material. By the time I was alerted to what happened, it could not be undone because there were almost a hundred other changes in the meantime which overlapped. Then I had to go to work and I have only just seen your note as well. So I am happy to fix it if there is agreement on what should be changed. And please accept my rather confused apologies for the problem.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New draft regarding possible impeachment and removal, or removal via 25th amendment
I made a draft at User:MarkiPoli/2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. There isn't much there as of now so please edit it if you want and add to it. I believe an article is now necessary considering there are members of the cabinet talking about the 25th amendment in earnest, and 36 House democrats (at least) have said Trump should be removed, either via impeachment or 25th amendment. If anyone wants to make the article in mainspace after its cleaned up a little, go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkiPoli (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is some reporting on this, it's just a conversation that is ongoing and it has been a subject of discussion for four years now. The guy has just 14 days left in office, this is more of a symbolic gesture. LizRead!Talk!03:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Role of Capitol Police in the early entrance to the Capitol building
Having seen serious reporting on the role of (some) Capitol police in hindering, or not hindering and possibly aiding, entrance to the Capitol, am a bit curious why it is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that it was the ease of entrance, facilitated by (some) of these armed security force ppl, is why a number of persons (see the lede paragraph) are calling it a coup. Would be helpful to gather articles and references and explicate the situation, to see if their is a consensus verifiable view on these alleged actions. N2e (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't come across any 'serious' reports so far, but Tyrese Gibson has been posting a lot of videos on his Instagram. One of them also shows a 'protestor' carrying the disputed flag. Not sure about the credibility or sources though. example180.151.224.189 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unified definitions of 'rally', 'protest', 'coup d'état' and 'riot'
I have noticed that there are many conversations in the talk section that are debating to change the title of this page. Some of these arguments have almost devolved into the minutiae of what the words 'protest' or 'rally' even mean. In order to avoid the endless pit of argument, I propose that Wikipedia use a standardized definition. I recommend using a source that is NOT Wikitionary, since that can be freely edited and the arguing will start again.
I believe this article is premature as Articles of Impeachment haven't even been introduced. Until a formal impeachment inquiry is passed or another action like invoking the 25th Amendment happens this article is pure speculation and should not warrant a separate page. Some members have said they are drafting Articles right now or support impeachment but other than that nothing has happened. JayJayWhat did I do?05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. An article about people calling out the president for one event isn't the type of article that would pass WP:10YEARTEST – Trump has been called out many times before; this is stronger than usual, but not unique. The responses should be noted, just not on their own page for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch McConnell and a number of other Republicans have described what transpired as a Invasion by insurrectionists not protesters.
I agree. So many across the political spectrum in America, and everyone else in the world, has certainly described it in more stark terms than merely "protests". So many public officials and experts in America, and leaders around the world called it an "attempted coup", "storming of the Capitol", "insurrection", or even "riots" for the extreme level of violence against the Capitol rather than mere "protests"? Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need so many citations in the lead? "The riots and storming of the Capitol have been described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." currently has six references on it, this seems excessive as it's clearly explained later in the article, too. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. This is a recent and controversial event, so erring on the side of caution by adding citations is probably the smartest move, at least in the short term. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The six sources are being used to support the use of three very specific and politically charged terms (insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism). The use of each of those terms needs to be sourced, so more sources makes sense. (Essentially, instead of putting 2-3 sources next to each of the three terms, the sources were all put at the end.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a separate but linked article for this attack, as it is an unprecedented in modern US history. News sources such as NYT are calling it an attack... and that’s what it is.
The article should be entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”
I agree. Donald Trump has called the people to do that. We have to consider him as an abettor of this. Also I hope the term protest would be removed soon from the title. The apropriate title is 2021 Far-right attack at the US Capitol.
Side note, I believe the new header image should probably show the actual occupation of the capitol building itself. It's strange to me that the existing one doesn't. NekomancerjadeTalk08:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^Robert Contee III, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia chief of police, said police had made at least 52 arrests: 47 for curfew violations and unlawful entry; 4 carrying a pistols without a license, and 1 for possession of a prohibited weapon. Contee said that 26 of the 52 arrests were made on the Capitol grounds.[14]
There is only one problem at the infobox: Democratic Party, Republican Party and pro-Trump protesters (Keep america great again), have no flagicons. If somebody finaly add this, maybe could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: I made an edit to your proposed infobox as three of the Template:flagicon image uses had File: appended to the beginning of them, preventing them from showing up properly. I believe that the addition of File: was a mistake and removed them. Is this ok with you? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this article (compliments to all the editors) it states that the fatality ..."was shot by law enforcement "... whilst in the specific article Ashli Babbitt it says ...It is unclear who shot her.... with both being referenced. Until it is clear who shot the woman should this article read that it is unclear. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer09:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Terms used
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):
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. [32] 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]
@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]
I was going to add a brief mention of the protestor with the hat and horns (whose actual name is Jake Angeli), as I've found four articles that mention him specifically, including some just discussing him. However, clearly he shouldn't have his own page, nor should he go on the Jamiroquai. Does that sound ok? Any objections? He has featured very prominently in the media, almost the face of the protesters. If anyone doing the major editing here has any objections?Chetsford, WMrapids, Majavah, let me know - Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As seen and discussed previously at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 1#this is PD. Instead of just quoting his words from the video, we can insert it as media - at least five other language versions of Wikipedia have - for encyclopedic documentation of 1. the response and 2. the video which has taken on notability of its own for being removed by all social media. One editor objected to its inclusion - and tried to delete it - by saying it's inciting violence. Well, we've got the speech in quotes already in the article and I'm sure you can all see it's not an incitement to anything, not that such would preclude inclusion at all per the fact we're documenting its existence and significance, and the video caption came with a disclaimer. As there was one unfounded objection and plenty of support, I feel it would be beneficial to the encyclopedic coverage of the article to include the video (here on commons). Kingsif (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it needs to be included (with appropriate context). WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a document of high historic relevance. We wouldn't even be having this discussion with a different country. --MarioGom (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New first lead sentence
It seems to me that the first paragraph has gotten too long. The "storming" of the Capital is only introduced after two, very complex sentences. I'd add a new, one-sentence first paragraph to the top, something like:
On January 6, 2021, pro-Trump demonstrators outside the US Capital stormed the Capital building and invaded both the House and Senate chambers.
On January 5 and 6, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gathered in Washington, D.C., to protest...
Fixed I have added a new lead sentence that explicitly summarizes the storming first, before going in to the background. Does this work for you? --Jayron3213:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an aspect of this event that isn't well covered in the article. Much of the controversy has been over the lax response of law enforcement, in comparison to other demonstrations, potentially due to demographics involved. Anyone got any good sources? I'm thinking specifically of things like the cops who were taking selfies with the rioters inside the building BlackholeWA (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources also use insurrection. Storming was chosen by the user who started the request to move, as the media was using the verb "storm" while the situation had been developing to describe what's going on, but immediately afterwards the media and public officials also started using "insurrection" to qualify the event. There is no serious division here: "storming" the how to the what which is the "insurrection". I believe that eventually, the name will be changed to insurrection. Probably already more reliable sources use and advocate using "insurrection" at this point. Some advocate using it with particular certitude, and the same can't be said about storming, which appears to be an ad-hoc term. It hasn't been demonstrated on this talk page that more RSs use "storming" in the title, it's just a vague impression of some, and possibly not a currently relevant impression as the headlines are multiplying. Alalch Emis (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mob: biased words
Should some other neutral word (e.g. crowd, supporters, etc.) be used (except for quotes) or is it ok as it is from the aspect of NPOV? Mob sounds derogatory to me and we should use neutral language regardless of our opinion about the event and the people involved. --TadejMmy talk14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point of view, but there are also numerous sources using the word 'rioters' or 'crowd' or something else. And the media takes a stance that or another way, which we as an encyclopedia should not. Taking a look at WP:NPOV, I find the following: "neutral terms are generally preferable" and "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:EPSTYLE states: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." --TadejMmy talk14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think mob is fitting to be used occasionally throughout the article. The definition provided by a Google search was "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." While not all demonstrators were there for violence, there obviously were many that were. We could use mob more frequently when addressing the individuals that breached the building? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This could work in specific contexts (as occurs in the article: "angry mob", "violence of mob"). Then, the more specific question is whether we should use this in the lead: "Subsequently, a pro-Trump mob marched on Congress and eventually stormed the building." Probably something else would work better in this place; the section providing details uses the terms "rally attendees" and "rioters", so one of these terms should also be used in the lead. Also as per WP:LEAD. --TadejMmy talk14:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Treason and Insurrection and Sedition
WP needs to (for obvious reasons) be superhumanly careful with these three words. They may fit, but they could quickly be editorialized and get out of hand. Whereas, I, a regular "dude" may find them appropriate; WP may (and some users) take odds or offense with their inclusion. But, let's face facts, if "coup" or "attempted coup" and "insurrection" are proper terms, we can only assume the "treason" and "sedition" may equally work as well. I'm not saying this because the words are used heavily (or at all) in the main article; I'm saying this because I want WP to simply "be careful, and let calmer editors prevail." The dust must settle, fuller perspectives will shine through like a beacon, and the truth will win the day.
IP, I think the majority of regular editors have this in mind, if you've read the talk page. I've not seen anyone mention "treason" or "sedition", for that matter. But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places. "Insurrection" is widely used, and in probably dozens upon dozens of reliable sources at this point, in editorial voice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Security forces present
Perhaps it should be added in the articles that the US Marshals Service were also called in? They were in the infobox as a "party to the civil conflict" and it is confirmed in this source[1]
Act of War, Enemy Combatants, & Military Tribunal?
Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal? 162.237.205.133 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it says "On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol", it should say "a very small number of protestors". No need for me to provide evidence, 80 Million people voted for Trump so if you count the people who also support Trump but are still underage, that number is even larger so the actions of about 20 people cannot define Trump protestors. And this is just the first paragraph... 82.11.130.168 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The article doesn't say (nor imply) that all, or even the majority of, Trump supporters were party to this. They were a group of people who were Trump supporters, that's all. — Czello14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion hosted by WikiProject of Current Events - Discussion about the lead
I think the first sentence should include something about the storming happening at the urging or incitement of Trump. That is really quite central to the reception of the incident and its political magnitude.
I would propose On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of Trump and his associates or On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol, incited by Trump and his associates. --Tataral (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but the content of this article is really decided here on its own talk page, so discussion regarding the precise wording of this article should take place here rather than somewhere else. --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Resolved
Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed I have added a new lead sentence that explicitly summarizes the storming first, before going in to the background. Does this work for you? --Jayron32 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done The article doesn't say (nor imply) that all, or even the majority of, Trump supporters were party to this. They were a group of people who were Trump supporters, that's all. — Czello 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)