Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

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.

---

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

Transcluded discussion from other talk page

Support

• Yes, the president elect Joe Biden clearly names the attack on the Capital as "domestic terrorism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsommer7345 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." "terrorism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000". web.archive.org. 20 June 2006. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: clearly described as such by reliable sources and by influential people across the political spectrum. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes similarly in The Oxford English Dictionary - 2a "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". This event is literally the definition of terrorism. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, by the definition of terrorism by the FBI: "Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives." https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 Dobekofcas (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per my comments at Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States. We aren't smarter than numerous reliable sources, the President-elect, and a multitude of other leaders. This isn't complicated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Soft Yes IF sufficient RSes in support of calling it terrorism can be established, AND consensus is established that there is enough RS publication for it to be in Wikipedia's voice. If the first but not the second happens, then support maintaining current section: "The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." Builder018 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, applicable to all articles that mention this event., per Bongwarrior's reasoning. Jdphenix (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment Let’s see... they attempted to “overthrow” the results of the election with violent insurrection. They attacked law enforcement with lead pipes in the process of breaking and entering the government’s legislative building. There was a stand-off inside the building with guns drawn. A woman in this so-called mob was shot and killed trying to climb through a window. They ransacked offices and defiantly sat in officials’ seats with their fists raised. If it were in any other country what would you consider calling this? So yes, because that was their intention even if the dramatic irony befalls them. Trillfendi (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Strong support: the RNC and DNC pipe bombs are terrorism alone, nonetheless breaking into the nation's capitol. ɱ (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: It has to be. They stormed the U.S. Capitol for the purpose of wanting to alter the election in favor of Trump instead of Biden. That's just as political as it can get. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: Echoing everyone else above. Strongest possible yes. Brad (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: I wouldn't object to the article being renamed to "2021 terrorist attack of the United States Capitol". -- RobLa (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - per sources [3]. And they did terrorize members of Congress. Pipe bombs were found. BTW, taking over parliaments is not anything new, even recently. The Crimean parliament was taken by the green men, but the most similar incident was probably Armenian parliament shooting. It is only through sheer luck that the members of the Congress were not harmed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously Per User:Nfitz this fits the definition as clearly as you can get, widely supported by many RSes. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - it checkes all boxes of terrorism, there wer bombing attempts aswell. and CNN as well as polititians call it terrorism Norschweden (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The events were an unlawful use of violence and intimidation for the advancement of political goals. Plus, there were multiple IEDs found. Bravetheif (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The intention of the rioters was clear, and that was to terrorize lawmakers and shut down the United States Government. That fits the definition of terrorism. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – their intention was to overthrow the joint session of Congress in order to change the results of a democratic election. That is a coup. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (sparingly) This was an act of domestic terrorism. A lot of sources frame it in these terms. However, it's important we don't overuse the term in an NPOV way. We must use this term in a reliable-sourced, explicitly-defined way. Provided the reliable sources characterize it this way, there should be no issue to the proper use of the term. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support: Clearly yes as per intent, reliable sources, evidence, definitions and the leading comments above. I would suggest its a No Brainer. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes open and shut pre-meditated anti-democratic political violence intended to control using fear. What could the objections be? GPinkerton (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Yes - Reliable sources use it, it fits the definition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — A number of officials including President-elect Joe Biden have referred to this event as an act of domestic terrorism. Courier (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - This easily fits the official FBI/DOJ definition of terrorism: "Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Verumregium (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — It's pretty simple: These individuals used violence to attempt to further their political views. Terrorism is the use of violence as a tool for political and social change. -- Phyzome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Undoubtebly Yes - This event was the textbook definition of terrorism. It was politically motivated and was aimed to instill fear into the U.S. government as well as the American people. It is pretty clear cut. The rioters also had zip ties ready for the capture of government officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football3434 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. They caused nothing but violence and destruction. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes We need not to use such terms wildly however causing congress to evacuate and causing an immense amount of damage with the intent of terror is undoubtedly constitutes an act of terrorism. Using the dictionary definition without the lounge of national definitions it fits the universal term. Des Vallee (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Maile above.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - People who are being arrested in connection to the event are being prosecuted by the Counterterrorism Section of the DOJ’s National Security Division with assistance from various U.S. and District Attorneys. If they're being prosecuted as terrorists, the event was terrorism. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:RS and U.S. prosecutors have described the event as an act of domestic terrorism. Zazpot (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Domestic terrorism — "At least 25 domestic terrorism cases have been opened after US Capitol breach, congressman says Army secretary told him" Paul LeBlanc, CNN.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes there was domestic terrorism; The Guardian reported that "Two pipe bombs had been found at Republican and Democratic party offices near Congress"
• Yes - it meets the definition of terrorism, however I think there should be a section on the various phrases used to describe this event since there isn't a clear consensus among the general population. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It meets the definition of domestic terrorism, and terrorism charges are being drawn up. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable Sources such as the AP have already characterized it as so. Auntieanneslover123 (talk) 2:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Many reliable source can be giving for saying this. 4X the Nation Guard are being deployed to D.C. for the inauguration as we have in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, reliable sources are almost never used in Wikipedia when it comes to Trump, it is all editor voted false spin. Twitter is way ahead of Wikipedia when it comes to banning spin doctors inciting violence. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The definition, in the article, reads, "...attacks by violent non-state actors for political motives." This appears to match exactly what happened. This is not a !vote on the politics of the riot, simply that it meets the definition of terrorism. Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a sure case of domestic terrorism, there is a bunch of RS saying this, and there is official investigation of these storming as terrorism. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes individuals were clearly engaging in terrorism, destruction of the electoral college ballots was their goal, they used violence and intimidation to stifle due process, and all fueled by a white nationalist political agenda. Acousmana (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per William Allen Simpson. It has been called domestic terrorism by Biden and various other officials, and the FBI seems to be treating it as such.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it has been prominently and repeatedly described as terrorism by reliable sources and government officials. The event itself is terrorism regardless of what kind of charges that are brought against individuals for their part in it. --Tataral (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, FBI, Homeland Security, former Department of Defense and military, as well as federal government officials are all referring to it as a terrorist incident. Domestic terrorists used "average" people at the rally as a cover to do what they want to do, just like the 9/11 hijackers pretended to be airplane passengers. The next president has called it domestic terrorism. Etc. Teammm ^talk
  _email 01:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per above, with an emphasis on Royal Autumn Crest's comment about needing a section that goes over the terms used to describe the event. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The Wikipedia article on Terrorism defines terrorism as follows: 'Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes.' The insurrection/riot at the US Capital clearly involved violence and there was also a clear political motive behind it. Edouard d'Erasme (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Then certainly the riots of the 60's and those of last summer were "terrorism" as well, no? The George Floyd Protests article makes clear their purpose was to extract political concessions. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, as per what is directly above. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes WP:RS call it terrorism. WP: What happened at the Capitol ‘was domestic terrorism,’ lawmakers and experts say As such, we should follow. Casprings (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per various WP:RS provided above by many users. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I believe this fits the definition of Domestic terrorism. At least some of them went there and had the attack planned before Trump gave his speech. There were reports of reconnaissance tours. There is a video of a woman giving coordinating instructions to people inside the building. There is a photo of an invader climbing over seats holding handcuff-zipties implying he intended to take hostages and came prepared to do so.--Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, FBI, Homeland Security, former Department of Defense and military, as well as federal government officials are all referring to it as a terrorist incident. Domestic terrorists used "average" people at the rally as a cover to do what they want to do, just like the 9/11 hijackers pretended to be airplane passengers. The next president has called it domestic terrorism. Etc. Not to mention the numerous citations of RS referring to it as such. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the USG is widely referring to it as a terrorist incident. When the media talk about whether it was a terrorist incident, many find it it was. And they are cautious about referring to any incident as such. At first I thought No - not in WPVOICE but yes if attributed. But as I looked through the comments, I found the No vote comments to be misses: Whataboutism, fiction, even gibberish, but mostly non sequiturs. While the Yes comments- well, not a wall of granite, but at least solid and coherent. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - clearly meets the definition of terrorism - violence in order to achieve a political end. A violent mob wanted to stop the counting of electoral votes, and successfully (if temporarily) did so. That's what the sources say, and that's what we should say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is definitely terrorism. Rioters stormed into the Capitol, many wanting to kill lawmakers, to stop a "stolen" election. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as violence or threats of violence used as a weapon of coercion or intimidation. The rioters wanted to coerce and intimidate lawmakers with violence and threats of violence (numerous threats were made, not to mention the pipe bombs). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 12:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes YES. While we are at it we can correctly modify the BLM and Antifa groups as terrorists. All that burning... California hung in smoke for weeks.--MrMikeMike (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes seems abundantly clear that a wide swath of reliable sources characterize it as such. ValarianB (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes if there are reliable sources that describe the incident this way. Benicio2020 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable sources and definitions from authoritative orgs (FBI) have unilaterally called this a terrorist event. YallAHallatalk 09:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Without a doubt. Everything points in that direction. --Gepid (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - This was an act, carried out by politically motivated individuals and groups native to the USA, that tried to achieve political change through the use of violence Textbook domestic terrorism.Erzan (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - As others have said, this was politically motivated. I'd prefer insurrection as that is exactly what it was, an attempt to over throw the lawful government. A'kwell (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes if attempting to kidnap and kill major politicians isn't terrorism I don't know what is. Seven Pandas (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Oppose

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

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

I would not have a problem with that either. Many of the BLM/Antifa riots were far more violent than the Capitol Hill Storming and tactics used certainly checked the boxes for terrorism. Similarly, there were certainly participants of the storming who had terroristic intentions at very least. I would be supportive of both this, and the BLM/Antifa riots being categorized as terrorism. History Man1812 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

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

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

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

Black Lives Matter were people protesting unarmed African Americans getting killed by police; the Capitol Insurrection was primarily white supremacists upset they lost an election and tried to change the result by force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the people identified at the Capitol were already on FBI watchlists, there is no such things as BLM riots, BLM doesn't organize riots, they conduct protests, which isn't terrorism, and have permits from the city to do so. White supremacists at the Capitol had weapons and handcuffs, used flag poles, fire extinguishers, and stun guns to attack police and others, used mob force to crush and rip of the badges and weapons of law enforcement, prevent them from leaving, caused Congress members and staff to go into hiding in fear for their lives, wore anti-semitic clothing and carried white nationalist symbols, and went on a search to find the Vice President of the United States and Speaker of the House of Representatives. They also planted bombs nearby. One sounds like terrorism to me, the other sounds like protesting as allowed under the Constitution. Oh, and all rioting isn't terrorism. It involves more. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. @User:ExplosiveResults, you're right. This lasted for one day and BLM lasted for weeks. Also, the "goals"section in the infobox has a strong negative bias. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

No As said above, most if not all reliable sources call this a riot, at most it is referred to as an insurrection, which is a dubious claim in it of itself JazzClam (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No This is a malformed RfC, and probably going to end up as a snowball again, as declaring it to be ex post facto terrorism by interpreting it as "Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." would clearly be wp:OR. Let's chill on the RfCs for a while. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow consensus on “facts”...could this be anymore intellectually dishonest...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.229.135 (talk • contribs)

• No Terrorism as a word is obviously biased and is pretty much incoherent at this point as it is used in so many inconsistent ways.PailSimon (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how, User:PailSimon, that identification of event is a biased issue, with Republicans and (former) Trump supporters calling this terrorism. How is this article from a local newspaper (Washington Post) not a reliable source? It even identifies some of the white nationalist terror groups involved. Nfitz (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Not until sufficient, high quality RS describe it as such. It doesn't matter what we think. People seem to lose sight of this very quickly. RandomGnome (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No-It was an unlawful protest, but not violent enough to be described as terrorism. The protesters weren't out to kill anyone. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The last part of this argument is demonstrably false. Lin Wood; "The time has come Patriots. This is our time. Time to take back our country. Time to fight for our freedom" [BusinessInsider]. His Parler post; "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." [Washington Post]. The bombs. Violent intent isn't debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Unless there are people involved in this event charged with committing acts of terrorism. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I concur with Rreagan007, no one has been charged with domestic terrorism or legally labeled as such Anon0098 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Most reliable sources are not characterizing it as a terrorist attack, even if they report declarations of this or that politician that calls it domestic terrorism, they usually do it clear in-text attribution. If you have followed media coverage of actual terrorist attacks, you probably know the difference between most reliable sources calling something terrorism, as opposed to some politicians calling names. --MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

......why the hell not? You either don't know what those words mean, or you're hoping that people who read your comment won't. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

I do see the reason now after all the news. In some aspects, seeing how terror tactics were used, despite the event not being a terrorist attack, terrorism was involved. But this aspect is not the most prominent one, as the desired political end was primarily not indirect, through terror (which is the defining element of terrorism), but direct and immediate, through intimidation of members of Congress etc. — Alalch Emis 22:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Obviously no. Even the question of this RFC is ridiculous, terrorism is milestones to the power of infinity far cry away of this event. I heavily agree as well what is coined on the top of this thread about NPOV and double measure, on the other hand quite sad political soapboxing became so widespread in WP, seeing the number of votes to support, incredible! Not knowing/understanding what terrorism really is raises a huge concerns. Btw. I am not watching or editing this page, just by coincidence I saw this RFC, so without any ping will ignore any further here, I hope sane thoughts will trial here, not political interests/propaganda/agenda.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

• No. FOR NOW. Demonstrations which lead to occupations of public buildings aren't usually defined as terrorism in reliable sources. But we have to follow if the historical consensus uses that term down the line.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, they were a protest that evolved into unlawful actions of serious caliber, but that's it. Even if a couple of protestors may turn out to have had terrorist intentions in my opinion it should not represent the whole event.Forich (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• No That is ridiculous. Terrorism is conducted by a terrorist organisation, it's usually a violent act to cause fear in a populous - ie it causes "terror". This was simply a mob attacking a building, and at the heart of it, there is no "terrorist" act that causes "terror" (ie a bombing, or the taking of hostages, or someone being killed). I don't think the public are particularly afraid of these protestors, in the terror sense. The motivation of the crowd wasn't to cause terror in the public for a political cause, - essentially the protestors were pissed off at the government and wanted to vent their frustration. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• No A no opinion does not mean support for the riot. Vowvo (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• No I know this was an insurrection I wouldn't compliment the insurrectionists by calling them rioters and the Department of Defense and CNN agree with me. [4] Caffoti (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hell no - They have to kill a LOT more people to be considered "terrorism" --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an incorrect assertion, because an act of terrorism does not necessitate "a LOT more people" being killed; for instance, in 1985'a incident involving TWA Flight 847 there was 1 fatality. In fact, an act of terrorism can occur without any casualties, like in Japan Airlines Flight 351. In the Capitol, there was an officer of the law killed, and The Guardian reported that "Two pipe bombs had been found at Republican and Democratic party offices near Congress" Tortillovsky (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The legal definition of terrorism varies from country to country - in some countries a certain level of seriousness/damage is required. In most Anglo-Saxon countries 'intent' rather than outcome is the defining factor. IRA actions in London often did no actual harm but caused massive economic disruption simply by threatening acts such as planting multiole small incendiary devices on the transport system, thengiving an ambiguous warning. But yes, there is not generally a minimum 'body count'. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - not in WPVOICE although attributed claims in the form "politicians/sources X+Y" described it as domestic terrorism would be apt. Terrorism has a precise legal definition in each country and it is exremely unlikely that anyone is going to be charged with any directly 'terrorist' offences. Riot, trespass, assault, damage or theft, threatening behaviour, possibly insurrection and possibly manslaughter iro a few individuals are all that are being spoken of as possible charges at the moment. You can't have terrorism without a terrorist, just as you cannot have murder without a murderer, and despite many of the perps being filmed, directly 'terrorist' - and probably even directly 'political' charges, such as insurrection, for the mob itself - are extremely unlikely AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - Just because it fits the definition of terrorism does not mean it should be classified as such. By definition all riots that ever happened would have been classified as terrorism. While it may feel good to label this as a terrorist act, using a technicality is not the way to do it. Orangewarning (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all RS calls it terrorism. Others call it coup. Others call it insurrection. Others call it storming. Others call it riots. Others call it rape. Others call it concert. Others call is anarchy. Others call it apocalypse. Others call it judgement. Others call it doomsday. Others call it massacre. Others call it flood. Others call it noisy. Others call it bad. Others call it stupid. Others call it violent. Others call it discredited. Others call it hate. Others call it hatred. Others call it killings. Others call it event. Others call it earthquake. Others call it tsunami. Others call it impeachment. Others call it pedophilia. Others call it breach. Others call it vandalism. Others call it edit war. Others call it war. Others call it World War 3. Others call is Donald Biden. Others call it looting. Others call it protests. Others call it BLM2. Others call it Just Some American Stuff. Others call it The Simpsons. Others call it Capitol Disaster. Others call it evening. Others call it day. Others call it January. Others call it 2021. Others call it something. We can't fit everything to one. Thus, they can be redirects and Wikipedia can give itself its own name (the current). GeraldWL 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As per above. I would honestly support a renaming to 2021 United States Capitol Incident, even, but that's somewhat irrelevant. I feel like storming is about as neutral as we can get without people from either side protesting the decision.SkynetPR (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Feel free to create 2001 World Trade Center incident with the appropriate content - be bold! →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Σ LOL. Great response. Made me laugh. That said, I must admit I was somewhat surprised to discover that September 11 attacks did not have the word "terrorism" in it, despite the coverage seeming to almost universally call it that. Before I saw that title, I might have been inclined to support "terrorist" in the title to this article--if that word was associated with the event as much as it is with 9/11--which it certainly isn't yet. I'm still waiting to see a stronger list of RS that calls it "terrorism" before I would join your yes vote. It still looks more like a coup attempt or insurrection to me than attempting to scare or intimidate civilians. I see it as trying to intimidate lawmakers and police, but it's up to the RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - I'm pretty vehemently against the actions of the rioters and what they stand for, but that said, calling this "terrorism" would seem to raise a lot of WP:NPOV issues. It also doesn't seem to be reflective of the verbiage that a majority of reliable sources are using. Most definitions generally call terrorism violence directed at civilians, which doesn't entirely fit in this instance. We can certainly make qualified statements that use "terrorism" (e.g. "Several news outlets referred to the incident as terrorism"), but we shouldn't use "terrorism" in narrative voice. Remember that "terrorism" is a word to watch. We should only apply it if we're confident. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – we didn't call the BLM protests terrorism; therefore, it's a violation of NPOV to call this incident terrorism. Firstly, terrorism is a strong word that carries many legal connotations, and not everyone there will likely be charged with terrorism. So it may not be the most accurate and neutral thing to mention (even if it's true). Also, not all references are calling it terrorism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• No — hard to believe this is even a question. If this was "terrorism" then so is virtually every riot, including those of last summer. Enough with the trying to call what was clearly a riot a "storming", "insurrection", "coup attempt", etc.—it's just embarrassingly POV and 100% inaccurate. These "debates" are pure partisan political hackery and a disgrace to Wikipedia. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - no evidence that this was a terrorist's plot. We should use WP:RS reliable sources. There's no frequent mention of "the terror attack on the Capitol". True, some may cite terror in the same line as if you don't have Medicaid assistance, it's terrifying if you're sick, but that's not the mainstream definition of terrorism. That is not to say that the riots were good. They were not. Vowvo (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• No — This whole talk page is filled with echo-chambered "fact checks" and so is the article. This was barely even a riot. It was a protest. Remember in Seattle when armed militants took over government buildings and temporarily seceded from the USA to create their own "Autonomous Zone?" That is labeled an "occupation protest" on wikipedia. The same place where in only a handful of days, there were multiple murders, several shootings, rapes, robberies; and yet that whole debacle is considered a "occupation protest." At least 26 people were killed during the George Floyd BLM uprisings/riots and wikipedia calls all of them "protests." Let's stop from making Wikipedia an echo-chamber from one side and back to the free and fair place to learn about things without bias. There is CLEAR bias on several political related pages that misrepresent reality with fiction citing non-credible articles that are only allow because they are posted on "credible mainstream news sites"; Keep WikiPedia written with unbias facts. ChaseF (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• No (and wait) To my knowledge there is insufficient sources, and no official US government sources that call it terrorism (correct me if I'm wrong). Labelling this event as terrorism reeks of political bias and opportunism. There's a severe desire from very leftist Americans to label this as everything bad they can come up with. To my knowledge, as one witness and participant said, everything got emotional and they got carried away. And as others also have pointed out, if this event is labelled as terrorism, then we should label the Antifa/BLM "mostly peaceful protests"/riots as terrorism too. And if this event was terrorism, then it surely was the most lame and weird act of terrorism ever. The damage was absolutely minimal, and I don't recall seeing people smashing stuff en masse on purpose. Lukan27 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. @User:ExplosiveResults, you're right. This lasted for one day and BLM lasted for weeks. Also, the "goals" section in the infobox has a strong negative bias. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

*No. Although I do not support the illegal actions of the rioters, there wasn't an intent of violence, and they did not target civilians, or really any humans. They did not attempt to create "terror." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlatSkate (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No. If this is terrorism, then I suppose the BLM riots and looting is considered as such as well? Or does it only apply if they support the Republican party? Let's try to hide our bias please. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per Contentious labels, we should avoid calling people terrorists. Also, per People accused of crime, we should not accuse living or recently deceased people as criminals unless they have been convicted. It doesn't meet the meaning of terrorism as normally understood. It's not as if someone had blown up the Capitol. TFD (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• No While it was undoubtedly terrifying to Congress, the intent was not to create terror but to overthrow the election. It was a self-coup attempt, that is, an attempt to keep the then-current administration in power. However, "storming" belongs in a tabloid, not Wikipedia. Laguna CA (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Other

• Wait. If individual rioters receive charges of terrorism, terrorism-related charges, or charges of sedition - we should refer to this act as "terrorism". Until then, I propose that we simply wait. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. I would prefer to wait until there has been news of individuals or organizations being referred doing "terrorist" behavior. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per Mt.FijiBoiz. This seems reasonable and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait I would wait until such individuals are charged with terrorism-related charges, once they are I will be in support. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait While the definition of terrorism has been expanded significantly in recent decades, it's looking like a very few of those involved were prepared for terroristic acts. When this is clarified we can have a suitable section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Wait Personally these seem to be acts of terrorism to me, but I agree with the above that we should wait for charges or expert opinions. Ziko (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per above. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and as this isn't classified as terrorism (yet?), we should wait until it is classified as such. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Per WP:LABEL, value-laden labels should be treated cautiously even if used by reliable sources. Sources will begin to describe the event more neutrally as it leaves the realm of news and enters the realm of history.Jancarcu (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Wait a bit and see what RS converge on, and we get a clearer picture of motivations, who the leaders were, who planted the bombs, how they organized, et cetera. Terrorism isn't really well-defined, so I'm opposed to an appeal to definitions. DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if there are charges of "terrorism" for people involved I'll consider it, but I don't see the support for that label as-of-yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait Too soon, but if a majority of reliable sources begin using the term, so can Wikipedia. Usage in RS will probably be influenced by what kind of charges will be brought (i.e. terrorism-related or not). Sjö (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until a consensus is reached within our sources. -- ToE 11:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per everyone else. Some people were there to protest, some were clearly rioting, some were clearly there to commit assassinations and acts of terror... It's a very complicated, multifaceted event, and we should just wait to see what a majority of experts and officials say, all across the board. Love of Corey (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per most above. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait for reliable sources to converge on descriptors, per Sjö. GAB^gab 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until, as mentioned above, news on if those arrested have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hold on - While organizations such a QAnon and Proud Boys might be characterized as terrorist due to their plottings of assassinations and such, Wikipedia shouldn't characterize the attack that way in Wikipedia's voice. The article can include examples of reliable sources, properly attributed, that characterize the attacks that way. The only class of topics I know of where it's permissible (even required) to use a value-laden WP:LABEL in Wikipedia's narrative voice is WP:FRINGE topics, and this isn't one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, someone made a good point. - OK, so before I continue with my justification, let it be clear that none of the following sentences shall show either political support or political opposition to either of the events mentioned herein. If we are going to classify the event at the Capitol as terrorism, then (as some users above mentioned) there have been other events last year, most notably BLM/Antifa riots, that must also be classified as terrorism. My reasoning: Categorizing something as terrorism requires 1) political motivation to cause a desired change 2) targeting of noncombatant persons (usually civilian) 3) intention to (preferably quickly) instill fear into noncombatant targets 4) at least one person present, virtually or physically, to do something destructive through the use of violence or intimidation. So, the event at the Capitol hits the first (obviously). The targeting is hard to pin because it was not specific, but the third one is a hit, as is the fourth one. At best it hits 4/4, at worst, 3/4. But note, however, that this "checklist" applies only to the people who are actually committing to #4. I can't add this to the article without sourcing because WP:OR but it was clear from footage that most people were not interested in violence, only a portion of them. Because other people were present in large numbers that fit #1 but not #4, the validity of classifying this as terrorism is debatable. Compare this to the various riots in 2020 by BLM/Antifa. They hit #1, obviously. They targeted stores and other buildings, so #2 is a hit. And all of the riots involved their burning, so #4 is also a hit. #3 is debatable, but because at least one person of clear political opposition who were in their way was beaten (to death iirc), I tend to lean toward the affirmative. So at best, this gets 4/4, at worst 3/4. And unlike the event at the Capitol, this one does apply to almost every single person involved. So, my stance: if we classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots must also be classified as terrorism, but (to avoid affirming the consequent) if the BLM/Antifa riots are classified as terrorism, the event at the Capitol need not necessarily be classified as terrorism. Inversely, if we do not classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots may still be classified as terrorism, but (again, a.t.c.) if the BLM/Antifa riots are not classified as terrorism, then this act must also not be classified as terrorism. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until the Biden administration makes a statement either way. That some of the insurrectionists have been charged with domestic terrorism is not sufficient to make the entire insurrection a singular act of terrorism. Forklift17 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if anything. In a "reactions" section or similar, it may be appropriate to say "some sources have referred to [the acts/list specific parts of the events here] as [domestic] terrorism". But until reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the act as a whole as terrorism, it is inappropriate to call it such in WP voice. We are still within a charged time in the political environment - and until the dust settles, it is inappropriate to even be considering this. There is absolutely no rush to call it terrorism, even if it eventually can be determined to be the correct thing to do here. That being said, the trajectory of news coverage of these events has been decreasingly calling it terrorism/insurrection/related words in recent days - possibly to try to avoid polarizing the situation further and any "repeat" or "copycats" based on the use of that language. We will see what coverage over the next few months/year(s) calls it - but until then, it's not appropriate to call it that in WP voice. I'll note that even some participants being charged with/convicted of offenses called terrorism does not mean the event as a whole can be called a terrorist attack. It would be appropriate in such a case to discuss the charges/convictions that resulted, but the event as a whole is not determined by a few charges/convictions. TLDR: potentially the word has a place qualified by specific sources/individuals/charges/etc - but not as a whole yet, if ever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait We must wait for more evidence to come out that it was a coordinated and planned attack between "most" of the people who stormed the capitol building. Current evidence (already cited in discussed article) shows maybe a few hundred people stormed the capitol while the protest had tens of thousands of people attend. We do not know if the majority that did storm were coordinated and planned or if some of them were just opportunistic. If the evidence does come out that the above is true and every intention was to stop democracy from continuing and a planned and organized attack took place then I am all in favor of calling it what it would be, a domestic terrorism attack. For now the process and trials have not concluded and I am very skeptical to call it Domestic Terrorism as we can label many events over the past decades and even as recent as 2020 as Domestic Terrorism. The article already has holes and biases I'm sure will be edited once more information is received. The best part of the discussion is seeing everyone who voted Yes get no feedback or flack for their opinion yet almost everyone who voted no has a comment from another user challenging their opinion. It's honestly sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.63.185 (talk • contribs) 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until at least a few of the participants are charged with terrorism or sedition. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Domestic terrorism" is not a crime. The United States does not have a crime with "terrorism" in the name that covers domestic terrorism. (For example see the NPR story: Former DOJ Official On Why She Thinks Domestic Terrorism Should Be A Federal Crime.) Therefore, no one can be charged with any such crime, and waiting for such charges by that name makes no sense. There are federal crimes which are used to charge terrorists, such as the use of a weapon of mass destruction or attempted murder of a political target. As the article says, the DOJ has already arrested and charged over 125 people with a variety of crimes. That includes several charges of vandalism, theft, and "violent entry". Given that some people did so with the obvious goal of menacing members of Congress to change their votes, do any or all of those crimes meet the everyday meaning of the word "terrorism" for the folks commenting above? (@Mt.FijiBoiz, JayJay, Ziko, Power~enwiki, Berchanhimez, Sjö, Guy Macon, and Forklift17:) It's possible more serious charges of attempted kidnapping, attempted murder, or seditious conspiracy, are coming, but I think it's worth an assessment of the situation so far. There is also the problem that people who committed specific acts might never be identified. It does not seem right that the name for the type of event would change depending on the success or failure of the police, given that the motivation was clear from context? It is also worth considering whether certain people were engaging in terrorism (like those hunting down members of Congress, or breaking windows or assaulting police) or if everyone who entered the building along with the mob should be described as engaged in terrorism, on the theory that an entire mob is menacing, and that peaceful protest involves not overrunning a police line? -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. As explained here[5] many states and localities have adopted penalties for domestic terrorism and the U.S. Code defines the phrase "domestic terrorism" (see [6]). You appear to have become confused (possibly by the fact that QAnon is purposely trying to confuse people and that deception is spreading across the Internet) by the fact that domestic terrorism is not currently a federal crime. If you murder your spouse that isn't a federal crime either, but that does not mean that murder is not a crime. The people who broke into the capitol could very well end up being charged as domestic terrorists under the DC Code in the DC Superior Court, which is the DC equivalent of a state court. Or they may run into the provisions that certain state/DC crimes can be tried as federal crimes (if you murder your mailman instead of your spouse, for example). One of those provisions involves crimes committed on federal property. You would have to ask a lawyer if the exception applies in this case -- I advise against trusting any legal advice you get from an electronics engineer. Related: [7] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not confused, I guess I just wasn't very clear. When I said "United States", I was referring to the federal government. I assumed the federal context given we're talking about actions that occurred on federal property and were directed against federal lawmakers. The definition in 18 USC §2331 does not apply to any crime, as the Hill article makes clear. Though you can judge for yourself, or reliable sources can judge, whether the actions on January 6 meet that definition, we can't expect there to be a charging document alleging someone violated it. I came to this understanding from the NPR piece I referenced; this is not something I heard about from social media, which I generally don't use. Yes, I know states have their own criminal codes; I did not know that DC had its own separate code, and interestingly it does define a crime called terrorism [8]. I still think it is highly likely that all the serious charges are going to be under federal jurisdiction; as far as I know all the actual attack-related charges so far have been, including the conspiracy charges that just came out yesterday. In any case, whether or not Wikipedia calls the event "terrorism" shouldn't depend on which jurisdiction the perpetrators are charged in or the legal quirks about the names one of them gives to crimes which are covered by the everyday meaning of "terrorism". -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Occasionally repressive regimes attempt to stretch the definition of "terrorism" to include political protest of lesser or greater degrees of violence, we could perhaps include the Bolivian coup government of 2019-2020 in this, or the government of Belarus. However, terrorism is generally viewed as a military operation conducted by covert non-state actors whose goal is not to control territory or further some tactical or strategic aim within the context of traditional warfare, but to make a political point. I don't see any military aspect in this action, not were the participants behaving covertly. The violent demonstration in Washington was possibly, in the minds of some of its participants, an attempted coup, but even then, a failed coup attempt is not usually classed as terrorism. However, if by some miracle the balance of reliable sources in future (things like encyclopaedias and history books) refer to it as "terrorism" then I suppose it's ok. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I see a large number--if not most editors--have answered giving their personal opinion and analysis about whether this is or is not "terrorism." Isn't that WP:OR? How about we follow our most basic rules of Wikipedia and call it terrorism if and only if the WP:RS calls it that? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@David TornheimI think the problem here is that we have an event so prominent that we can find RS that call it a massive variety of things including "terrorism", "insurrection" and a "coup attempt". However, on balance the majority of RS won't take that position. This is why people feel free to wade in. I think we should just exclude terrorism for now, as it pretty clearly isn't from any neutral standpoint (and if it is, I've done terrorism on several occasions), and wait to see if a historical consensus calling it "terrorism" emerges in academic sources rather than news media. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• So how long is this staying open? It should close soon, otherwise it's like Wait won although having not the majority Norschweden (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Requested move 23 January 2021

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: Not moved to the proposed title. There is definitely a consensus against calling this a "riot", mostly for being overly vague and for not being a direct enough word. There is not exactly broad satisfaction with "storming" per se, as it is not a particularly common word, but no other alternative received broad support in this discussion.*

The chart posted of the popularity in reliable sources for the various names was important and useful, and it showed "riots" in the lead, but many editors voiced concerns that the subject of this article is not the overall unrest that occurred in Washington D.C. that day, but rather specifically the "insurrection" (their words, not mine), or in other words, the breaching and trespassing of the Capitol itself. In other words, WP:COMMONNAME was conceded by many editors in favor of "riot", but "riot" was dismissed regardless by the consensus that developed below for not capturing the scope of what actually happened - that is, the subject of the article. (Needless to say - although many did say it - per our titling policies, the entire point of an article title is to capture the scope of the subject of the article.)

*There might be a chance to develop a consensus to move this article to a title containing the word "attack", as anecdotally many people supported it in the discussion and I didn't see much opposition to it; however, I would never presume a consensus for it based on the discussion below. Lastly, there was a noteworthy thread throughout the discussion as well of "wait and see", since sources are still perhaps deciding how to describe what happened. I cannot say that consensus will never develop to use the proposed title or a similar one. I can only judge that a consensus has developed not to use the word "riot" in the title of the article describing the breaking and entering of the Capitol. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol riot – Improved title per WP:NCE and WP:COMMONNAME

• WP:NCE — "2021 United States Capitol riot" is a "when", "where" and "what" title
• WP:COMMONNAME — Of the most common descriptors (protest, storming, riot, attack, insurrection) riot is overwhelmingly the riot and attack are names that are most commonly used.

JaredHWood💬 21:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To the RM closer: Please consider the #Survey of proposed titles for proposed and discussed titles for the article, along with the discussion when determining consensus. JaredHWood💬 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (requested move 23 January 2021)

• Comment Of all the other name changes proposed, this would be acceptable, but unsure whether a change now would be too early or too late. Qexigator (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's neither too early or too late, this is the ideal time to improve on the current title. — Alalch Emis 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Time will tell better than any sources to date or opinions on this page (including archived). What is the length of the string to measure the time in units of weeks or months, expecting up to five more years for historical perspectives to consolidate, and perhaps a further five for revisionism to take up the baton? Meantime, the ever-changing tabulating - Survey of proposed titles,[9] not yet closed- (adding, shifting, hiding, meta-stasing) is more muddling than helpful, in ways that others have already remarked, but may have helped to demonstrate the divergent range of views of !voters.[10] Qexigator 09:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC) revised) 10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC), Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Further Comment 1 If the proposed move happens, the first sentence could read:

"The United States Capitol riot was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."

or (more simply) "The United States Capitol riot was a violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."

Either way, while the word 'storming' occurs in at least 15 places of the body of the article's current version it seems that all these places could be reworded with 'riot' or 'attack' instead. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Further Comment 2 Retaining the use of 'storming' in the name is fatally flawed vulnerable because of the unfortunate ambiguity noted below,[11]: as if storming of the United States Capitol could be read as implying that the Congress then in session within the Capitol was in a state of tempestuous anger. Qexigator (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC) revised in view of another's later comment.[12] 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question to @Jared.h.wood:, can you demonstrate this is the WP:COMMONNAME? — Czello 22:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Czello: I guess it depends on what you mean by "demonstrate", but WP:COMMONNAME says: "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". There's lots of data (e.g. in Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021) showing that riot is currently the most common term. Another data point: In the titles of our sources for this article, riot occurs over 100 times, 70 times of which in Capitol riot – much more often than attack, insurrection, etc. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: The information given by Chrisahn is what I based my assertion on. I would add these counts of occurrences in the article itself.

• • riot: 245 mentions with "capitol riot" 69 times
  • storm: 105 mentions with "storming of the capitol"^{(and derivations)} 32 times
  • attack: 58 mentions with "capitol attack" 11 times

The exact search term "Capitol riot" is the most common name for the January 6th event at the US Capitol. JaredHWood💬 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Another approach yields basically the same results: Set region to US and language to English in a search for "capitol" on Bing news search or Google news search and count the terms used for the event in the headlines of the first 50 search results: "Capitol riot(s)": 70-80%; "Capitol attack": 20-25%; others (e.g. "Capitol insurrection"): less than 5% each. (I didn't count terms for perpetrators, but "Capitol rioters" is clearly most common.) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is what I have thought all along the article should be called. It is straightforward and easily understood; everybody knows what a "riot" is. Much preferable to "insurrection" or "storming," which could be challenging to those without fluent and well-educated English. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Beat me to it. I would support the current suggestion. Support both attack and riot equally per really good analysis below. However, I would suggest United States Capital Attack is better. First, I think we need to understand what is actually WP:COMMONNAME. Doing a google news search and searching for the terms in title combined with Capital gives us, Riot used 67,700 times, attack is used 193,000 times, insurrection is used 15,400 times and storming is used 6,340 times. That is extremely strong evidence that the current title is not aligned with WP:COMMONNAME and we should use attack. Next we must weigh precision and disambiguation. I think what gets you there is United States Capital Attack. I don’t think you need a year, as what occurred isn’t common enough to confuse people. I do think you need to clue the reader into the country. I would argue that this title meets Wikipedia standards for a title far better then the current and, even through we just had a move discussion, we take the time to look at this again. As noted in the orginal move, this was a temporary solution.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your search is not convincing. You misspelled "Capitol", and for some reason you used "Capitol Hill" instead of Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That is sad. Give me a second and I will fix it.Casprings (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And fixed. It’s the same results. Google is smart. That said, no one likes typos.Casprings (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also updated to be Capital versus Capital Hill. I would note, the overall result is the same. Attack is the the common name.Casprings (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your results are still totally weird. Maybe it's because you are still misspelling Capitol. Here's what I get, searching for each of the four words together with (quote marks) "U.S. Capitol". The result: Riot 84,300,000. Attack 82,700,000. Insurrecton 42,000,000. Storming 23,600,000. Riot and attack are the most common, but riot is slightly more used than attack. To the extent that Google searching means anything (debatable), riot is the common name. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is spelled right, if you click the links. What you are seeing is that I am searching to see if it is used in the title. That gives you a better idea of journalist are using it as a name.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you for explaining that you were searching for the word in the title. I missed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Was originally just going to comment but as I typed my feelings became more clear. My concern is that the term "riot" doesn't really encompass the breaching of the building, or the specific political aims of those who did so. This wasn't just destruction of property, those leading the group were specifically searching for congresspeople to, seemingly, take captive or even execute, or at the very least to stop the electoral certification. The current title, "storming", shows more of that intent. "Attack" might also work. I like "insurrection", but I feel like that's unlikely to win an RM in any form given the last one. I guess I'll back "2021 United States Capitol attack" or variants for an RM per WP:COMMONNAME. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously this was simply a riot—"storming" is laughably NPOV and clearly designed for dramatic effect. Equally important: the "riot" article ought not to include the speeches, marches, etc. that included many thousands of people. Now that we know that only about 800 people entered the Capitol,[13] and that the vast majority of those were peaceful and committed no crime at all, it's high time to put the numbers in perspective. These were the actions of what's likely less than 150 bad actors—out of tens of thousands of people in DC on January 6 for a day of peaceful marches, speeches, and protests. Lumping this together with the larger events of the day completely distorts the truth of what happened. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The primary topic of this article is the violent attack on the capital by white supremacist extremists and other far-right actors. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to minimize that, or the culpability of those involved in the day's events. Given your talk page admonitions regarding edits at Race and intelligence, I would discourage other editors from taking your attempts to do so in good faith. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If more such comments appear, it will mean that "riot" is trending as a revisionist term. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The primary topic of this article is not a violent attack on Washington DC (as had happened several times 2015-2016 and at the time of Trump's inauguration[14]} but a riotous intrusion on the Congress building and its debating chambers so as to disrupt the proceedings of the Senate and House while in session. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current title is OK and so is "2021 United States Capitol attack". Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close is not appropriate, as the embargo was only on "insurrection" nominations. The closer specifically says "Other move requests (like "Riots," etc.) may be launched immediately.". BlackholeWA (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Irregardless of the previous RM closer opinion, it is MY opinion that the previous RM discussion stand for 30 days. We cannot keep junking up the article with RM tags and perpetual RM discussions -- it's disruptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair, although I think(?) that procedural closures only apply to processes closed because the process itself violates a given rule/procedure rather than due to editor consensus. Maybe there'll be basis for a snow close, but too early for that I think. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. 1. "Capitol riot" is closer to WP:COMMONNAME than any other term, as lots of data about usage in WP:RS provided during Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021 has shown. 2. It's true that "riot" isn't very specific and doesn't encompass all aspects of the event – in particular the political goals of the perpetrators – but other terms (e.g. "attack", "storming", "insurrection") would be slightly off in other ways. 3. It's probably best to keep the year in the title for now. "Capitol riot" is close to a WP:COMMONNAME, but it's not yet the name for the events of January 6, 2021. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose come on. the current title is fine and more descriptive of what is the most well-known facet of the attack. We should move-protect this page. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 23:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is already move-protected. It won't be moved unless and until consensus is reached here, and then an admin will have to move it. That does not prevent discussion, since a lot of people don't think the current title is "fine". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Descriptive is not the right adjective here. In general, the title needs to convey "what", not "what did it look like". and if there's a real and specific word for that "what", that is sufficiently common – that is the best choice for the name. — Alalch Emis 01:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support for now, because it's better than Storming ... but it was an Attack, on the Capitol, on the Government; using the term Riot doesn't encapsulate the most important feature of that day. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment would it be possible to run a simultaneous RfC on "2021 United States Capitol attack", or would editors prefer we see this one through first? The "attack" phrasing seems to be more encompassing, and is a good WP:COMMONNAME candidate per the stats upthread. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging MelanieN; I don't know the procedure on 2 RfC's. Also, should "attack" be capitalized? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That could have been done in the form of Option A/B (Support A / Support B / Oppose (both)), Somedifferentstuff. I don't think it's a good idea, but that's how it can be done. — Alalch Emis 00:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: See this RM as an example of how to suggest and maintain a table of proposed titles all users can vote for. -> Talk:List_of_works_similar_to_the_2020_Utah_monolith#Proposed_Titles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be a worthwhile approach, although it makes me wish we'd taken it in the last RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As for whether "attack" should be capitalized, no it shouldn't. As for whether it is allowable to run more than one RfC at a time, I can't answer that one. My hunch (speaking as just another editor, not an admin) is that it would be best to finish with one before starting another. And that there is no ban on starting another right away unless the closer imposes a moratorium - which they specifically didn't in this case. As Alalch Emis suggests, it is not uncommon to have RMs with more than one choice, but in my experience they rarely result in consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: since there is so much diversity of opinion it may be impossible to hold an up-or-down vote on any single choice. Maybe something like the below table, where all the choices are presented and people can register themselves as "prefer", "accept", and "oppose", would be the best way to narrow down the community's actual preferences. Just a thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Riot" is an unspecific and simply inadequate descriptor. The specific and truly adequate descriptor is "insurrection", and is common enough. Per my and others' arguments in the previous RM, I support Insurrection at the United States Capitol. I also oppose the current title. I am neutral to "attack" (rationale diff). — Alalch Emis 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Insurrection was discussed. It is known that it will not gain consensus. There was storming, there was rioting, there was attacking, and there was insurrection, but the title has to be set based on Wikipedia policies. I urge you to support this title based on NCE and COMMONNAME. Perfect is the enemy of good. JaredHWood💬 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus against "insurrection" there just wasn't enough consensus for "insurrection". Per my calculations, in the future this article will bear "insurrection" in the title, there's a way to go. — Alalch Emis 00:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as others comments, "riots" doesn't cover it. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ribbet32, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Riot" does not convey that the Capitol building was breached. It might just have been a rioting mob in the grounds. I support options like "storming" or "attack" which convey the violent breach of the building. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

WWGB, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table below will not represent "consensus", it is just a bank of votes. That table has no relevance to this RM, which is purely about ONE requested change. The table just serves to cloud this standalone issue. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support riot, then attack, then protests in that order. Oppose any charged language such as storming or insurrection or infiltration or anything else charged someone may come up with. I have no strong preference for the year being included or not, but I feel that it should likely be omitted if possible - i.e. if "riot" is chosen, to my knowledge, no other event could potentially qualify as a Capitol riot, thus omit - but attack would require the year as the Capitol was attacked prior - same with protests. My !vote for is based on WP:COMMONNAME - as those three seem to be equally prevalent in my view. My !vote against is per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME - we cannot use charged words such as storming, and in fact none of the "charged" language being proposed are even remotely near common name. I'll point out to all that this is not a vote - the table is useless, as just as the admin who closed the last move discussion brought up - it's not even necessary to count votes and any such counts may be wholly ignored if there are stronger policy reasons on one side. I also feel that any vote for "insurrection" specifically (without any other options) should be struck - the admin who closed the last RM made it clear that there is a discretionary arbitration sanction on this article for at least one month for moving it to that title - thus this discussion, by definition, cannot even remotely entertain the title "insurrection". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on the analysis in #Ongoing analysis of naming trends, and my personal analysis that leads to the observation "insurrection" was used mostly in the week following the attack, and is not as commonly used now as opposed to "riot", it is clear that 2021 United States Capitol riot is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources at this point. This also avoids the need to discuss whether "insurrection" or "storming" are WP:NPOV, because even if they were, they aren't the common name so the point is moot. I'll note that arguments based on "what I saw happened" or "that's what happened" are original research and do not hold any value whatsoever in determining the title of this article - I hope whoever closes this takes into account that many of the answers arguing that "storming" is better than "riot" are based on their own opinions and not based on our policy for naming articles. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to fact that "riot" is more a plural word "riots" rather than singular instead. Many sources like The Daily Telegraph and Hindustan Times refers it as "riots" (plural) instead "riot" (singular). Most riots article have standardized word (XXXX [city or place] riots) such as 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 England riots, etc. Aside from this, the current title is till better for now. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support but 2021 Riots at the United States Capitol would be better.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan "2021 Riots at the United States Capitol" would give the idea that this event happened more than once, since "riots" is plural. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. (Given that COMMONNAME is use by the requester, I will explain with quotes.) Under COMMONNAME, Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Use commonly recognizable names, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The issue with 2021 United States Capitol riot is using the word riot. It fails WP:CONSISTENT of CRITERIA, The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. Using riot would not be consistent with events like King-assassination riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots which were events that mostly took place of city streets. By contrast, this event occurred on the grounds and inside the Capitol. Additionally, there are sources that question what we should call the event: 1, 2, 3, 4. This seems to go against there being a single, common description for what happened. However, using a description that waters down what happened does not seem to be the best way forward. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Update: Oppose using Attack as well - Honestly, this proposal has fallen apart with the removal of options from the table below. I believe that using attack is trying to water down what happened along with counting sources like "Attack on the Capitol", "attack on Capitol", and "in attack on Capitol" as equal to the proposed "Capitol Attack". If anything, I believe that using attack would violate WP:CONSISTENT as riot does above, in addition to WP:Precision as it is ambiguous over what attack refers to. It also isn't made clear how using attack would follow WP:NCE: When the incident happened is 2021, Where the incident happened is the United States Capitol, What happened is attack. What attack happened though isn't clear by the title. At least riot incorrectly tried to explain what the event was. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But it's a step up from storming. Attack is the genus for insurrection (obv. the right term), and even though incredibly imprecise, still correct. Storming is not correct (omits crucial facts and aspects that fall outside of what is generally understood by "storming"). I completely share your rationale for opposing "attack", but the same rationale in my case renders a "neutral" position. — Alalch Emis 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not easy to see how using 'attack' in the article's name could be NPOV acceptable here (that is, outside contentious political or media lanuage). Templates at the pagetop use the words 'personal attacks'. The link mentions that There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack, but some types of comments are never acceptable. Much the same could be said of 'attack' relating to the violently riotous conduct that has occurred at the federal and other Capitols. So let us look and see whether Wikipedia's Attack helps. Top of the list is 'Warfare and combat', and the others are not relevant here. Of the six W&C, the nearest is Offensive (military), while 'Offensive' links to 'Fighting words'. None of that seems to be better suited to renaming this article. Use of 'attack' in the name would be literary overkill, unsuited to an encyclopedia, except as a redirect. Qexigator (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion as I feel it is a step down. I don't like using storming, but it is more accurate to what happened than the vague and unclear 'attack' being used. The only reason we should use attack is if there is no COMMONNAME like with September 11 attacks. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The proposer, User:Jared.h.wood, posted an update to the proposal above that changed the discussion from Riot to Attack. Said update is no longer in the proposal, but this should remain due to the table listed below as for my discussion as to why I opposed Attack. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support breach, Oppose incident I don't like using breach, but it is descriptive of what happened and there is sources using breach. I can support a move from Storming to Breach. Incident has almost the problems as Attack does, being vague and not following WP:NCE. The one problem it might not gave is WP:CONSISTENT as there are articles with the name that describe events, though with no explanation for why incident was used. I do believe that Incident being just as vague as Attack is a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Added two.... riot or attack is fine... but it hasn’t occurred twice. We don’t need the date, in my opinion.Casprings (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I again would make the point above. Look at what WP:RS are using in their title of their articles. This is using google news search and looking at articles titles.

• Riot used 67,700 times,
• attack is used 193,000 times,
• insurrection is used 15,400 times
• storming is used 6,340 times.

That is a very good logic to use attack. Moreover, this is one of the most important events to occur. I think we can drop the year.Casprings (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Casprings This is a completely uninformative and unusable set of rudimentary google searches. You didn't limit the search to relevant sources, didn't limit the period, didn't differentiate the verb from the noun. IMO it's a bad idea to reuse this and base arguments on it elsewhere. Please look at my analysis further below. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is better than the proposed one. "Riot" vs "protest" are both more subjective terms, while "storming" is a more objective and descriptive term. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word "riot" does not fully capture what happened. It strikes me that riots tend to be more spontaneous, often without any planning or direct incitement, and can sometimes be relatively trivial (such as riots that follow sporting events). My experience of watching lots of TV news over the past two weeks is that this event is not being described by reliable sources as a riot. I would rather we waited to change the name of the article until a term asserts itself beyond Wikipedia by public consensus -- much in the way that the US terrorist attacks of September 2001 were not right away called "9/11" but only coalesced as that name after some time had passed. (Yes, before anyone asks, I do know that's not the title of the Wikipedia article about 9/11.) In the meantime, I think "storming" is an apt (or apt enough for now) description of what occurred. Moncrief (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the comment above. "Riot" is not an all-encompassing description and fully-accurate description of what happened. Also there is precedent on Wikipedia for the use of the word storming. See: 2020 storming of the Kurdistan Democratic Party headquarters, Storming of the Bastille among others. - kyyl0 :) (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. A riot - as defined by Oxford Languages - is "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." This was more than a riot, this was an organized assault on a seat of government. Whether or not the majority of the mob intended to breach the Capitol is immaterial, the breach happened, people died, legislators and their staff and various police & security personnel on site were in serious fear of life and limb. Guns were drawn on the floor of the House Chamber - this was a much more serious event than "a riot". Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Moncrief. Love of Corey (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A "riot" could mean anything from an unruly protest to an armed coup. "Storming" is a more descriptive term that describes what happened (the building was breached and people unlawfully stormed it). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, storming of the Capitol is factually what happened, riot is an inadequate description of the breach of a government building.Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Oppose I have now noticed that entries for storming' in Roget's Thesaurus[15] indicate that there may be some degree of ambiguity in the words "storming of the United States Capitol", as if "the United States Capitol" was being used as a metonym for Congress in session, as "the White House" is often used as a metonym for the president and their advisers.' Some of those Roget's entries: are: 'angry [adj] being mad, often extremely mad' / 'p____ off, affronted, annoyed / 'tempestuous / wild / stormy / agitated / blustering' / turbulent / unsettled / raging (referring to weather), agitated, bitter, wild, intense, stormy / wrathful / very angry / beside oneself / displeased / enraged / furious'. However, "The Table for consensus" that has been posted below is more likely to add confusion than otherwise. It shows that so far there is little agreement for any other title, and the comments on this page, and as archived, show that support for any other title is based on divergent thoughts about the meaning of any of the proposed alternatives. it is quite clear that riots can be more severe and deadly than 2021 at the federal Capitol, such as the Gordon Riots, the March Unrest and many others, such as those mentioned in 11 of history’s biggest riots and why they happened.[16]Support While still unsure But in the case of 2021 at the Capitol, 'storming' is also acceptable, and at least second best or maybe first equal of any so far proposed. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC) revised Qexigator (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC) revised 10:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title is certainly better supported than the current title. Protesters storm the capitol a lot. BLM did it back in June. It wasn't even that big a news story at the time. 5440orSleep (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

BlackholeWA "Protesters storm the capitol a lot" ... another comment of the said type. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support A riot is what it was, and its supported by numerous RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that most or all of the above discussion occurred when the proposed move was to "riot". I don't know what to make of the "update" which now proposes a move to "attack", or when exactly it was added. Adding a new proposed title in the middle of the discussion has completely muddled the discussion. It means that when people above talk about "the proposed title" it may be unclear what proposal they are talking about. Bottom line, this RM is probably now confused beyond repair. The "table" below is also misleading if not worthless - because we don't know in what context people were responding, when they posted the comment they are tallied as making. For most of the above discussion this was presented as a two-fold choice, either "riot" or the existing "storming". "Attack" was suggested by multiple people but was never discussed as a support-or-oppose proposal, so its popularity, or lack thereof, cannot be evaluated by the above discussion or the below table. (For my own part, I would accept "attack", still prefer "riot", and oppose "insurrection". But I don't think any decision can be made on the basis of this constantly-changing RM.) BTW I think the table idea may be a helpful approach, but it would have to be started from scratch and not as part of an existing RM. Also it should have three columns: "prefer", "accept", and "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Update has been removed as too many people have already commented when it was just discussing riot. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Somedifferentstuff! I agree with 99% of what MelanieN said. But since only one comment has been added after Jared.h.wood added the "attack" option and it clearly supports "riot" (Slatersteven above), I think we have repaired this RM and can finish it the usual way. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good Chrisahn -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The RM may be salvageable. The table below is still a good concept, but it would have to be started over from scratch - since it currently tallies what people said in a "storming vs. riot" discussion, it does not reliably evaluate people's opinions about all the possible titles. But it could be a good general survey of people's opinions. It should only ask about what NOUN to use (riot, storming, attack, insurrection, etc.). Once the appropriate noun is chosen we can decide about details like including the year or not. It would not have to be a table; it might be more readable as a text sentence where people rank the choices, or describe the various options as "prefer", "accept", or "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree 100% with MelanieN and Chrisahn, substantive support for "attack" can be drawn from this and the previous RMs. The table covers everything needing covering at this stage (including year and phrasing detail). This RM should result in a move as there is consensus to move away from storming. This was better discussed in meta subsections below. — Alalch Emis 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Maybe whoever closes the discussion will agree with you. As I said, this RM might be salvageable. The outcome here will be decided, not by my opinion or yours, but by an uninvolved closer. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there would need to be a group of closers to decide this, especially with the mess involved with the table. (Good idea, but the execution didn't work) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I dunno. Something besides "storming". GMG^talk 16:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close this mess of an RM, and trout whoever came up with the voting table below. I think the idea of a RfC to establish a rough consensus for the best candidate for a RM target is a good idea. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Agreed. This should be put out of its misery as soon as possible. Someday when I have more time, I'd like to try and figure out why there has been such a push to change the title of this article. What's so terrible about "storming"? Moncrief (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What's bad about storming is that there is consensus to move away from it to a different name. Amazingly, that's why there is a push to change the title. Asking why storming is bad now after thousands of words of prior discussion where it was argued how it's bad (you don't have to agree but the answer is out there) is kinda bad form. — Alalch Emis 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, someday when I have more time, I'll try to read through the many thousands of words on this page to piece together the rationale. I didn't say the discussion wasn't out there; I said I didn't have time to try and figure it out right now. Moncrief (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Both this discussion and the table below are proving useful for gauging where editors are at regarding a title change. Many editors are sharing their thoughts/opinions, both here and below. Give it a chance, there's no rush on our way to eventually gaining a general consensus on an appropriate title for this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: But there's no reason to have a discussion about a better title within the context of a RM, which has prescriptive timelines and is formatted to establish if there is consensus for a specific move. If you want to do a straw poll, call it a straw poll and stop trying to shoehorn it where it doesn't fit. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr:, that's a good point. Shall we separate the straw poll into a new section? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: Removing the table would be OK, but moving it would be wrong. The table was filled by various users with data gleaned from this discussion. To avoid misrepresenting users' opinions, we would have to start from scratch. If we do that, we should take into account these three suggestions. But I think we shouldn't start another kind of vote. We have this messy RM, we've had that table, now we have an RfC (that more or less tries to achieve the same thing as the table)... a new table would only exacerbate the chaos. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a straw poll to separate. We have a table that represents a mix of votes and user names added to sections against their wishes. It should be tossed because it is not and will not be usable for anything. The RfC below fulfills the actual need. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A separate straw poll should've been started before, super useful when done correctly, but the fact that names were added to the table by other users is hilariously depressing. The RfC below is a hot mess that isn't going anywhere (unsurprisingly), but that's another story. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: as Bill Watterson said, a good compromise leaves everyone mad. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is equally a little mad for a brief while, and then everyone is generally happy. :) — Alalch Emis 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. "Riot" is a word that fails to convey the fact that the building was breached and invaded. "Storming" is adequate. "Coup attempt" and "insurrection" are plausible, indeed very plausible, interpretations of the intentions of those who stormed the Capitol, but then we enter into the realm of legal characterization and qualification of what happened (domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition, coup attemp, violent protest). Those qualifications are better discussed within the article and not as its title. So "storming" is better, and it is a word that does convey the gravity of what happened. Antonio Basto (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Vastly oppose: "Riot" is a common word, a crowd of people behave violently in a public place, for example they fight, throw stones, or damage buildings and vehicles. They behave violently in a public place.
  An insurrection is violent action, rebellion, or revolt by a large group of people against the government and/or an established authority of their country, usually in order to remove them from office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  "The Trump insurrection".... that literally made me laugh.... that is so biased.
• Strong oppose. As per above, riot is non-specific, storming is far more accurate. Riot implies disordered chaos in public; Capitol was significantly more ordered in that it was a large number of people with a common goal, rather than wanton violence in the streets. Also, storming doesn't necessarily mean violence, it is near synonymous with overrun. Also, regardless of if protestors were peaceful, police officers were hurt in order for them to gain entrance, and they were trespassing; I'd say this warrants "storming". The article title is by no means perfect, but storming is about as good as we're going to get. Editor/123 21:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Where do I comment? Here or somewhere else? Here's my comment. The entirety of the event was not the storming. That is only part of it. A riot is more encompassing. So that is the 2nd choice. The best choice is protest because there were lots of people protesting, some of which didn't even enter the Capitol. If we look at BLM protest articles, they are deemed protests even if some had a component of looting. On the other hand, it is possible that some people may accuses anyone who supports "protests" as being a Trump suppporter, which is not true. Vowvo (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Vowvo: Sorry, the structure of this move request has become a bit confusing. I moved your comment here. To make clearly visible whether you support or oppose this request, please add a prefix like Support, Oppose or Comment. See the comments above yours for examples. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Move to "attack" title. I supported "riot" in the previous RM, and still prefer it to both "storm" and "insurrection" (which are less common and/or more POV), but this above discussion has convinced me that "attack" is the best as being clearer and more comprehensive, while still being relatively common. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've warmed on the idea of moving the page now.Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment How many times have there been riots at the US Capitol, and/or how many times has the Capitol been stormed? In other words, it seems that the year in the article title may not be in line with article naming policy – that it may be excessively precise? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: a year is recommended per WP:NCE. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr:I think WP:NOYEAR applies here.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It only applies to insurrection, as these things already happened at least once: attack, storming, riot — Alalch Emis 03:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This event could be commonly referred to a year from now as the "January 6 [blank]," with no mention of the year but rather the month and day, à la the September 11 attacks. I wish we could wait to rename until some more time has passed and a national media naming consensus has emerged. Moncrief (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose riot. I was originally in favour, but Casprings has convinced me that it is not the common name. I support "Attack", as per the argument that it emphasizes the systematic intrusion inside the building instead of a rioting outside the building.--LordPeterII (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it is not the common name"? "Capitol riot" is currently the most common name in WP:RS by a large margin. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I was referring to the google search comparison by Casprings above, where "attack" resulted in ~2x as many results as "riot". Of course this is only a quantitative assessment, and cannot tell if the weight of reliable sources might favour riot after a manual count. "Riot" is still the second most common name, so it's a valid consideration. But I'm hesitant because it also gives the impression of a "random" violent outburst, when in fact it seems like this incident was planned beforehand - attack would, imo, better show this. But it's a difficult decision, which probably is why reliable sources could not decide on a single name (riot/insurrection/attack) as well. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose there have been many proposals for a name change since this article was made and all of them failed. Just keep "storming", I don't understand what's wrong with this word. Super Ψ Dro 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose to riot. 'Storming' feels most apt in that it's probably the most consistent, commonly-used term for this incident. 'Attack' works as well. 'Insurrection' may be too heavy-handed, not neutral. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose riot. "Storming" seems good to me as descriptive, I'm also not opposed to "attack". "Insurrection" also feels emotionally laden as "riot" does, there are more neutral words that carry the same meaning without the baggage. --Jayron32 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Insurrection would be the first in WP:RS preponderance. Riot seems to come 2nd that way; "storming" was correct for WP:RS coverage when the last title change occurred, but there have been many WP:RS publications since then. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move and strong support for the current title. The OP says that the article title should describe what the event is, which is what the current title does. It was a storming, which took place on the capitol. It may have been a riot, but that's a more general and less specific term, which doesn't encompass the specifics of what happened here. I would also say anecdotally from my own experience that "riot" implies something a bit less targeted than this. We had riots in London back in 2011, but that was largely mobs going around destroying property and setting fire to things. The events of Jan 6 had a specific goal of entering and perhaps taking control of the capitol by force. Again, attack does describe it, but is less specific than "storming" and I would oppose that too. I tentatively suggest this RM be closed down early, as it seems to be generating a lot of heat without there being much prospect of any consensus forming. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Prevalence of "storming" in reliable sources is around 2-3%. For proof find my post below. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Insurrection is the most appropriate title. 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. Call it an 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) 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:UCRN states that ambiguous or unclear names should not be used even if used by reliable sources, and "Capitol riot" strikes me as ambiguous and unclear. To someone who is unfamiliar with the events, "Capitol riot" can be taken several different ways. The current title is concise and immediately understandable. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment neutral on the status quo title. I think attack is simply too vague. Insurrection and riot both adequately describe the event, insurrection probably better (and it appears just anecdotally on my part to have the highest growth in usage, both irl and in the news media... yeah I know this isn't the best argument but still :) ). --Calthinus (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As a user said above, "riot" does not convey that the Capitol building was breached. So its was more than a simple riot that took place in Washington DC many other times in the past – it was a invasion and ransacking of the Capitol, something that didn't happen since the War of 1812.--MaGioZal (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and wait. "Storming" suggests that this was a military storming like D-Day, which it clearly wasn't. A lot of protestors were also let in by police who opened the/some gate/barricades. These points alone speak against using "storming". However, there were clearly protestors who trespassed the Capitol by moving/forcing themselves inside. I suggest using "occupation", "breach" or "intrusion" instead. Addendum: Please consider PolitiFact's wording. Lukan27 (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't think people are appreciating that "storming" is both an uncommon and hard-to-understand word for non-Native English speakers, and its conventional usage is almost entirely the taking of a location by a professional military or police force. It is very confusing when used to describe this incident. I support attack, breach, or riot as clearer descriptions, and if nothing else, incident is better than storm. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment To date, the table in the section 'Survey of proposed titles' below shows that of the titles listed, the first uses the word 'storming' (the version now current) while the others propose instead the use of one of the following: attack, breach, incident, insurrection, protests, riot, riots. But given that there is no consensus on what to do with the table, and that some contributors think that users should not add others' names to the table while some think the table should be deleted entirely (as noted by another contributor), I am one of an unknown number that, declining to accept the usefulness or validity of the exercise, are continuing to abstain from entering their names anywhere therein. The table was initiated 01:15, 24 January 2021[17] Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC) first sentence addedQexigator (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not the greatest fan of the word choice "storming", but this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support As per say, riot of the united states capital is an extremely descriptive and better term then storming. I opposed the term "Insurrection" but it's clear this is an extremely good title, as oppose to "storming" which could mean a lot of things. We make clear it's a riot it clearly is the best term. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current name uses the terminology I've seen most commonly in mainstream reliable sources. ♟♙ (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think "storming" actually does capture the event most accurately, until an academic/popular consensus builds on what to call the event—which will take much longer. As for the claims that this is an uncommon use of the word or that it implies professional military action, the dictionary definition disagrees. It states that to "storm" is to "to rush about or move impetuously, violently, or angrily" and that it can be used as a transitive verb just fine. Since it was the temporary occupation of the US Capitol that makes this event most notable, I think "storm" remains appropriate for now. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Riot", "Insurrection" or "Attack" in that order. These terms reflect what reliable sources use (riot seems to be most prominent); I rarely come across "storming" and its use by insurrectionists is concerning.

Procedurally, I think it makes sense for editors to just plainly state which names they support or oppose. Adding additional surveys or RfCs isn't going to solve anything. –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support since it's technically a riot around the White House's vicinity rather than storming/raiding the building itself. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 03:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I !voted "support" as well, but I'm confused by your rationale since the Capitol building was literally breached. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose not reflective of the event. Word frequency is a poor stat to justify this. YallAHallatalk 10:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Note: I'm repeating part of my comment from 15 days ago: "Per WP:COMMON NAME , 'attack' and 'riot' are the terms most used by sources. Due to the planning, I prefer 'attack' and think this discussion should be closed. 'Insurrection' is fine within the body of the article. Propose: Attack on the United States Capitol. IP75 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)." Per IP75, I still feel the same ;) IP75 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Analysis. I don't have an opinion to express at this time, but I made the table below to show the Google Search result counts of different exact queries in high-quality perennial sources. I hope it serves to inform the discussion here. Feel free to make suggestions and comments. — Goszei (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. After some thought, I support the proposed move. There have been several opinions expressed in this discussion about (1) the circumstances of this event (2) the implied scope and meaning of the word "riot", and very few attempts to defer to reliable sources to make such judgements. Based on my work below and that of Alalch Emis, this view is roundly debunked by a review – major sources like NYTimes and WashPo have clearly coalesced around "riot", "attack", and "insurrection" as common descriptors (in that order, and with a strong movement towards "riot" by key sources like NYTimes, WashPo, and BBC).

In addition to this boosted prevalance, I also think "riot" is also the most neutral name. "Attack" and "insurrection" are loaded words with respect to the organization and intent, respectively, of the perpetrators; these are fuzzy topics that should be discussed in the body, not in the title. In other words, "riot" conveys chaos and violence only, but "attack" and "insurrection" convey additional information that reliable sources clearly have editorial trepidation about moving towards.

I would also like to note the completely incorrect citation of WP:CONSISTENCY by several editors above. There is zero obligation for us to make this article title consistent with King-assassination riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots; these events are called "riots" because that is what RS call them, not because of a Wikipedia naming convention. — Goszei (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-collapsing, as I believe my second analysis table below is more complete/targeted. — Goszei (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I have redone the results from scratch at time of this comment to use "after:2021-1-5", to limit to recent results; this revised search culled thousands of false positives (the previous results have little use; thanks to Alalch Emis for pointing this out). — Goszei (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Source "Capitol riot" "riot at the Capitol" "riot at the US Capitol" "Capitol attack" "attack on the Capitol" "attack on the US Capitol" "Capitol storming" "storming of the Capitol" "storming of the US Capitol" "Capitol insurrection" "insurrection at the Capitol" "insurrection at the US Capitol" AP 661 results 386 results 567 results 241 results 460 results 509 results 0 results 250 results 261 results 274 results 543 results 353 results BBC 248 results 72 results 58 results 9 results 331 results 116 results 3 results 147 results 313 results 1 results 2 results 3 results The Guardian 1,010 results 212 results 197 results 1,980 results 1,370 results 1,210 results 6 results 537 results 541 results 168 results 223 results 357 results NYTimes 5,230 results 428 results 298 results 427 results 915 results 524 results 2 results 491 results 377 results 8 results 107 results 4 results Reuters 1,290 results 56 results 79 results 230 results 499 results 440 results 9 results 415 results 711 results 3 results 143 results 3 results WashPo 6,140 results 781 results 749 results 1,860 results 1,780 results 1,340 results 5 results 559 results 620 results 367 results 631 results 679 results Combined 16,700 results 2,230 results 1,970 results 4,660 results 5,610 results 3,620 results 76 results 3,110 results 3,090 results 935 results 1,340 results 1,180 results

Here's another way of approaching it – for the following table I used the Reliable Sources Search Engine (WP:RSSE). All queries had "after:2021-1-5" to limit to recent results. I think what can be gleaned from my two tables is that "riot" is the term with the strongest prevalence in titles, while "riot" and "attack" see a similar prevalence elsewhere in the text. — Goszei (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Query	Anywhere in text	Title matches only (allintitle:)
"Capitol riot"	10,100,000 results	74,400 results
"riot at the Capitol"	410,000 results	362 results
"riot at the US Capitol"	430,000 results	7 results
"Capitol attack"	1,030,000 results	15,900 results
"attack on the Capitol"	6,030,000 results	953 results
"attack on the US Capitol"	4,080,000 results	9 results
"Capitol storming"	19,600 results	642 results
"storming of the Capitol"	264,000 results	609 results
"storming of the US Capitol"	250,000 results	548 results
"Capitol insurrection"	440,000 results	6,800 results
"insurrection at the Capitol"	330,000 results	638 results
"insurrection at the US Capitol"	322,000 results	4 results

— Goszei (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

One, I like links to the results to check. Second, are we talking in the article or in the title. I think, if we are thinking about naming an article, in the title is where to search. Casprings (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Goszei WP:RSSE doesn't work sadly for result count. The actual links may be narrowed down by it, but the number of results stays the same, or is even bigger (illogical). In any case, there aren't 74,400 separate articles (imagine that) written on this subject with all the possible titles combined. The actual number is in the hundreds. I have been reluctant to criticize this method of "discovery" for the past few weeks, as I'm not the most technical person, and expected someone else to jump in (no one did), but It's useless. It doesn't produce the real number, sadly. The links need to be counted "manually" (or by going to the bottom of the last page, that's when Google actually counts them for the first time, the "About x" number is a preliminary crapshoot) to get the real number of results. The number of results appearing under the search box becomes more wrong the more complicated searches you make (using operators). — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I got 2,710,000 results for "stormed the capitol" after:2021-1-5 which isn't yet included in the table. Coin (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's storming (gerund) not storm (verb), so "stormed the capitol" is not a relevant query. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Analysis (limited to relevant period, only title, and no verb/noun mixup). This analysis uses advanced operators, includes a vastly greater number of perennial sources, and is much more relevant than Goszei's.
  • I've sectioned the table (here), because it was big — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I updated the table to include the true search results included only at the end of the last page. When there's more than cca 100 results, the results shown under the search box are just an approximation that can be wildly off. Update2: added more sources, added incident and managed to condense two-part searches into a single search, updated results — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Riot, attack, and insurrection are the only real contenders. Storming must be changed to something else. It's unsupported by the majority of RS, who've maybe called the event that in the first few days, but now they are using these three major denominators, but also to some extent siege. Storming is only in the sixth place! The conclusion I derive from this analysis is in alignment with my comment on the move request, posted above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Update3: Added Google News results since Jan. 20 (a longer period doesn't work as it cuts off the number of results at around 200, since it tends not to provide more than 3 pages of results). Insurrection is trending — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a better search if you keep it simple Don't add words to the verb. Just search it in the title. Second, don't define the RS's on your on.Casprings (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You state something bizarre when you say that I'm defining RSs when all of the used sources are defined by the community as such. I'm sure you know about this list, and are familiar with all of these sources, so why say such a thing? A simple search will produce what you have done: didn't limit the search to reliable sources, didn't limit the timeframe to the relevant period (since Jan. 6), didn't differentiate the verb from the noun (attack, riot, storm are all verbs, and attack is a particularly common verb). That is completely useless. My analysis gets close to a good answer to a question of: "Which descriptor is used how often in the titles of articles published by RSs?". A simple search can't even get close to answering that question. — Alalch Emis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand they are defined by consensus. However, the list you have is not exclusive. There are other WP:RS out there and a simple google news search provides a better measure because the sample is larger. Moreover, it has the benefit of being random. Google news doesn't, generally, return sites that wikipedia considers non-RS. I would also argue that we should search the title for the word alone. Not in a phrase like you have it. Casprings (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course the list is not literally exhaustive, but it's representative. Anyone who thinks I should include more reliable sources from the list from those that are reliable in this area (politics), and not irrelevant perennial sources like TorrentFreak, can ask and I will do it, and update all the numbers in the table. A simple Google News search most definitely includes all kinds of rubbish. I understand you argue that we should search for the word alone, but you didn't say why, while I have given a very good argument why not, and you have not refuted that argument. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Update: These are some of the remaining sources on the perennial sources list that could ostensibly be included, as they are reliable for politics: The Weekly Standard, Vox, U.S. News & World Report, The Times, Time, The Diplomat, Der Spiegel, South China Morning Post, Politico, The New Yorker, New York (Daily Intelligencer), The New Republic, National Geographic, The Nation, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Le Monde diplomatique, The Hill, Haaretz, Forbes, The Economist, The Daily Telegraph (UK), BuzzFeed News, Axios, The Australian, The Atlantic. (added: Bloomber, The Intercept) Tell me if I missed something. This list includes weeklies and magazines, which I've excluded from my analysis, and there are many other sources around the world such as national newspapers of record not on the perennial sources list, as they aren't used so prominently on wikipedia, for example, The Sydney Morning Herald. If you can tell me how adding anything in this regard would improve the analysis I've given above, I'm extremely likely to rerun the analysis with an expanded list of sources. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There might be some non-RS sources included in google news searches. If so, I rarely come across them. That said, providing the type of limits you provide takes a random sample and make it non-random. It introduces all sorts of possible bias. For example, most of the sources are US or European. We should just use a larger and more random sample. Moreover, we should just use the verb in the search and not put it with other words. We should keep the sample as random as possiable and I don’t think what you did does that.Casprings (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-RS sources in google searches, that is a fact. The "limits" I provided are the limits of WP:RS. In controversial matters only reliable sources are weighed, not reliable together with non-reliable, especially since biased sources can to have an intentionally different naming scheme (some non-reliable sources still push "protests" for example). There must be a way to differentiate reliable from non-reliable, and that's what advanced operators provide. Most of the sources in the perennial list are American and European and I can't do anything about that. There must be amazing Malaysian and South African papers of record and quality public televisions, but they're just not on the Wikipedia's list. And finally why should we use a verb if we are looking for the noun (WP:DESCRIPTOR? This is the third time you repeat the same point without a backing argument. Please provide this backing argument so we don't waste space like this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Here's a list of non-NA/Europe English-language newspapers of record: The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Star, The Cambodia Daily, The Phnom Penh Post, South China Morning Post, The Hindu, The Times of India, The Gleaner, Daily Nation, New Straits Times, The New Zealand Herald, Dawn, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, The Straits Times, The Financial Gazette, Zimbabwe Independent. Should I include them? Will that make the above analysis better? I'll do it if you say so. Update: I ran the analysis separately for the abovementioned non-US/Europe sources. These are the results: storming: 19, riot 49, insurrection 5/10, attack 28, protest 4, breach 15, siege 29. Riot is prevailing in these sources, followed by siege and attack. If someone wants proof, I'll make the same table as the above one, just using these sources. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Like what and what percentage of sources? I would just argue you introduce more bias by selecting a few sources then taking a bigger sample, even if a small precentage might be non-RS. Of course, what is WP-RS is contextual. Would be really interested to know what sources in google news fail in this context. I also still think there is a problem in using more words then the simple verb we are searching for.Casprings (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You haven't provided concrete arguments against the analysis above. Calling a large assembly of reliable sources (ranging from WSJ to NPR), that are deemed reliable precisely for their relative lack of bias, biased makes exactly 0 sense. You have repeated for the fourth time the point I've successfully argued against, and you haven't even attempted to refute the argument. I think we can conclude this exchange. I have provided solid proof that riot is used more than attack, and explained how your previous research using rudimentary google searches is deeply flawed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Analysis updated with more sources (added to the bottom), removed international sources as they probably make the table a little confusing — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Casprings I added Google News to the analysis after all, tell me what you think now — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis:Given the remarks in sections Word frequency and Visuals support 'storming', your analysis and assertion that 'Storming' must be changed to something else is far from convincing. It was considered at the time the article was being written 6-7 January that as against other words Storming was the one to choose. Nothing has happened later to require a change from it, nor does the current content of the article as later expanded. Re-running the visuals confirms 'Storming'.

Further, there are numerous comments on this page (including Archives) which do not accept the need to move from 'Storming' at this time, if at all. While it is evident that the 'Rally' (the word in the article's name before 'Storming'), moved up to the Capitol area, it was a non-violent protest demo waving flags and boards like countless others. It appears to be a fact that by the time most of the rally crowd arrived, the storming and break in was already happening in the distance, by persons many of whom are now known and some of those have already been charged with certain offences, based on their own pleas or other evidence.

On the basis of currently available information, it is not yet clear to what extent the storming was concerted and pre-planned, or when or by whom and how many. nor whether the event was actually one of 'insurrection' and if so, by how many of those who engaged in the storming. Note that the Article of impeachment does not charge insurrection but incitement to insurrection, and that this is not an allegation supported by any evidence as sent to the Senate for trial, a trial that as far as we know may never happen (Snow in Wikipediaspeak) or may result in acquittal. The USA is a country where the rule of law requires trial by due process Qexigator (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC).

• Oppose: too limited; an attempted overthrow of the US government is not a riot. Would prefer "attack" or "insurrection" (1st choice). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but breach is better. Storm is just not commonly used. "Riot" is better than storm, my only problem with it is that this is really more so about the Capitol being breached than a riot. "Attack" is bad in my opinion because it's not very descriptive and is inflammatory, which could make a NPOV concern. However, "breach" is perfect, it's been commonly used since the beginning. Its very neutral and accurately describes the details of the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Agree re "breach." I think it's a great option. Moncrief (talk)

• Support. Aren't all the media outlets calling it an "insurrection" anyway? That's what I hear every day the topic is discussed on TV or online. Maybe it's better to change the title to fit their direction? Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Riot is better than Storming. In the wake of the riot, I've read a lot of pro-Trump media sites & social media posts and they describe what the rally attendees were going to do after the rally as "Storming the Capitol". I don't think Wikipedia should use the language of the rioters to define what happened. "Storming" is also seen as heroic and I don't think that image is appropriate considering the destruction and loss of life that occurred on that day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have never once outside of this page seen this event referred to as "the storming" of the US Capitol. The page should be called January 6th United States Capitol Riot. The date of January 6th seems to have taken on some significance in all the big news outlets (i.e. CNN, FOX, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.110 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Goszei's exhaustive research (good work btw), which I had noticed myself. Very few sources refer to this event as "the storming of the capitol." Even we start off the article with "The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot..." Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support over storming, but "protests" is the preferred word. The entire event written about in the article clearly encompasses more than just the storming. For example large protests that were extensively covered by news networks occurred outside the building both before and after the actual storming took place. Fights between the protesters and police also took place during the outdoor protests. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose : As this cannot be just called "riot" because of its effects and aftermath. -- Wendylove (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose : "Riot" is vague and unspecific, riots occur at many levels, this attack was far more than a simple riot, the vagueness of "Riot" waters down the magnitude of this major historical event. Wikipedia:Article titles states that ambiguous or unclear names should not be avoided even if used frequently by reliable sources. "Riot" does not accurately capture what happened on that day, it fails to convey the fact that the very buildings of the nations government were breached and invaded in a premeditated assault on one of the highest seats of the United States democracy. Storming of the Capitol is factually what happened, the current title remains more descriptive of the attack. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support as person who first suggested the idea. Storming is too rosy and downplays the actions that several of the actors in the event were planning to do, which were by all means violent. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was on day one, at 20:48, 6 January (→‎Requested move 6 January 2021)[18]. I can see that riot (not attack) should replace storming, but I'm not sure about calling 'storming' 'too rosy', given that Roget's synonyms for rosy include 'cheerful, hopeful, alluring, optimistic, pleasing, promising, reassuring'.[19] Qexigator (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose : "riot" is accurate as one was declared by the police on-scene commander, but insufficient. There was an explicit intent to disrupt a constitutional process, and a plan by some to harm members of the legislative branch at the behest of the executive branch. "Storming" at least indicates intent, but the correct word for this action is "insurrection". Insurrection also includes non-violent resistance to the Constitution, so it's accurate to all the related demonstrations that commenters are saying "riot" doesn't apply. Just leave the article here until our collective spines stiffen enough to use accurate terminology. - Featous (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What supports asserting (1) 'a plan by some to harm members of the legislative branch at the behest of the executive branch' and (2) 'insurrection includes non-violent resistance to the Constitution'? Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Riot" leaves out crucial features of what happened: that this was a planned attack that aimed to overthrow an essential part of the governing body and kidnap, or more likely murder, its members, and succeeded in halting the peaceful transfer of power, albeit briefly. "Attack" also leaves out crucial features: that this was also not a planned attack, but instead one that drew a whole ton of its manpower from people doing it for the 'gram or because the President told them to march in the direction of the Capitol, who milled about briefly and then went home. Don't you just hate a good contradiction? I'd support "f---ing mess" were it not for its practical difficulties. I'm content with "storming" as an accurate title. --Kizor 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" is very bad but "riot" is not much better. This was a planned attack with bombs planted the night before to draw police away from the Capitol. Wikipedia should tell the truth and call this what it was, an insurrection. If Wikipedia did as good a job of banning those who are working to incite violence as Twitter does, it would be easy to get consensus for insurrection.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was not a riot but a pre-planned incident to storm the Capitol. Plumber (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I would support the Riot at the Capitol or the Attack at the Capitol. If we look at the 9/11 page it is called the September 11th Attacks. This can apply as well I believe. Wollers14 (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose moving to "Riot" for two reasons: 1) I don't think there is, at present, any widely accepted label for this event that satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. The data tables and energetic debates on this talk page, considering whether to prefer "attack", or "riot", or something else, provide good evidence that a common name does not (yet) exist. In this situation the sequence at WP:NCE#Maintaining neutral point of view applies: Is there a common name? No. Is there a generally accepted word? Again, no, as the discussion shows. We should be conscious of WP:CRYSTALBALL too; it's not our job to predict what a common name will be, or what reliable sources "seem to be standardizing around" (as a couple comments above imply). Hence, WP:NCE guides us to "use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications". That brings up the second reason: 2) "riot" is not an accurate description of the event. To me a riot implies a scene of general violence and destruction, often motivated by a specific grievance but having vague aims. Contrast this what actually occurred on January 6th: a crowd of partisans were inspired to assault and breach the Capitol with the aim of disrupting the political activity happening inside — a storming if ever there was one. To my knowledge there were no separate scenes of rioting, and once expelled from the building the crowd dissipated without much resistance. In the interest of consistency, Wikipedia already has several other articles on very similar events that also use "storming": see Storming of the Bastille, Storming of Kempton Park World Trade Centre, and Storming of the Legislative Council Complex. (I think there's a good debate to be had over whether a more neutrally descriptive term like "breach" is appropriate, or something more generic like "attack". But that's out of scope for this RM.) – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 20:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NCE#Maintaining neutral point of view there is a generally accepted word and it's insurrection. This comes not out of our discussions here but is external to wikipedia: consensus of scholars. The scholars agree that it was an insurrection. Insurrection is also possibly a common name, as there may be more than one common name. Simultaneous usages of different terms such as insurrection and riot don't have to be mutually exclusive. Storming (gerund) is not possibly a common name. It's an uncommon term, not frequently used in reliable sources to name the event. This was not a storming if there ever was one; this was a half-storming because the chambers weren't significantly ransacked and crowded by the mob, and one of the two chambers wasn't even breached. The key part of a storming of a legislature is violence in the chamber, or something important happening in the chamber, not so much in the hallways and offices. The listed examples of past stormings are not similar to this event. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that "insurrection" should be considered for the title — the resulting impeachment charge is for incitement of insurrection, so that term has merit and may well gain currency in the press (again, though, crystal ball caution...). My main argument is not that "storming" is a common name, but that since there is currently no consensus for a common name (in the strict sense of WP:COMMONNAME), we need to use a descriptive one, and in the scope of this RM I think "storming" is more descriptively accurate than "riot". Your points on "storming" are valid, but we also shouldn't be overly pedantic about half-stormings and the types of scenes needed for a properly conducted storming — nor does incompleteness as a storming make it more of a riot.– The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any move This process is no longer a requested move; it's morphed into a free form discussion of some kind, with bad graphics. And interpretive echos. Ping Pong is a bad look for Wikipedia. Let's stop it. Stop with the RMs for now. We just had a well-attended one 2 weeks ago. Tonight PBS NewsHour leads its article: "The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6 was a shocking moment...". BusterD (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a move. The newsworthy event was the breach of the Capitol which was the objective of the rioters. The riot itself is much less notable than the storming of the Capitol, which distinguishes January 6 from a variety of DC riots. The networks did not cut from CSPAN to a feed of the rioters until they had began attempts to breach the building. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I believe "storm" is the single best word being considered to describe this incident. Yes, the word "riot" is appropriately used within the article itself. As others have pointed out, these words have overlapping meanings and connotations. But on balance, "storming of the Capitol" best captures the planned-by-some, spontaneous-by-others, incited-by-many nature of the event, including the violence, vandalism, and general atmosphere of mayhem that seemed to reign once the perimeter was breached. Point raised by BusterD about PBS NewHour using the phrase in today's lead sentence on the story shows that arguments that "storming" is clearly *not* a common name are misplaced and/or outdated. We've got the right name. Overall, I agree/endorse with nearly all the "oppose" points made on this page already, and add my comment here merely to "weigh in." Engelhardt (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll add here that today's Washington Post includes multiple uses of "storming" which I think clarify the issue:

"The discussions between Edmonds and her friends continually got more heated as Trump continued to assert the election was stolen, then gave the speech that preceded insurrectionists storming the U.S. Capitol. They intensified when Edmonds continued to support Cheney after her impeachment statement. Now she’s losing friends."

"Hours later, Trump’s new defense lawyers filed a 14-page response to the House article of impeachment that denied that the former president incited the crowd at his rally on Jan. 6 to storm the Capitol and “engage in destructive behavior.” The brief also disputed that Trump’s claims of voter fraud were false."

"Besides the friction there, Thomas has drawn outrage among liberals for public political commentary on her “Ginni Thomas” Facebook page. Her comments there celebrated Trump’s supporters who assembled in D.C. on Jan. 6, hundreds of whom stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people."

I think taken together, it's fair to say that the large rally preceded the march to the Capitol, which then was followed by riots that included storming the Capitol---all of which were participated in by some insurrectionists. Thus broken down, it becomes clear these are all slightly different things, and so the question becomes what's the most important, most newsworthy aspect of this to be covered by this article. I think it's the storming of the Capitol, which all coverage agrees was the most significant breach of the Capitol since 1814. So as I originally said: strong oppose.Engelhardt (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd say that what made the riot exceptional is precisely the breach of the building. It was not simply a riot in the street before the Capitol. Psychloppos (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The word "riot" downplays what actually happened, as if an unruly crowd of sports fans set a car on fire after their team won the game. "Attack" may imply that this event was more centrally coordinated than it actually was (or that we know of, at least). I think that for now, storming is a good middle ground. --haha169 (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In my opinion, this was clearly politically motivated and so I think insurrection is the more appropriate for the title. I will accept attack as an alternative. But storming does not imply motivation unless we add something like "election result oppossers storm capitol". A'kwell (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It wasn't a riot. Riots are not directed. They are people jumping about and are completly chaotic, angry at everything and anything. This was a coordinated directed action. It was planned and was coordinated attack. Sedition and insurrection are accurate terms to use, as people died and it will be recorded in history as such. The current title while quite strong, is accurate. scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Riot doesn't cover it; attack or storming are more appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. There is too much politics involved in this, too much arguing from the point of personal perspective and not enough consensus building on finding points of agreement towards a stance of neutrality. Some people dislike the current name "storming" because they think it paints the situation in a positive light somehow, like the storming of the Bastille. I don't see how using a word like that romanticizes the violence that occurred that day, if it's an accurate depiction of what occurred. Similarly, people who support "riot" to minimize the magnitude of difference between a riot and what occurred here (violent acts against political institutions, eg). Also, "insurrection" may be a valid word, but I've seen proposals to call it the "Trump insurrection" -- which, well, even if that's a fair argument, Wikipedia is not the place to make such arguments or conclusions. I think there may need to be a cooling of heads and a rethinking of purpose and intentionality from all parties involved, if this is ever to reach any conclusive finding, or even better, perhaps this process should be restarted somehow. 2600:1012:B0E9:E727:7C98:C2F6:7EB3:5C76 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• STRONG Oppose. Riot doesn't even come close. This was a premeditated coup attempting to install Trump as dictator and was instigated by him. If anything, this should be changed to "2021 United States Capitol insurrection" or

"2021 United States Capitol attempted coup". Seven Pandas (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Survey of proposed titles

(table meta-discussion is underneath – comments posted under this section title are moved to the bottom of the meta-discussion to keep table visible)

---

Please add your suggestion for each proposed title. Feel free to propose other titles. Please remember this is not a substitute for discussion. You should still discuss your views in the discussion section above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC This section heading is of a purely techical nature (so that the nominator's post could direct to this tally), it doesn't form a topic of discussion unto itself. Critical discussion of the tally is being had underneath. The closing administrator will assess the soundness of the tally method, and it's utility with a critical eye.— Alalch Emis (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WARNING Disobedience to the directive above has incurred a request report for possibly punitive sanction for vandalism[20] [21] Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above post by Qexigator has always, in large part, been a misrepresentation (they would not frankly discuss it, despite a decent attempt at my part), and distortion ("disobedience", "directive"), but particularly now – it's almost certainly no longer even current matter[22]. I don't intend to reply here, so if you wish to reply directly, please do so anywhere else, thanks. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Article Titles

No.	Proposed Title(s)	Support	Oppose
1	2021 storming of the United States Capitol	@Octoberwoodland: @Dylanvt: @Rreagan007: @WWGB: @Antonio Basto: @Jayron32: @Moncrief: @Amakuru: @Bear6811Wiki:didn't comment @Elijahandskip:didn't comment @Super Goku V: @DolyaIskrina:didn't comment @Plumber: @Wollers14:	@Soibangla: @Alalch Emis: @Somedifferentstuff: @Casprings: @GreenMeansGo: @99.178.127.90: @MelanieN: @StAnselm: @Darryl Kerrigan: @Lukan27: @Jmill1806: @Guy Macon: @K.e.coffman: @2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838: @Tsavage:
2	2021 United States Capitol riot 2021 riots at the United States Capitol – year exclusion to be decided later – word order & riot/s to be decided later	@Jared.h.wood: @MelanieN: @Ekpyros: @Darryl Kerrigan: @Dylanvt: @Berchanhimez: @Casprings: @Bear6811Wiki:didn't comment @Calthinus: @Jmill1806: @Wollers14:	@Octoberwoodland: @BlackholeWA: @777burger: @Soibangla: @Ribbet32: @WWGB: @Alalch Emis: @Somedifferentstuff: @36.65.43.72: @Super Goku V: @Rreagan007: @Shearonink: @Antonio Basto: @99.178.127.90: @Jayron32: @LegendoftheGoldenAges85: @Amakuru: @Gam3:didn't comment @Guy Macon: @K.e.coffman: @Plumber:
3	2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol – year exclusion to be decided later – note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb	@Soibangla: @Alalch Emis: @Casprings: @Super Goku V: @Darryl Kerrigan: @99.178.127.90: @LegendoftheGoldenAges85: @Calthinus: @K.e.coffman: @Plumber: @A'kwell:	@Somedifferentstuff: @Dylanvt: @WWGB: @MelanieN: @IP75: @StAnselm: @Jayron32: @Bear6811Wiki:didn't comment @Lukan27: @Jmill1806: @Guy Macon: @Wollers14:
4	2021 United States Capitol attack 2021 attack on the United States Capitol – year exclusion to be decided later – "domestic" inclusion & word order to be decided later	@BlackholeWA: @Octoberwoodland: @Somedifferentstuff: @Jared.h.wood: @Dylanvt: @Berchanhimez: @Casprings: @WWGB: @Anachronist: @Darryl Kerrigan: @IP75: @StAnselm: @LordPeterII: @Jayron32: @Jmill1806: @Guy Macon: @K.e.coffman: @Tsavage: @Wollers14:	@Soibangla: @Super Goku V: @Amakuru: @Moncrief: @Calthinus: @Lukan27: @Dswitz10734:
7	2021 United States Capitol breach	@Lukan27: @Jmill1806: @Super Goku V:	@Alalch Emis: @Somedifferentstuff: @MelanieN: @Guy Macon: @Shearonink: @K.e.coffman:
8	2021 United States Capitol incident	@Jmill1806:	@Alalch Emis: @Super Goku V: @Somedifferentstuff: @MelanieN: @Guy Macon: @Calthinus: @Shearonink: @K.e.coffman:

Survey of proposed titles – 24h w/o support

• Note: these options remain valid – table is split for technical reasons
• Per analogy to WP:SNOW, and to make the table smaller and quicker to edit, these options were split after not gaining any support and gaining unanimous (except proposer) opposition during the first 24+ hrs. These are still valid options, and if you support them or oppose them you can put in your name, and give your rationale in the discussion above. — Alalch Emis 05:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

^Who wrote the above? Please, for the nth time, sign your posts. Moncrief (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Moncrief That post was signed, I don't know why the signature disappeared. I assume it got caught in a subsequent collapse/revert/table-coding mishap/whatever. I've restored the missing signature. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Article Titles

No.	Proposed Title(s)	Support	Oppose
5	The Trump insurrection – note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb	@Octoberwoodland: @Yallahalla:	@Soibangla: @BlackholeWA: @Somedifferentstuff: @Jared.h.wood: @Dylanvt: @Casprings: @WWGB: @Moncrief: @Super Goku V: @Darryl Kerrigan: @99.178.127.90: @Ben8142: @MelanieN: @IP75: @StAnselm: @Jayron32: @Lukan27: @Guy Macon: @Shearonink: @2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838:
6	2021 United States Capitol protests	@Berchanhimez: @Dswitz10734: @2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838:	@Casprings: @Somedifferentstuff: @WWGB: @BlackholeWA: @Shearonink: @Alalch Emis: @Super Goku V: @Darryl Kerrigan: @99.178.127.90: @Ben8142: @MelanieN: @IP75: @Jayron32: @Lukan27: @Guy Macon: @Shearonink: @Jared.h.wood:

Table meta: similar title consolidation

@Darryl Kerrigan: Please consider removing your proposal from the table, it's too similar to the existing one. It can't be riots (plural) instead of riot, because "riots" means the event lasted multiple days, or there were riots in several locations, and if this is treated as a riot, then it's just a riot – singular. Word order should not form a separate table entry in my opinion (just my opinion). I consolidated my entry with another users' to make the table easier to work with, it's really important. Your preferred exact wording is still listed in your comment, that the closing admin will read. — Alalch Emis 04:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We should allow any editor the freedom to propose any title they wish. They need to have this freedom. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it will work then.

Also admin talked about year exclusion presenting as a (potentially) separate issue — Alalch Emis 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It will work. calm down. Also, don't archive the discussion below this one. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't resist the urge to do it. It's better now. — Alalch Emis 05:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Casprings: Please consider consolidating your "riot" and "attack" proposal with the existing one by adding the "– year exclusion to be decided later" comment like I did for my proposal.

Yes, this would be helpful. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I did it for his "attack" with no oppose and 1 (his) support. — Alalch Emis 05:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

List of consolidated titles

• Insurrection at the United States Capitol Alalch Emis
• United States Capitol Riot Casprings – done by: — Alalch Emis 05:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• United States Capitol Attack Casprings – done by: — Alalch Emis 05:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• 2021 attack at/on the United States Capitol (no supporting comment) – done by: — Alalch Emis 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

returned when "2021 domestic attack on the United States Capitol" was changed to it – still no supporting comment and can be removed

• 2021 domestic attack on the United States Capitol – done by: (?)
• United States Capitol riot and attack on Congress - done by: JaredHWood💬 04:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Table Meta-discussion

Octoberwoodland VQuakr Berchanhimez It doesn't have to be construed as a vote. The table can be supplementary/consultative and/or a mere aid – there could be a precondition that you must make a substantive comment first. The table is hard to edit because of conflicts however. I think this needs to be discussed more. People posting in it so far have all input their comments first, and everyone seems to like the table, and uses it in good faith. — Alalch Emis 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not collapse the table but I agree with the collapsing. Tables are only useful when there is no policy-based question to answer (i.e. voting on a subjective/arbitrary coloring/etc). The admin (or other person) who eventually closes is free to use a table they create - but having a "running table" encourages people to "pile on" to options which appear to have more !votes, and encourages people to !vote without reading the entire discussion. I am not aware of any policy explicitly prohibiting a table, but the potential negative impact on the discussion is that even if a consensus emerges, the question will always remain: "did the presence of the table unduly influence some people's discussion and/or the close itself" - and beyond that "was the table ever accurate given that anyone can edit". I do not feel that this RM requires a table, nor do I feel it provides any beneficial addition, and I encourage everyone to discuss on their own. I will not be adding my name to any table, and I encourage others who support discussion to also not allow their name to be used in such a table - as the discussion is what's important, not any preliminary/early "vote tallying". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Gonna add as a separate comment that I believe the table was originally created/added to by anyone who did do so in good faith - I simply disagree that it's even useful, and think it may be potentially harmful to have continue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

These reasons are not solid enough. Table should stay for 3 days, and then it can be closed if abused. It's easy to see if people post in it without making a substantive comment first. Table helps determine interest for alternatives. There appears to be consensus to move away from "storming". — Alalch Emis 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• There was absolutely not a consensus to remove the table. It does not have to be taken as a straight vote, but as a manner of measuring support for particular candidate titles. It is a method that has worked well for other RMs and was embraced by the nominator. Why has it been unilaterally closed with no discussion? BlackholeWA (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be consensus, this is firm discretionary terrain. The table is very novel and runs counter to decision of closing admin from previous RM. BUT it's not bad, it should be researched. — Alalch Emis 03:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

At the very least there should be a venue to put forth titles on equal terms instead of RM instigators simply choosing their favourite to headline each RM. The table worked well at that purpose. If people also comment their rationale I see no reason not to include it. This is WP:NOTAVOTE but let's be real - consensus will ultimately fall along the lines where the most editors are convinced and chip in in support. Policy should take precedent over that, but that still gives us several fairly evenly placed options, such as attack, insurrection, and maybe riot, which all have WP:COMMONNAME arguments etc BlackholeWA (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table is useful for determining consensus of multiple titles, which is allowed according to WP RM policy for WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and allows editors to quickly glance over possible titles. It's extremely useful for getting editors to reach consensus quickly with a complex subject which may have many title options. I have used it in other RM discussions and it is extremely useful and it works. It's not a substitute for discussion, but who feels like reading over 500K of confusing and contradictory comments to attempt to glean an editor's viewpoint. WP:RM closing instructions clearly state that multiple titles are required to be considered, and removing the tool which is being used to easily determine that and relegating all of us to RM one title at a time will result in this article being in perpetual RM mode -- which is has been in near continuous RM status since it was created. Editors must be allowed to dialogue on potential titles and not be stifled by a minority who disagree. So please restore the table, it's a valuable tool and we need it to determine the best title. If anything, that table will result in more discussion as new titles are proposed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table is functionally in line with the less novel Option A/B method which was recommended by earlier admin, and we're still in the same process, just a later stage. Yeah, someone with enough authority just needs to add two and two — Alalch Emis 03:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I see too many people giving their own opinions without regard to WP:POLICY. I personally like the table idea, but I see that in an official RM it exacerbates the problem and does not aid in determining consensus based on sound reasoning. Is there a proper channel for the RM to close early? With some users vehemently advocating titles like "The Trump Insurrection" and others accepting nothing but "The Mostly Peaceful Protest" I don't see how anything reasonable can prevail at this time. JaredHWood💬 03:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I advocate for anyone !voting for "insurrection" to have that portion of their comment, or if they only mention "insurrection" the entire comment, struck from this discussion. This is not the place to overturn the prior requested move and discretionary moratorium. I will not be striking those comments myself as I do not feel I am the right person to do so, but I feel that any admin who happens across this discussion should likely do so. I'll also point out that a closers job is to read the entire discussion - not use such a table - and any !votes based on such a table are automatically "less valid" (but not invalid) - as they don't take into account the entire discussion. A table is not a dialogue - you are perfectly allowed to dialogue within the RM itself and the discussion of it - but a table is by definition not "dialogue". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table will help us get consensus on a name. It's useful because it adds another metric, since it allows editors to select more than one choice. It also shows where editors will reject more than one choice. ignore all rules applies here. The opinion of a minority of editors attempting to impose excessive bureaucracy which is contrary to WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and which is preventing us from improving Wikipedia can be overruled by editor consensus. Removal of the table is overruled. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors are more than capable of supporting more than one option, and opposing any/more than one option(s), in a discussion format, while explaining their choices in doing so based on policy/other discussion points. Ignore all rules does not apply here, as the table does not improve the encyclopedia, in fact it helps people violate our core principle of "consensus" for deciding things here. There is no "excessive bureaucracy" by requiring people to participate in a consensus building discussion rather than simply voting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table instructions specifically state it is not a substitute for discussion and editors are still required to discuss their views. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; straw polling is not a problem, as long as it's used responsibly and in conjunction with discussion [23] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoever added my name to the table (against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it) illustrates a prime example of why a table is both unreliable and unhelpful - they added my supports, but not my clear opposition to some of the names that are present there. I won't collapse/uncollapse the table, but I think that it shows clearly that the table could potentially be manipulated by someone who wants to show more/less support/opposition for something, because I don't think most people are going to be checking, and many may not even add their name to begin with. I don't think whoever added me did it in bad faith... but it goes to show how it's less than useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Then change it. There is no rule that an editor may not come along and update it with your clear choices since it is not a vote but an informal tally. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved posts located here (from the instruction area atop the table) — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This table should me removed, because it implies that we have a vote instead of striving to reach a consensus. The problem I see are the names as listed, suggesting what I see a vote count. Consensus, to editors not used reaching it, instead of the brute force of the numbers, is one in which a lonely editor, but with the better argument, gets the many to agree, what ever their initial position was. Any editor should refrain writing lines like "Oppose per other_editor" or "Support per other_editor" which as such are votes. Voting is editing like Committee, i.e. no neutrality, which is bad for a Encyclopedia. --Robertiki (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robertiki:I moved your comment here, because it's the correct section and we're not supposed to write comments in the table section (like someone before you did in bad form). Please read the above "meta" discussion, it's relevant to what you're saying. — Alalch Emis 05:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question In what way does the consolidating Table show !votes against a move to any of those proposed? Qexigator (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator:The status quo option is the first option, which is the current title — Alalch Emis 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Adding others' names @Chrisahn: We can add others to the table. The table uses pings so people can remove their names. It's important to add people soon after they've added their comment, so as not to inconvenience them with pings too long after they've moved on to other things. You didn't do right to revert. — Alalch Emis 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the above discussion of people who actually set the table up, which discussion ended with an uncontested assertion that other's names can be added, I will manually revert your revert. — Alalch Emis 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"uncontested assertion that other's names can be added" — That's bullshit. See e.g. this. But whatever. Add any names you like, I'm not going to revert them. It just means that the table will be completely useless because we don't know if people actually know that their names have been added, whether they know what that means, whether they would have chosen additional options, etc. This is getting silly. Sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well and otherwise you're doing a good job, but it looks you're getting carried away a bit... Well. No big deal. We'll have another RM in three to six days, I guess, and it will hopefully be less chaotic than this one. Take care! — Chrisahn (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You could read a little more carefully. against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it – there is a general presupposition that other's votes are added, and what it takes for a vote not to be added is specific request (and the user whose name you removed did not make such a request). User you quoted did not contest that names are added, just expressed a doubt as to how it will work out in the end. Thanks, you too! — Alalch Emis

The following instructions express the opinion of one user. There is no consensus on what to do with this survey. Several users have argued it should be deleted. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And the instructions are unsigned! Who wrote them? Of all the things to be unsigned! Moncrief (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn Moncrief I moved your comments to the appropriate section. The first paragraph of the instructions was written by whoever put the table in, and the other two paragraphs are written by Chrisahn and me, who reformulated his concern by expanding on the existing instruction. The way I reformulated it is strictly based on the above discussion, so be so kind to look it over. Comments can't be put in that section on top of the table, but below – here. This is to save space and to not actively demotivate people from entering their names. No one has a right to obstruct the current set up. If this keeps being a problem it just means we have a dispute, and we'll resolve it accordingly. — Alalch Emis 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, these other two paragraphs were NOT written by me and you. I had no part in writing them. You deleted what I had written and replaced it (not "reformulated") by something very different. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, and I answer this further below — Alalch Emis 22:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

May we know who wrote the instructions below? It's customary on Wikipedia to sign any post. Moncrief (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moncrief: Looks like multiple editors; OctoberWoodland started it out, and it was expanded by Alalch Emis. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I answered this in the meta discussion below. I "technically" expanded it but it was a logical reformulation of a concern expressed by Chrisahn, and I did it to accomodate his concern but he keeps posting here, as well as Moncrief. I raised the issue regarding comments in this section here. Can you help, Anachronist? Comments posted here cause only more comments to be posted, even such that should be in the pertinent discussion above. I've moved one or two. — Alalch Emis 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, these instructions are NOT "a logical reformulation" of what I had written. I said that several names in this table have been added by others. You replaced that by your ideas of when it's OK to add others' names to the table. That's something very different. But thanks for finally signing your stuff. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's saying that the sky is blue. Of course people have been putting and will be putting others' names in, per the functionality of the table tally method that uses pings; it's already been proofed for this purpose. Your scaremongering comment adds absolutely nothing but erode trust in the process, and doesn't deserve to hold the distinguished spot of being the first thing people see when they arrive to this section, put in their name, and move on with their life. But I still valued your comment in good faith looking for it's best possible meaning – an expression of a relatively valid concern that peoples' names will be entered when it doesn't coincide with their true intent. A logical consequence of this is making sure this doesn't happen by adding clear instructions. — Alalch Emis 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not a logical consequence. I think users should never add others' names to this table. But we obviously disagree here, and that's OK. That's why I didn't add instructions saying "never do that" at the top of the table. But you wrote instructions saying "yes, you can do that", and added some criteria that you thought were OK. The thing is: There is no consensus. You should accept that. You can't decide on your own how the table should be used. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, we remain in disagreement and I have asked for a sanction to protect the area atop the table from intrusive comments. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC) | Update: this is probably no longer current. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

----For that reason, I had already declined to accept the usefulness or validity of the exercise, and continue to abstain from entering my name anywhere therein. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WARNING Disobedience to the directive above has incurred a request for punitive sanction for vandalism[24] [25] Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is an untruth. Although what is happening is clearly vandalism, and has been reported, no such sanction has been requested. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The actions involved of some users do need to be looked into, especially those adding the names of other users to the table. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the line, Critical discussion of the tally is being had underneath. The closing administrator will assess the soundness of the tally method, and it's utility with a critical eye should be crossed out. It seems to go counter to the line above it that the table is not a substitute for discussion and may cause users to misunderstand the purpose of the table. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku V How do you think that line should read? I don't mind at all changing it to something better. What do you think about the other user's line above it? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: I had some computer troubles, but my issue was that it could be a source of confusion for some editors. If you want my opinion of the other edits, the only one that might be vague is Qexigator's reference to "the directive above", but they linked to some dispute you had with them where you removed their comments for "vandalism" despite not being anywhere close to vandalism. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku VI didn't remove them, I moved them from under that technical heading (intended to link up the table with RM opener) to the existing subsection for table discussion underneath, not as anti-vandalism but as a permissible off-topic>on-topic move. I did that in order to protect the table from the tactic of discrediting it (and after other users' legitimate inputs to the table were reverted). My attempts were directed to re/starting the discussion to come to an understanding, by which I didn't even insist that the table keeps functioning, only that the tactic itself isn't cool. I loathe that there are negativist comments on top of the table, where originally only one line of simple and neutral instructions stood, and that someone felt empowered to unilaterally alter this setup inherited from previous RMs. I used the word vandalism in a certain context but I called it a "subtle form of vandalism", and didn't ask for "punitive sanctions" (really, that's just totally wrong). Qexigator is not the user primarily involved, and it's not someone I complained about directly, they came upon the situation later and didn't completely understand it. I ceased my activity in this regard but I still consider myself to be at leas 119% in the right. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Understood, though that was my perspective as requested. Regardless, this is off of the topic of requesting the text above be stricken as it may cause users to believe they just need to sign their name in the table instead of discuss and sign their name. (Which reminds me that there still seems to be users whose names are signed in the table above when they didn't do it themselves.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals

Guys we just had a RM close. This RM should be closed, for the same reason that a 4th revert at 24 hours 5 minutes would still be in violation of the 3RR. Rather than endless churning move proposals, let's focus on the article content and have a RM after a clear name for this event has emerged. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been my view from the get go, but I figured it might be worthwhile to get consensus on a title. It appears we have a winner - "2021 United States Capitol attack". Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If anything, we just learned there is definitely rough consensus to move away from "storming". Hard to simply put a stop on everything now, seeing that people feel there is room for improvement. Incremental progress good. — Alalch Emis 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that, over time, we will settle on "attack" as the action word, but still need to work through alternatives like 2021 attack on the United States capitol, 2021 United States Capitol attack, Attack on the United States Capitol and United States Capitol attack. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Anything with "attack" requires the year, as there have been attacks in history other than this one. That being said, the more concise will always win, thus "attack on the" will fail to "attack" always. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Let's get an admin in here and move the page and close the RM with "2021 United States Capitol attack". After that all of us should agree to a 30 day moratorium on further RM requests. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, despite attack lacking specificity. Better than "storming" after all (bombing? attempted hostage taking?). Insurrection is a more specific form of attack. It has a little bit of bearing here too. Semantically speaking, we're standing on a more common ground. Year issue is neutralized with "attack" which helps a lot, and it's short. — Alalch Emis 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As the nominator is there anything I can do to assist in closing the RM early or making "riot" or "attack" a valid option for support? JaredHWood💬 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We just need to ask an admin to move the page for us. We could request it an WP:AN Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You can do it J.h.wood. Don't alter the original request to retroactively infuse "attack" — Alalch Emis 06:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think any admin will move a page on the outcome of a straw poll. The above RM was about changing storming to riot, nothing else. I think you will need a fresh RM to have the page moved to attack. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

An admin is not going to move the article title based on the very limited discussion here. (Am I reading correctly the request above?) You'd need to do a fresh RM with that specific proposal. Moncrief (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither of these statements conform to what WP:NOGOODOPTIONS says. A closing admin MUST consider other proposed titles and consensus for those titles. We don't need to keep having RM discussions over and over again with this article. Let's put to rest the title for good (at least for the next 30 days). :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't need a new RM. Admin needs to get a feel on the nature of the naming controversy beforehand and read everything (all of the big RMs: the storming one, the insurrection ones /the abortive very early but not insubstantial one too/ and this one). He needs to look at arguments present here, which are ok. Then he needs to look at things in context and understand what caused the lack of consensus-forming in the last RM. He will be able to notice that "attack" is simply a genus proximus for "insurrection" (unlike "riot" which isn't a type of attack). Then, based on the prevailing support (rough consensus) for this agency-driven semantic pole of the naming matter, as opposed to entropy-driven ("riot"; "storming" is in the middle but there is consensus to move away from it) admin can concede there there is a rare window of opportunity for precious incremental progress, and do the move. Then the torrent of RMs stops. Later it could only be a linear issue of whether to go from "attack" to a more specific type of attack, except storming. — Alalch Emis 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say an admin couldn't move the article title without an RM. I said I think that an admin is not going to do so. I say this due to the level of user participation and interest in discussing the title of this article. Moncrief (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I rather have a 6-month moratorium for moving this page in order to prevent any distruptive page move in the future and makes the article more stable. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• This topic is so recent that I'd go less more like 2 weeks if needed. Things can easily change significantly in less than a month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't understand the stress here; just let the process play out and see where we land in a week or so. The straw poll above (Proposed Article Titles) has already been useful in gauging where editors are at regarding titles and it's been up for less than 24 hours. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• There is no reason to stop discussion. Actually get consensus. Pretty clear there isn’t right now. I would suggest move request or RFC with the options of riot, attack and storming.Casprings (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The option to support attack has been added. Thanks for all your innovative ideas and discussion on this. I am hopeful this option will move the discussion toward consensus. JaredHWood💬 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jared.h.wood: I'm afraid that's not going to work. There are dozens of "support" and "oppose" comments already, but they support/oppose "riot", not "attack". Could you remove the option to support "attack"? It's only adding more confusion. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn is correct. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I thought an RFC with options might be a better means to gain consensus here. I opened one at the bottom of the page.Casprings (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• It's great that it looks like we might be able to agree on "attack", but we should try to do it in an at least somewhat orderly fashion. Otherwise we might have a WP:move review soon. Let's find a title that we can live with for at least three to six months. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Maybe it doesn't have to run for the full seven days if it's clear there's not enough support. But I think three days should be the minimum. After that, we can start a new RM for "attack". If it gets enough support, we might be able to finish it sooner than in seven days as well. We've had "storming" for 17 days now. We can live with it for another week or so. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I didn’t start a move request. I started an RFC. Can’t move review an RFC. The point of the RFC is to bring order to this. Need clear votes and options if this will move forward.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you, but to the discussion in this section "Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals" in general. I indented your comment like the ones above it to make that clearer. I hope that's OK. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Make it 6 months and while we're at it, those who propose it should be blocked from editing this page because it does nothing but disrupt. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It needs a six months moratorium in order to ensure that the article was stable. Anyone who have proposed to requested move within 6 months time should be blocked without question from editing this page. 110.137.190.132 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Having just tried to understand what has happened in this RM discussion I think a break is definitely needed. Unless someone has been following from the beginning, this RM is almost incomprehensible. —WingedSerif (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Let us say, with all this mess, that I don't know where to place the following:

Comment - This is an excellent opportunity to explain to newcomers the difference between deciding by vote, versus consensus. At one point, JaredHWood stated that insurrection won’t gain consensus. Alalch Emis answered as JaredHWood had implied that there was a consensus to not choose insurrection, which is not what JaredHWood wrote. I understand that Alalch Emis (and not him alone) has taken consensus as a wikipedian synonymous of deciding by vote, which is not. Example: let us say that 20 editors believe that insurrection is better, but that 10 editors, maybe also only 5 editors, are staunchly against insurrection wording. That means that, because of that minority of editors there will be no consensus what ever over insurrection and any further discussion is simply pointless. Under Wikpedian rules that is fine, things remain as they are. Deciding by vote (as the disgraceful table is trying to frame) would instead impose a wording unacceptable to a minority. That may be good if there is a objective need to take a decision, for example behind the wheel of a car, to go right rather than left, because the road ahead ends in front of a wall. But, otherwise, is bad. Let me explain why. Wikipedia is not a news outlet and has no duty to uncritically repeat what the news report. If the news say it is a insurrection but that is debatable (for example, because 70 million persons have doubts about that ?) Wikipedia, as a encyclopedia, should put that in a frame: Newspapers (most newspapers ?) says it was a insurrection. That is what indisputably happens, what we read on the media. But if it is actually a insurrection should be let to the reader interpretation of the facts as described; editors should refrain forcing their interpretation from what has actually happened. This is the difference between a newspaper (and/or propaganda) and an encyclopedia. And how do we distinguish between facts and interpretation ? By consensus, because only the minority can highlight what is not obvious. And if a minority highlights that is not obvious that it was a ‘’insurrection’’, then we will never reach a consensus about that. So it should be let to the reader decide about that, and we, as editors, abstain to place such a title. That is Wikipedia (IMHO). --Robertiki (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis this, Alalch Emis that. Nothing I've said gives cause to believe I, or pretty much anyone I've seen posting in recent days doesn't know what consensus is. If you think you have a lesson to teach me, write it on my talk page. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment While agreeing with Chrisahn's Let's finish this RM for "riot" first (above), I would not support 'attack'. After taking into account what others have been supporting and opposing on this page (including archives), I now see 'protest' as the least bad instead of 'storming', for reasons in my edit protest v. insurrection below (10:27, 1 February).[26] Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

+At the time there were two protests at the Capitol followed by a third protest. The first had openly been pre-planned by some Senators and Representatives as a protest against accepting the certificates of some states at the Congressional election certifying session (a not unprecedented process). The second was the protest of the crowds outside the Capitol, and the unprecedented entry by some of them into the Capitol and interruption of the Congressional session for some hours, until the session reassembled, letting the first protest be peacefully continued until the session's business was completed, in an orderly way. Meantime, many contributors here were composing the Wikipedia article, and discussing it on the Talk page. Came the dawn, and the editing and discussion continued as more information became available for sober assessment, and now, weeks later, we are where we are, before the impeachment trial of citizen Trump by the Senate has begun. The impeachment is a third protest, this time by a coalition of interests in Congress and indirectly by their admitted supporters in the wider world- another event in the history of U.S. factional politics. Qexigator (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Word frequency

The article text itself does not seem to show a pressing need to move from 'storming' to 'riot' as RM proposed, or 'attack' as has some support. The word frequency is, roughly:

• storming 25 in the text and 1 caption, and nearly as many in the refs.
• riot 18 in the text and 1 caption, and about as many in the refs.
• attack 10 in the text and 1 caption and 15 in the refs. 00:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)corrected typo from 8 to 18 Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think your numbers for riot are at least an order of magnitude too low. I count 40 occurrences of riot or riots in the article (not counting cases like riot gear) and ca. 60 occurrences of rioter or rioters, and there are roughly 100 occurrences of riot(s) or rioter(s) in the references section. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC) correcting from 8 to 18 Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. On my recount, on riot only, there are 18 in text and 1 caption, and 26 in refs. In my view, the noun is the significant indicator here. Qexigator (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

First problem with this analysis: Present participle form of storm and gerund of storm are different, and you didn't differentiate them. (edit: I rechecked and it appears that you have). Second problem: The choice of words in the content of the article tends to conform to the title to make everything more cohesive. Arguing inversely that the choice of descriptor in the title should conform with the word choice of the content is problematic because the existing title has "propagated" itself throughout the article and may look much more supported than it really is. Upsate: WP:CIRCULAR would apply here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, It's a fair point, but in my view (while I can see that others may consider otherwise) that point is not determinative in the context of this discussion. Qexigator (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added two further comments near the top of the 23 Jan RM and would like this section to be considered closed, unless anyone has a reply to the above. Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Visuals support 'storming'

Whatever descriptors traditional RS (to satisfy their owner's editorial policy), and their imitators swelling Google counts, may repeatedly use , we may suppose that the images and footage of the event at the Capitol have been seen by millions in America and around the world. But I have only now noticed that while the images accompanying the article show crowds of people outside the Capitol. there is nothing that looks much like a storming of the Capitol, or a 'riot' or 'attack'. The current article name was adopted by those writing it up on 6-7 January who could also see for themselves the stills and footage that showed large crowds milling about harmlessly in the foreground at a distance from the Capitol, and a smaller part of the crowds nearer the building that, in broad daylight, engaged in

• clambering up the walls[27]
• violent breaking in
• violent assault on the steps.

If there were nothing more, that would match the word 'storming' better than riot or attack. But in addition, there could also be seen stills and footage showing riotous conduct and wreckage[28] by the part of the crowds who went inside, consistent with describing the whole incident from break in to clear out as a 'storming', which ended when the crowd inside was ejected and order was restored for the Congress to complete its interrupted business. Qexigator (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added two further comments near the top of the 23 Jan RM and would like this section to be considered closed, unless anyone has a reply to the above. Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple common names

Lots of data has been collected as to how the event is referred to in reliable sources. It is very difficult to get a statistically accurate and meaningful sample of those mentions, and it is unclear to me that if one term is say, 15% more common in those sources that Wikipedia should adopt that term in the article title. Some media outlets choose words for headline simply because they fit the space available; for example "riot" is shorter than "insurrection". Outlets with different audience political demographics also choose different words. How should we weigh those? Some outlets do more stories on the topic; should we count by number of stories or number of outlets? I'd argue a less problematic approach would be to take the reported data as evidence that there are currently multiple common names for this event, including "attack", "riot", "insurrection", and "storming". In choosing among those, Wikipedia might benefit by picking the term that is least ambiguous and most specific while still being generally applicable. -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to get a meaningful statistical analysis, I've done a detailed analysis of headlines from a sample of ~25 reliable sources, and these are the results: storming 7%, riot 27%, insurrection 20% (median between two search methods), attack 23%, breach 9%, siege 15% (protest, incident 0%, mentioning them because they're in the survey). The common names for the event are names such as "Capitol riot", "Capitol attack", "Insurrection at the Capitol"; "siege" is less common, and the other ones are not common. "Storming of the Capitol"/"Capitol storming" is most definitely not common. For example the common ones you can hear spoken on the TV or radio (just "insurrection" very frequent, "capitol riot" too), but you don't hear real people saying "the storming of the Capitol" or similar, it's just not natural. People say the Capitol was stormed, yes, they say that people were storming it, yes, but they don't use the gerund (the storming) that much. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing analysis of naming trends

Research of naming choices

Exhibit A

Prevalence of headlines by name (Jan. 30 2021)

Descriptor NOTE: the actual count is on the last page of search results	Results Selected RS (since Jan. 6)	Results Google News (since Jan. 20)	Search method (two part search to differentiate verb from noun, not needed for "insurrection" and "incident" which are only nouns)
riot (RM)	350 . . . [29]	208 . . . [30]	"capitol riot" / "riot at" capitol
attack	261 . . . [31]	149 . . . [32]	"capitol attack" / "attack on" capitol
insurrection (RM)	214 . . . [33] or 291 . . . [34]	183 . . . [35] or 239 . . . [36]	insurrection capitol -"insurr. act" -incite/d/ing/ment or same as above, sans capitol, (this includes titles using just "the insurrection" to name to the event, and some others such as "Insurrection Day")
siege	192 . . . [37]	122 . . . [38]	"capitol siege" / "siege of" capitol
breach	112 . . . [39]	70 . . . [40]	"capitol breach" / "breach of" capitol
storming (RM)	84 . . . [41]	36 . . . [42]	"capitol storming" / "storming of" capitol
assault	55 . . . [43]	44 . . . [44]	"capitol assault" / "assault on" capitol
rampage	21 . . . [45]	~4 . . . [46]	rampage capitol
invasion	9 . . . [47]	26 . . . [48]	invasion capitol
raid	~10 . . . [49]	~7 . . . [50]	raid capitol
protest	~5 . . . [51]	~11 . . . [52]	"capitol protest" / "protest at" / "protests at" capitol -state (most results refer to state Capitol protests or "protest" is used with a qualifier or it's from Jan. 6 before Capitol was breached)
occupation	~4 . . . [53]	~1 . . . [54]	occupation capitol
incident	~1 . . . [55]	~6 . . . [56]	incident capitol
coup attempt	~0 . . . [57]	~10 . . . [58]	coup capitol (real results mixed w. opinion and articles on how it was not a coup; reputable news orgs don't use "coup")
Selected RS: Associated Press, BBC , The Guardian, NYT, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC News, USA Today, L.A. Times, CS Monitor, WSJ, Financial Times, Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, CNBC, Bloomberg News, Chicago Tribune, US News, Politico, UPI

Exhibit B

Preferred word(s) by media outlet Z22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Media outlet	Preferred word(s)	Last date of evidence	Evidence and references
Associated Press	mob, riot, insurrection; siege*	14 January 2021; present*	According to John Daniszewski, AP vice president and editor at large for standards.[59] *"Capitol Siege" category.[60]
NPR	insurrection	present	Use "Capitol Insurrection" as a news section name[61] (changed from "Insurrection at the Capitol" on or around 27 Jan)[62][63]
CBS News	assault	19 January 2021	"U.S. Capitol Assault" as section name highlighted on cbsnews.com main page[64]
Politico	insurrection	present	"Insurrection Fallout" as a category, within the "Congress" section[65]
PBS	attack, insurrection	present	"U.S. Capitol Attack" and "Insurrection" as categories of PBS NewsHour[66][67][68] content
NBC News	riot; insurrection*	12 January 2021	"Capitol Riot" as a category on main page of nbcnews.com[69] *The event is consistently referred to as "Capitol Insurection" on-air, incl. in MTP (flagship program)[70]00:00:50
The Guardian	breach	present	"US Capitol breach" as a category (topic) of US news[71]
BBC	riot	present	"US Capitol riots" as a category (topic) in the US & Canada section[72]
Business Insider	insurrection	present	"US Capitol insurrection" as a category (topic) in the politics section[73]

Exhibit C

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event.

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Organizer Word used Event date Event title and references Chicago Council on Global Affairs insurrection 8 January 2021 World Review: Global Reaction to US Capitol Insurrection[74] Josef Korbel School of International Studies insurrection 8 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[75][76] Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters assault 8 January 2021 Assault on the Capitol: What Just Happened?[77] Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University chaos 11 January 2021 On Freedom: Capitol Chaos and Its Impact on Democracy[78] Johns Hopkins University SNF Agora Institute insurrection 13 January 2021 Public discussion of capital insurrection[79] UC Davis School of Law insurrection 13 January 2021 Insurrection and the Rule of Law.[80] Hammer Museum insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s next[81] Carr Center for Human Rights Policy insurrection 14 January 2021 (postponed) Democracy at Risk: Reckoning with the Capitol Insurrection[82] George Washington University Law School insurrection 14 January 2021 The Insurrection at the Capitol: A Discussion by Legal Scholars[83] First Amendment Coalition riot 14 January 2021 Erwin Chemerinsky On The First Amendment And The Capitol Riot[84] Northern Illinois University insurrection 14 January 2021 Ask an Expert: The January 6 Insurrection, Constitutional Processes, and the Peaceful Transition of Power[85] Central Michigan University chaos 14 January 2021 Unpacking the Chaos at the Capitol[86] North Carolina State University insurrection 14 January 2021 Responding to Insurrection: How Do We Talk With Students?[87] Interfaith Alliance insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection and Religious Extremism: How Did We Get Here and Where Do We Go?[88] University of Massachusetts Amherst siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Siege: Making Sense of What Happened[89] University of Connecticut siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Under Siege: Community Reflections on the Lawless and Violent Attack on Democracy[] Elon University insurrection 15 January 2021 Reacting to the Insurrection at the Capitol[90] University of Pittsburgh siege 18 January 2021 What Just Happened? Race, Justice and Politics after the Capitol Siege[91] Alma College insurrection 18 January 2021 Lunch & Learn: Community Conversation on the Capitol Insurrection[92] The National Press Club insurrection 19 January 2021 Getting it right: Breaking news, the Inauguration, and the Capitol insurrection[93] International Institute for Strategic Studies storming 19 January 2021 Crisis in America: the storming of the Capitol and Biden’s challenge[94] University of Washington attack 19 January 2021 Attack on the Capitol--What Does It Mean for Democracy?[95] Brookings Institution insurrection 19 January 2021 Truth and accountability post-insurrection: Where does the country go from here?[96] Oregon State University’s School of History, Philosophy and Religion  sedition 21 January 2021 Divided States of America: Sedition, the Inauguration, and the Unfolding Crisis in American Democracy[97] Schenectady, Albany and Troy chapters of the NAACP insurrection 21 January 2021 Aftermath of the Insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.[98] George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs riot 21 January 2021 The Capitol Riots, QAnon, and the Internet[] University of Missouri–St. Louis riot 21 January 2021 What Just Happened? Putting the Presidential Election and the Riot in the Capitol in Context[99] William & Mary Law School insurrection 22 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[100] Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies storming 22 January 2021 The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Free Speech Online[101][102] Fordham University School of Law attack 25 January 2021 The Attack on the Capitol: an on the Ground Report and What's Next[103] Washington University in St. Louis insurrection 25 January 2021 U.S. Presidential Transition & Insurrection at the Capitol[104] Munk School of Global Affairs insurrection 25 January 2021 Insurrection and Accountability in the United States: What Just Happened? And What Happens Next?[105] DeSales University insurrection 27 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: A Special DeSales University Panel Discussion[106] United States Capitol Historical Society insurrection 27 January 2021 How Do We Move Forward? Contextualizing the January 6th Capitol Insurrection[107] Harvard Institute of Politics insurrection 28 January 2021 What Just Happened? Insurrection, Impeachment, and Inauguration [108] Johns Hopkins University insurrection 28 January 2021 U.S. Democracy Post-Insurrection: What’s Next? (Part I)[109] Carleton College chaos, insurrection 28 January 2021 Carleton Talks: Capitol Chaos: Reflections on the Insurrection[110] American Academy of Religion insurrection 29 January 2021 Insurrection, White Supremacy, and Religion[111] Department of Communication and Theatre Arts, Old Dominion University insurrection 1 February 2021 Insurrection: The Critical Reflection Forums[112] Ponars Eurasia, George Washington University storming 4 February 2021 The Storming of the US Capitol: Views from Eurasia[113] The Utica College Center for Historical Research insurrection 11 February 2021 The Impact of the Capitol Insurrection on the Modern Presidency & U.S. Elections [114] Texas A&M University School of Law insurrection 11 February 2021 [115] Arizona State University insurrection 11 February 2021 Roundtable: The Rise in Anti-Democratic Violence in the U.S.: Perspectives on the Capitol Insurrection[116]

• insurrection: 28 events
• storming: 3 events
• riot: 3 events
• chaos: 3 events
• siege: 3 events
• attack: 2 events
• assault: 1 event
• sedition 1 event

Exhibit D

• Note: goal of this part of research is not so much to include all references to the event, but to find references in diverse social spheres, that may be seen as relevant (please comment in the discussion below) — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Terms used by scholars, jurists and career/military appointees (not politicians and commentators)

Type	Term used	Evidence and references
scholar, fmr. ambassador	insurrection	an armed insurrection against the Capitol inspired by the president of the United States[117]
jurist (judge)	insurrection	an active participant in a violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the United States government[118]
generals (JCS)	insurrection, sedition	... do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection.[119]
scholars (APSA)	insurrection	Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol[120]

Discussion

• note: this section heading was added post-factum to easier navigate this section — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Riot and insurrection are leading, and I'd consider both common names. Except for attack, other words don't seem all that competitive in terms of forming a common name. "Storming" has fallen behind. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• All of that can still be true, and yet miss the main point: Word choice is not a matter of verifiability, it is a matter of tone. Choosing from among a set of near synonyms for a description of an event, Wikipedia has different concerns in tone than do many sources, even news sources. It's why we use words like "die" instead of euphemisms for it, even if more sources use "passed away" or something like that. WP:LABEL recommends using language which avoids emotional-laden words. Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement, regardless of which similar words other sources are using. --Jayron32 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in theory, what you say is excellent, but "Storming" fails the common name criterion big time. Also these words aren't synonyms. "Attack" is indeed vague, but "riot" is not vague, and it's not synonymous to "storming". Insurrection is also neither a euphemism for "storming", nor it's synonym. You've just promulgated a thesis that "storming" is the real name (like "die" as opposed to "pass away"), and when media use other terms they are doing so as a euphemism for storming. But this just isn't true. The media don't use storming because they just don't. It's a clunky gerund that isn't in common usage. I made this resource to enable people to quickly access a list of headlines and assess how and in which context (and in which "tonal register") each word is being used. The analysis is not meant to answer the naming question by itself. What inspired are misguided attempts to claim that something is a WP:COMMONNAME based on rudimentary google searches, such as presented here (attack is used 193,000 times, Riot used 67,700 times – one would believe that attack is used three times more than riot, when riot is used significantly more than attack). There needs to be something reliable to fall back on, when the question of what the reliable sources are using arises. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I maybe didn't express myself well. When I said "Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement..." what I actually meant by that was " Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement." I hope that clears things up for you. I'm not married to the current title, but a simple statistical list of words is insufficient in making the editorial decisions we face. Words like "riot" and "insurrection" carry emotional weight; it's why news sources choose them to get people to read their articles, because that emotional connection with their audiences creates a connection with them that encourages those audiences to keep reading that source's articles, among many other reasons for choosing those words. As an encyclopedia recording an event dispassionately, Wikipedia has a different purpose than "eyeballs on articles to feed ad revenue", and as such, we have a responsibility per WP:TONE to choose words that, as feasible as possible, do not carry the same sort of emotional weight. Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal. "Riot" and "insurrection" are not them, regardless of how many sources use them. --Jayron32 13:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Roget's Thesaurus[121] gives 'storming' (noun) as a synonym for 'assault' and 'attack', also for 'bravado/ boastfulness'. A print copy of The Oxford Handy Dictionary (ed. Fowler) gives 'as in "take by storm" - direct assault on (and capture of) defended place by troops etc.'[122] Whether or not 'storming' was chosen initially with that in mind, it is good reason for it to be retained. See also Storming the City, U.S. Military Performance in Urban Warfare from World War II to Vietnam (2016).[123] Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32. It doesn't clear it up for me. It looks like you're fishing for the most extraordinarily contrived arguments to defend the current name (which you are identifying as "storm" which is a vastly more common word than "storming" used as a noun; this can make it look more common than it is). I'd rather trust the ~25 reputable news organizations, than a person's individual sense of what carries emotional weight (or their exotic theory on how reputable media organizations are so opportunistic and clickbaity... why are they considered reliable sources then?). It must be that because "insurrection" is such emotional language that this opportunistic media organization called the event "insurrection" on the second day: American Political Science Association (APSA) – Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol. No, the event is being called what it's called, because those words best fit it. And finally, now we're at it, this has never been my main argument, but the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, now that we know well all the implications surrounding the term. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You may be right about the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, but please explain. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Sorry again for being unclear. When I said "I'm not married to the current title", what I meant by that was "I'm not married to the current title". Also, when I said "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal" (goal meaning "Of choosing a title that is neutral and does not carry unnecessary emotional weight), what I meant was actually "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal". Is there anything else I can clear up for you? Feel free to propose a better title. If it isn't "riot" or "insurrection" or other similarly weighted words, it will probably be even better than what is there now. --Jayron32 19:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good analysis. But one more suggestion. If you are going to do it this way, search in text to make sure you are pulling all the articles about the even. Then limit the intitle search with only the verb. In other words, just search for the in title for the word riot or attack.Casprings (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying that now as well. I think it produces fewer overall results than searching just the titles (probably because referring to the event by it's full name is done less frequently in the body), so I'm still figuring out if it has any added value. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment While we rely mostly on print media for referencing, there should be some nod to how the event is described in other media. For example, I've noticed that on-air, NPR almost solely calls it "insurrection" in editorial voice, when describing the event proper (i.e., "the January insurrection..."). They will use the informal "attack" in passing (i.e., "the attack on the Capitol was.."). This is similar to the apparent style of the BBC World Service as well, except that I've also heard them use "storming" and "stormed". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Personally I don't think that all of the precise statistical counting is helpful. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't dictate that we must use whatever naming has the precise by-the-numbers most use in news articles in a vacuum. When multiple possible terms are all being used in widespread contexts, with no one absolutely predominating, then we can consider there to be multiple common names (or no definitive name). As such it makes most sense to fit the one that best attests to the nature of the event, Wikipedia's policies, and broad consensus of accuracy. I'm still on team "attack", but that kind of goes without saying. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, really good. I am going to change my vote about to being neutral concerning riot or attack. You almost have me. That said, in my mind, what you want to do is combine an intitle search that is exclusive with an intext search that is expansive. In other words, search for riot intitle. But in text, combine alot of terms together (Capitol and riot or attack or insurrection or ect). That said, really good.Casprings (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Already with the above searches, any of the words can appear in the text of any of the articles, because the text is completely ignored. So if you click on one of the results for e.g. "riots", you'll see that in the article "attack" is used. To get new information one should do the opposite of what you're saying: include all the titles that may refer to the event by including all the words alternatively (intitle:siege | intitle:breach | intitle:attack etc...), and look for the specific phrase in the text, but then it's not even needed to constrain the results by title as the text containing the said phrase would certainly be dealing with the topic. Doing that set of searches (just text, regardless of the title) is certainly possible for me but the word choices in the text carry less weight because journalistic writers tend to vary their word choices to avoid too much repetition for purely stylistic reasons, so those choices are pretty voluntary and non-committal, and don't necessarily express a real person's (editor's for example) real "call" on what to name the event. Hope these thoughts make sense to you. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think so far the method to try to understand what WP:COMMONNAME might have been mainly by counting. While this is a good indicator, we should also take into account of what media outlets at the organization level call the event as. Some of the outlets have been explicit about what the standard wording they use. If we have evidence that they in fact standardize on using particular words, those words should be given more careful attention than just the method of overall counting alone. Also most recent evidence should be used as the words they decided to use may evolve over time. I have compiled an initial list on the table here which we can expand if we find more explicit evidence:

Note: per discussion below, Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility— Alalch Emis (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be another indicator aside from raw counting. Z22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, we were doing some of that earlier but it's archived now. I added Politico. If you'd like to we can move this table to the top of the section so that both analyses are seen as a greater whole. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how we typically use tables in a discussion thread, but if that is what we should do to make it easier to discuss, then I'm good with that. Z22 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if Business Insider is reliable enough or not. I just added an entry in the table. If there are some disputes that Business Insider should not be included, then discuss to remove it. Z22 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no consensus on BI status as a reliable source. Right now their senior editor for politics is someone for whom I cannot find evidence that he is a veteran political journalist. I'd say not, in this context. I remember seeing more categories and sections in various outlets, I'll keep looking to find them. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that no COMMONNAME has been adopted, unlike the many other civil disorders. If one did, it would not matter if the tone was partial or the wording incorrect. I would avoid riot, insurrection or coup, since those terms have connotations that may be inaccurate. I don't see anything wrong with the current title. TFD (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a leap of logic to look at the results, see that there are 3 fairly prominent names and a plethora of less prominent name, and conclude that this article should use one of the less prominent words because none of the three prominent ones are a common name. It's not how it works. EDIT: looking again at your post, I understand that you didn't actually refer to the top 3 words, but mentioned two of them and coup (yeah, coup isn't really discussed anymore). — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is no COMMONNAME, then COMMONNAME does not apply and we are not required to choose among the three most prominent titles, or the hundred most. Instead, we have to use recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency and avoid judgmental wording, per Wikipedia:Article titles. So that rules out terms such as riot, insurrection and coup that provide interpretations of the events. TFD (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is no common name it doesn't mean that the name should not be supported by reliable sources. Riot and insurrection are not interpretations of the event. These names are very well supported by reliable sources and storming is comparably poorly supported. Insurrection is thus mandated by WP:NCE because insurrection is a generally accepted word under the included definition: A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public. Insurrection is a neutral word, and storming is a problematic word with complicated connotations. Storming doesn't include incredibly important elements of the event such as the bombing attempt and the methods and goals covered in the infobox. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

'insurrection' is far from neutral. Given that the Democratic Party leadership has deliberately used it to frame the politically motivated impeachment article that the House has delivered to the Senate, it is perhaps the most controversial word of all, and intended to be so - in common parlance the word has been 'weaponized' (as in this article from Aug 2016[124] and this from April 2020[125]) If 'insurrection' is used in the name it should be in quote marks, and the lead should begin by referencing the said impeachment. The article could then mention that before the impeachment, the word was already being used in public statements, both the commercially published and official, and this could be supported by citing a variety of frequency word counts identifying the criteria for each of those counts. If within the current period, say from 6 Jan to 6 Feb, notable Republican party leaders or supporters have used it, that, too should be mentioned. A better alternative would be to use the generic "protest" in the title, then at the start of the article say that it was variously described at the time as.... etc. That would probably be the better way for an encyclopedia. Redirects can be used for other words, just as the index of a print encyclopedia such as Britannica has redirects. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: The article name will reflect reliable sources; it does not matter that one political party has used the word to describe what happened. Quotes around the word insurrection would not follow policy. There is no support for using the word protest in the article, which should be clear from the move discussion that resulted in the current title. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It is clear and demonstrates the problem we are having here. Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The current title is supported by reliable sources. The argument that insurrection is a generally accepted word is incorrect, because NCE defines it as "a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event." I doubt there is any dispute that the Capitol was stormed.

Insurrection is problematic because it is defined as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." (Merriam-Webster)[126] Whether or not the actions amounted to that is something that is yet to be proved. Bear in mind that per People accused of crime, we cannot accuse living or recently deceased people of serious crimes until they are convicted.

The closest event I could find was the Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal (1849). Conservative demonstrators protesting new legislation threw stones at the governor-general, shot at the prime minister, broke into the main building and set it on fire with the legislators inside. The violence continued for days with attacks on other political targets. Yet the Canadian Encyclopedia refers to it as the "Montreal riots."

TFD (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think another indicator that can give us an insight as to how people understand the Jan 6 event as is to look at public discussion events that discuss about the Jan 6. Those public event names should be one of clearer indicators of COMMONNAME. I came up with a way to search those events. I planned to search for the top 3 words that many have talked about: "attack", "riot", and "insurrection". Then, I included "storming" as the 4th word for searching given that this page title is still that. The word that I chose to combine to form a search key in order to identify as many as public events possible are "event" and "panelists". So, it came to a total of 8 searches: "capitol" "attack" "event", "capitol" "attack" "panelists", "capitol" "riot" "event", "capitol" "riot" "panelists", "capitol" "insurrection" "event", "capitol" "insurrection" "panelists", "capitol" "storming" "event", and "capitol" "storming" "panelists". In each of those 8 searches, I inspected the first 100 results. In each of the results, I looked something that mentions a public discussion event that has an event name. If there is an article that talks about a discussion about Jan 6 but there is no way for me to find the event name / discussion title, then I don't count that in. I came across a few events that were not organized by notable entities, so, I did not include those few. Also, one event that was run by an organization that promotes a particular political party, I don't include that one. In all of those qualified events, here are the break down of the words used in the event names:

• insurrection: 28 events
• storming: 3 events
• riot: 3 events
• chaos: 3 events
• siege: 3 events
• attack: 2 events
• assault: 1 event
• sedition 1 event

Below is the list of the events. I have the table collapsed as it is a long list.

Note: per commment below Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If you find that it is better to move this table to the top for visibility, please feel free to do so. Maybe we can expand the list, but make sure to use a search methodology that is fair to all 4 words in question. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the list of event names in the above not only establishes a common name that has been used to communicate to the public on upcoming events that are about the Jan 6 event, it also indicates generally accepted word per WP:NCE as it shows consensus among scholars (many of these listed events have scholars as panelists, and organized by academic departments) in the real world. Z22 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work, I hope many people see it — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The word 'event' in the list above is not well chosen. It tends to confuse the question under discussion, as the course of the discussion is showing, and the methodology is at least dubious.

The topic of the article is itself the event, and the purpose of this RM is to decide whether 'riot' would be a better choice than 'storming' in respect of that single event, with a view of improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please say specifically where the questionable use of 'event' is located, so I could take a look at it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Every news article I've checked today about the Bidens paying their respects uses the phrase "Capitol riot" in the first paragraph. nbc, cbs, foxnews, cnn, usatoday. Other names are used in the articles, but "U.S. Capitol riot" has emerged as the event identifier used first. JaredHWood💬 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You can check the results for the past 24 or 48 hrs using the first table, by replacing the date in the link (at the end; you can automate it in a text editor), and report them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

List not Analysis

For clarity, the word 'List' should replace 'Analysis' in the Table headings.

The leading promoter of the Tables A-D has been moving others' contributions about on this page, but is not disinterested. He has asserted a very personal opinion that 'the tone of "storming" is catastrophic' (17:53, 29 January).

Given that Analysis is a 'process of breaking a complex topic... into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it', the questions remain

• whether it is a Qualitative Analysis that 'is concerned with which components are in a given sample' or a Quantitative Analysis that is 'to determine the quantity of individual component present in a given sample'?
• what is its purpose?
• wheher it is fit for that purpose?
• whether that purpose can be at most a minor aid to deciding the question currently in issue, viz,, whether the word 'storming' is less suited than 'riot' to the article's name.

From the point of view of decision-making for editing, distinct from personal opinion, and allowing for guidance about secondary sources etc., it can be argued[127] (but not in this comment) that the Memorandum in Support of the impeachment,[128] which is intentionally framing the charge as Incitement of Insurrection, is the best evidence we have in support of retaining 'storming' though that word appears only once in the text, in section 'E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol' (p.23) and in two references: 1. Associated Press, Trump Doesn’t Ask Backers to Disperse after Storming Capitol, PBS (Jan. 6, 2021) (p.21) and 2. Raphael Satter, Laptop Stolen from Pelosi’s Office during Storming of U.S. Capitol, Says Aide, Reuters (Jan. 8, 2021).(p.40).

(For 'Answer to Article 1 Incitement of insurrection' addresed to the members of the Senate see[129])

The Tables on this page offered as analysis are in fact no more than lists of number counts, unaccompanied by a critical appraisal of the external sources, in respect of criteria for click bait, headline grabbing, editorial policy and control, imitative, repetitive, inciting or following a twitterstorm[130]. -Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I take that back, when I said it was catastrophic, it was a bit of unfortunate hyperbole. I think the tone is really bad for reasons widely discussed on this talk page, and it's the most problematic of all descriptors, but not "catastrophic". I am disinterested. I am not a promotor of anything. I didn't read the rest of your post. What is offered is an analysis and not a list. Update: voila, I minimized the usage of "analysis" so we don't have to talk about that hopefully. Update #2: the most comprehensive of the tables, that took the most effort by far, was not even done by me, so I shouldn't be made to look more important here than I am — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So, to better clarify: it's an ongoing analysis, the analysis isn't complete, it's a team effort. We break the naming trends down and come to a conclusion, over some time, no? We are looking if there's a common name, or what names are significantly supported by reliable sources and what aren't ("Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."), and/or what is the generally accepted word. If you have a superior methodology you are entitled just as I am to proffer one. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

Challenged close

Note to all that I've challenged this close on the user's talk page, as I feel that it does not adequately explain the reasoning behind the result, the fact that the closer explicitly violated an AC/DS by considering and not ignoring mentions of "insurrection", and the fact that the closer does not provide a reasoning for their consideration of !votes based on the editors' own opinions as to what the title should be. If the close is not overturned by the user, I intend to seek review by administrators per WP:BADNAC (The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator and the NAC instructions for RMs which require that The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days) - in this case it is not clear at all that there is or is not a consensus. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC) moved outside closed discussion -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What AC/DS provision was violated? Closing discussions doesn't really relate to AC/DS except in very rare cases where explicit restrictions have been set to manage a discussion (again, very rare). It doesn't otherwise play a role in content decisions. As for BADNAC, it's an essay which is applied very loosely in practice, and the RM closing instructions explicitly say closes cannot be overturned on the basis of it being closed by a non-admin. As for the close itself, I'm not sure about the rationale (I probably would've used different reasoning, and I think some mention of the research exhibits and editors' thoughts on the evidence was warranted, though much of the evidence on headlines was foul of WP:RSHEADLINES) but there was evidently no consensus to move and no reason to think relisting would've produced a different outcome, given the high participation and stacking opposes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The AC/DS explicitly forbids discussion of "insurrection" for a month - the closer didn't seem to take this into account, and in fact uses "insurrection" !votes in their finding of no-consensus, when per the moratorium such votes should be at a minimum ignored. There was an explicit restriction set by the admin who implemented the AC/DS against discussion of "insurrection" for a month. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, AC/DS just covers politics since 1932 onward and there is nothing in the talk page templates above that even state there is a restriction on "insurrection" at all. (Which, why would there be if we are going to have move discussions now about where the article should be named?) Can you link to what you are talking about? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

They're talking about El C's logged restriction: I have also imposed the following move moratorium: one month until an "insurrection" move request may be attempted again, barring any significant legal outcomes, whichever comes first. Also noted that other move requests (like "Riots," etc.) may be launched immediately. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C Can you explain this? There is no warning on this talk page at all that anyone can get a DS for taking about moving to insurrection at all. I knew that the last request was defeated because of the new request here, but I am in disbelief that there is no active link to something that important. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding, based on the fact that AC/DS are for conduct problems, is this: El C placed that restriction to attempt to avoid the problem of people who were !voting for "insurrection" based on bias reasons or reasons outside of policy - which was primarily what occurred in that RM and in this one. This led to massive derailments of both discussions because time, space, and effort was given to countering these biased and completely useless comments that had no basis in policy - which led to the lack of consensus in the previous RM discussion. That is a conduct problem - people attempting to !vote based on reasons completely outside of policy which derails discussion - and I feel that is the conduct problem that the DS was likely crafted to address. I think that the restriction was well crafted - it (should have) prevented discussion of the one title that was primarily leading to these non-policy-based !votes, while still allowing discussion of other titles - however it wasn't enforced. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So my voice should not count because of a restriction that I didn't know about and for participating in a "Survey of proposed titles" under the belief that everybody was trying to come up with a title to get concensus and not attempting to backstab other users? I at least explained supported or opposed the titles, but now that leads to my opinion being silenced because not everyone was partipating in good faith? This isn't a conduct problem in my eyes. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku V, as I mentioned, this should only apply to responses that "wholly or primarily" advocate for "insurrection" - which I don't think yours does by a long shot as you actually explained policy-based reasons for your !vote. I also don't think that an overturn of this close is "silencing" you necessarily - closes don't always end in any one editor's favor, and that doesn't mean they're being silenced. I am merely advocating for a re-close that discounts !votes that should be discounted and reconsiders all (including your) !votes that are appropriate and policy-based - even if it results the same. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I just want to let you know that I have relaxed a bit due to El_C's reply to me and that I have stricken some comments that I made earlier. Regarding your challenge above, it seems to conflict with what El_C has stated regarding the ACDS, so I do not believe it will succeeded. If it does succeed, then it does and things will move on from there. Either way, I kinda don't feel like continuing this given things, but I do want to apologize for any trouble caused. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, El-C, but I am beyond mad at this point. I participated in the move discussion above in the belief that we were trying to fairly decide where to move the article to. I am pissed that my trust was violated and that my vote and reasoning should not count because I participated in what was claimed to be a "Survey of proposed titles". I was already upset that some users were adding others names to that table, but I am livid that my voice should not count and I violated DS because I signed my name to an already proposed title and explained my reasoning. At this point, I feel like the RM was a trap rather than an actual attempt at a move request. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

AC/DS is a system to manage conduct. I see El C's thinking but I think one has to be careful not to override content discussions. If another RM is brought up, and editors point to evidence saying a name which is under moratorium is far more popular in RS, that's a valid argument to oppose. Believing otherwise would be tantamount to endorsing a "forced compromise" close which and is invalid in content closes. imo that restriction should be construed very narrowly, as not allowing a move request to that title, but opposition on that basis in another title's RM being expressly permitted. AC/DS can never factor into what a content close should be, or used to discount votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be great, if editors were arguing for COMMONNAME as "insurrection". Unfortunately, the majority (not vast majority, but a majority nonetheless) of editors who advocated for "insurrection" in this prior RM were advocating for it based on no policy at all, but their own opinions. I believe this is exactly the behavior El C was trying to avoid with their moratorium, and unfortunately no other admin stepped in to enforce it (El C told me on their talk page that they didn't have the time to, which is understandable) during the discussion, but it certainly should've been considered in the close. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflicted with you on editing my cmt but address your response in my edit (diff). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Saw that - can we stop reading each others' minds? My view is this: the policy being violated by advocators of "insurrection" is WP:OR and WP:NPOV - they are advocating for it based primarily on their own research and/or political opinions/views, and very rarely on policy. This behavior derails a RM discussion, and that is the behavior El C was trying to prevent in this discussion - yet it occurred anyway and unfortunately that derailed this discussion greatly. I think that the close needs to take into account the behavior that El C was trying to prevent with their DS, and needs to discount any !votes that have no or very little substance other than behavior that violates this DS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is completely false, and you can't prove it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I, and probably the other major contributing user Z22 would like to keep working on the research exhibits on this talk page, for the purpose of the current (just started) RM. Can, perhaps, you give me/us guidance on how to proceed? Is it possible to extricate/copy all/parts of the content from the closed RM? Exhibit C is new, hasn't been seen by many people and it's very informative, and not foul of WP:RSHEADLINES. I want to prevent rudimentary worthless google searches to dominate again on the talk page (as they tend to), keep swaying editors in arbitrary directions, and undo the progress in developing better techniques. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This was not my first WP:ACDS-imposed move moratorium and I doubt it's going to be the last. I have deemed trying-insurrection-again-right-away (and with defining "right away" as being within my discretion) to be damaging to the stability of the editorial process in this key WP:AP2 page. Now, as mentioned previously, within reason, I'm not going to stop editors from still arguing that trying-insurrection-again-right-away is the way to go now. The prohibition, above all else, applies to the available RM question and the possible RM outcome (the article is move protected at an admin level, which is set not to expire, so only an admin can execute a move at this time, anyway). El_C 05:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'm sorry to belabor this, but it sounds like based on this that comments which are wholly or primarily advocating for "insurrection" would be prohibited as they are "trying-insurrection-again-right-away" as opposed to arguing that it's the right way to go. I think, personally, that if this is not covered by the DS, that it's toothless and doesn't solve any conduct issues - as it's clear that the same conduct in the prior RM occurred here, and if the DS doesn't do anything to prohibit such conduct, it needs to be improved or it's useless. Note I am not saying that editors should have their comments ignored simply for saying "insurrection", but that editors whose whole or primary argument was "insurrection because that's what it was and anything else is unacceptable" or similar should be struck from consideration per your DS. Obviously this will be within the discretion of the closer, but I feel that the closer should explain what comments that mention "insurrection" they considered versus did not consider. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't censor opinion like that. An editor maybe opposes the proposal because he thinks the insurrection is the only good or best proposal, so... is their !vote censored? It's unacceptable, and doesn't contribute to anything in the end. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, you are obviously free to think what you wish, but this isn't the place to challenge logged ACDS action or enforcement. That venue is WP:ARCA or WP:AE, respectively. El_C 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: All I want is to not get banned for violating a DS over a move discussion that wasn't even listed in the talk page notifications above. Am I correct to understand that starting a move request to a page using "insurrection" and a user closing an RM with a move to a page using "insurrection" to be the only way to violate your DS? (Aka, it was okay to participate in the survey above and it is okay to talk about the word on the talk page?) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku V, that is correct. El_C 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Then I will try to relax and calm down. Sorry for the trouble as I was upset and felt a bit betrayed regarding some of the above. I struck out a number of my comments as they are not needed now. While I don't like the moratorium, I believe I understand the intent and will abide by it. I do want to mention that I added the moratorium to the "Current Consensus" talk page template above, so that users are at least aware of it. El_C, would you be willing to modify the wording to explain it better? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku V, I empathize with you. I had an inkling of similar feelings as you, but I simply ignored the misinterpretation of the DS. Another thing can be corrected in the template, the name consensus part should probably read like this to better reflect reality – Current consensus: The page's title was decided by this move request to *not* be 2021 United States Capitol protests, and by this move request to *not* be 2021 United States Capitol riot. The current name, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was decided upon as a stopgap, until consensus on a name has formed. And then, the insurrection bit can be mentioned. edit: Notably the name was not decided to not be "Insurrection..." because a rough consensus against it has not been determined at the time of closing of taht RM (just a lack of positive consensus) — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis I actually didn't see the closing, but I did see the new move request, so I knew it had failed. I did see a mention of a moratorium, but I just figured it was a discussion I had missed and figured I could wait until the 23rd if there still was not a new article name. (The whole 'violation of discretionary sanctions' thing above got me confused and angry as I didn't understand.) Anyways, rambling aside and to the point, anyone is free to edit the template to make the wording better (especially the part I added). I just asked El_C since they were the one who imposed the ACDS and would likely have a better way of phrasing it than I did who only just understood. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The moratorium expires in less than 2 weeks. Personally, I wouldn't devote that much time and energy to it, beyond adhering to its most basic dictates (RM launches, closures). Yes, the note about it at the top of the talk page seems fine. Also, ACDS is not a blunt instrument. We don't hand out AE blocks and bans without ample warnings (and warnings again) — it isn't meant to be a minefield, so breath easy. El_C 13:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think the first question that needs to be answered in any RM is: what's wrong with the current title? I don't think there is a less Trumpy Wikipedian than me, and I don't see an issue right now. I think we can easily afford to wait for the as-yet unwritten books and scholarly articles.

I mean, I am sure Dinesh D'Souza has already written the definitive history of how democracy was stolen by the evil baby-eating radical far-left cabal of Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, but I mean real books and articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Fire extinguisher

Do we yet have an authoritative source for Sicknick being hit with a fire extinguisher? All reports seem to be based on two anonymous law enforcement officials who spoke to the Associated Press. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: A search for "Sicknick" only brought up two (1, 2) press releases by the USCP with statements, but neither mention how he passed away. Searching for "Sicknick autopsy" sadly just brings up conspiracy theories. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I know we try to steer away from primary sources, don't we generally consider a law enforcement official giving a report to a reliable source, to themselves be a reliable source?--WaltCip-(talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Most primary sources are reliable. We don't avoid relying on them because they are unreliable. We avoid relying on them them because of WP:PRIMARY, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. It is usually fine if you cite a reliable secondary source that cites a primary source, and in the very next citation cite the primary source the secondary source cited.

Well, yes, that is my point. I'm unsure why Rich would voice concerns about the sourcing for the attack on Sicknick not being "authoritative", when it is.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Because the original report was very early, and the sources un-named. The entire event was subject to video recording and no video emerged. No public confirmation came from the Capitol Police. Moreover a different fire-extinguisher event did occur, which makes it more likely that there were early rumours among police. I would have challenged this earlier, but I sensed that the subject was too contentious at the time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC).

On February 2, CNN reported that "Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick", stating that they are "vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month's insurrection" having "yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries." According to one law enforcement official, "medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma," so investigators believe that "early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true." Terjen (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I manually reverted your change of five to several with rationale in history. Others can weigh in. I'll just add that even a relatively inaccurate "five" is much better than "several". — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources generally describe being struck by a fire extinguisher and passing away due to injuries sustained in the riot as separate events, without drawing a direct cause-and-effect connection. The current wording "...mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher" isn't supported by the cited sources, and the Feb. 2 CNN source contradicts the theory entirely. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Seemingly conflicting detail: electoral votes being removed

The text states in the section about the Senate adjourning: "Several members of Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's staff carried the boxes of Electoral College votes and documentation out of the chamber to hidden safe rooms within the building" suggesting that the electoral college votes were being kept in the Senate chamber at that time. Then later in the section about the House adjourning: " Staff members removed boxes of sealed electoral vote certificates to prevent them from being damaged or stolen by rioters." suggesting that they were instead being kept in the House chamber.

These two statements are seemingly contradictory. What am I missing here? Were multiple sets being kept around? Were they moved from one chamber to the other? Were half kept in one chamber and half in the other? Or is one of the two mistaken? effeietsanders 08:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

All members of the House and Senate were in the same chambers during the Electoral process, it is a combined effort. If nothing else, the second statement is probably redundant. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: They had called a recess to debate the objections to Arizona (IIRC?) just before the breech happened, which means the House members had gone back to their chamber to debate separately. So all of the documents may not have all been in the same chambers at that exact moment, I do seem to recall some boxes being carried (while watching on TV). What do the sources say for each statement? - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing each source, all of them talk about or imply the certificates were in the Senate. The second sentence should be amended or removed. (If removed, I believe the sources should be reviewed to see which are the best to keep for the first sentence.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Problems with lead

To me at least, the lead does seem a bit argumentative against republicans. I do know that it was in fact (in understatements) bad, but I wouldn’t completely blame Donald Trump or the rioters/mobsters/whatever the consensus is, instead I’d also blame past presidencies for driving the increase in the partisan divide. I’m new to Wikipedia, but I think WP:NPOV would apply here, as well as possibly other policies or guidelines. I don’t have any suggestions for improvement beyond those general statements, but I do think it should be mentioned and discussed. I also think FiveThirtyEight has an article on the partisan divide, but I don’t know the link, so it should be ignored unless someone finds it. Anyway, just something to discuss.4D4850 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@4D4850: Do you mean this one? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/ Interesting article! But I'm afraid it would be difficult to use it for this article without WP:OR... :-( — Chrisahn (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Thanks for finding the article and pointing out the WP:OR problems. Still, something to possibly discuss depending on if consensus says it should be discussed. Also, am I using the ping template correctly? Anyway, have a nice day! 4D4850 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 4D4, and thanks for your thoughts. But I don't think the "increasing partisan divide" argument can be used to divert responsibility for this event away from Trump (not generic Republicans, as you suggest, but Trump specifically). This thing was unprecedented and went way beyond any "partisan divide". In 2016 a lot of people were unhappy about Trump winning, and there were large protests, but Hillary conceded, Obama co-operated, and the transition was peaceful. In 2020 a lot of people were unhappy about Biden winning, and Trump inflamed that unhappiness into anger, refused to concede, fought the result for two months, and ultimately whipped his supporters into such a frenzy that they stormed the Capitol. This was above all one person's doing. Still, I'll take a look at the lead to see if it seems to be blaming "Republicans" generically (as opposed to a few individual senators) - and if it does I'll suggest changes. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4: Taking a look at the lead, I don't find anything mentioning "Republicans" at all, except for the understated and well-sourced phrase "although some Republicans supported the attack or at least did not blame Trump for it.[71]" The lead describes the rioters as Trump supporters, not as Republicans. And there is no reference at all to the Republican senators who may have marginally encouraged the frenzy. So I think the lead is very much in line with the facts and our policies. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN for pointing that out. I shouldn’t have made the assumption the lead was implying significant fault from the rioters or whatever the consensus is, but it would still be unthinkable in an era of politics not being as polarized. So, upon further deliberation, Trump is at more fault then the divide, but I still wouldn’t completely blame Donald Trump, instead pointing out that such a thing would occur eventually even without Donald Trump because of the partisan divide. Still though, arguments, when using good logic, are important discourse. Also please don’t call me 4D4 unless there is a reason it would cause problems with policy or programming. 4D4850 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about shortening your name, 4D4850. You said such a thing would occur eventually even without Donald Trump because of the partisan divide. Well, I’d beg to differ, but on this talk page I am supposed to discuss the content of the article, rather than my opinion. About the article, I don’t offhand see a need to change anything in the lead; did you have some specific wording change in mind? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I did say it was just something to think about, and I don’t have a specific change in mind, but let’s just have it be something to think about unless someone decides to use this to make an edit or an edit request. 4D4850 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, that's exactly the kind of article that pisses me off. The accusation that all negative coverage is down to "orange man bad" is predicated on the supposition that the orange man is not objectively bad. We have pretty solid evidence that this is a false premise. OK, maybe we can grade him on a scale within the context of all other presidents who tried to cause an armed insurrection to overturn an election they lost, but given that this is a set of one, there's not a lot of point.

The blame is very clear. Trump. If you apply the legal test of but-for causation, you can take out Fox, or NewsMax, or OANN, or Rudy, or Sidney Powell, and you get the same result, but if Donald Trump had graciously accepted defeat, or at least gone with "well, I think this was wrong, but the courts disagree, and we must respect the rule of law" from the point this became obvious - any of the trigger events including safe harbor and the casting of electoral votes - then 1/6 doesn't happen. Maybe a march, but not the insurrection. And that is the consensus view of every reality-based source I have read. The only dissent comes from Republican-leaning sources looking to protect Trump from Senate conviction. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording in trial documents

note: suggest the listing is collapse under each word as indicated

While perhaps not all readers will find documents filed in connection with the trial wholly convincing, the outcome of this or the next RM, or the text of the article, may be influenced by the wording used, such as in the House Trial Memorandum.[131]

• storming

'After storming through the barricades surrounding the building, rioters laid siege to the Capitol itself'

• attack

Extended content

'Trump incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol' 'Incited by President Trump, his mob attacked the Capitol' 'President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol' 'Rioters attacked law enforcement personnel' 'Some attackers wore gas masks' 'the mob outside the building continued to attack the police and wreak havoc' 'Four rioters died during the attack' 'the President did not take any action at all in response to the attack' 'Trump’s dereliction of duty during the attack' 'The attack that President Trump provoked' 'the insurrectionist attack that President Trump incited' 'President Trump is personally responsible for inciting an armed attack on our seat of government that imperiled the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress and our families, and those who staff and serve the Legislative Branch'

• insurrection

Extended content

'Trump’s incitement of insurrection against the Republic' 'The insurrectionists assaulted police officers with weapons and chemical agents' 'Capitol Police officers battled insurrectionists' 'he told the insurrectionists' 'the House approved an article of impeachment for incitement of insurrection' 'President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol' 'hundreds of insurrectionists arrived at the Capitol and launched an assault on the building' 'at least six handguns were recovered after the insurrection' 'a crush of insurrectionists' 'dozens of the insurrectionists specifically hunted VicePresident Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi' 'insurrectionists also menaced Members of Congress, their staffs, their families, and Capitol personnel' 'assault by President Trump’s insurrectionist mob' 'insurrectionists desecrated and vandalized the Capitol' 'One insurrectionist paraded the Confederate battle flag' 'Some insurrectionists carried zip ties' 'many insurrectionists who assaulted the Capitol' 'After the insurrection' 'The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer' 'took more than three hours to secure the Capitol after the insurrectionists invaded' 'armed insurrectionists breached the Capitol' 'after insurrectionists had overcome the Capitol perimeter' 'he again validated the insurrection' 'he insisted to reporters days later that his speech prior to the insurrection had been “totally appropriate.” ' 'charges that he incited an insurrection' 'provoking an insurrectionary riot against a Joint Session of Congress' 'Trump’s incitement of insurrection disrupted the Joint Session' 'may come to be seen as a rallying point for further insurrection' 'Images of insurrectionists sacking the seat of American democracy' 'a violent insurrection that President Trump incited' 'incite insurrection against Congress and our electoral institutions' 'presidential incitement of insurrection' 'President Trump incited insurrection against the United States government'

• riot

Extended content

'barely escaped the rioters' 'the riotous mob' 'Rioters wearing Trump paraphernalia' 'Rioters attacked law enforcement personnel' 'rioters laid siege to the Capitol' 'when rioters stormed into the building' 'said one rioter' 'Rioters chanted' 'Rioters ultimately overpowered Capitol Police' 'rioters smashed the entryway' 'they could hear rioters outside in the Speaker’s office' 'Many rioters carried Trump flags' 'Another rioter climbed onto the dais' 'another rioter yelled at police officers' 'Four rioters died during the attack' 'As one rioter explained' 'quell the riotous mob' 'lionized the rioters as patriots' 'insurrectionary riot against a Joint Session of Congress'

Qexigator (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The wording used in the impeachment is irrelevant, as we go by what is common in reliable sources, not what one heavily biased source says. Looking at only one source like this is not helpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not irrelevant to the discussion here, and relevant to assessing any trends we find in secondary sources that the trial may influence. Qexigator (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It is, in fact, because as you say, we are assessing trends in secondary sources - which the impeachment proceedings is not. It is by definition a primary source, and an incredibly biased one at that as it was passed virtually on party lines (less than 5% of Republicans voted for the article of impeachment). As such, there is no use to analyzing it, because regardless of the outcome of that analysis, it doesn't matter for WP:COMMONNAME or any other purpose with regards to naming this article. It further has nothing to do with trends - as trends in reliable sources may or may not follow the "trend" you've identified here in a singular primary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Berchanhimez: the impeachment documents are a primary source. We should report what they say because they are significant in and of themselves, but they do not assist in determining what is said in Wikipedia's own voice. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is worth any of us pursuing this in an argumentative way. I am aware of the standing editing guidance and practice of Wikipedia about secondary sources etc. But to anyone used to critical scrutiny of official documents, they can tell us much by the how of what they say and by what they don't say. In this case the bias will be readily recognized by any seasoned politician in the trial session, and any acceptably truthful assertion of fact the document may contain will be mixed in the usual way with prejudicial content which others will be free to repeat and publish without fear of defamatory liability. The senators themselves will not be persuaded one way or the other by anything in the document as such, not only because they were themselves witness to the disturbance of their proceedings, but because also their votes one way or the other will depend on their political position, in accordance with their commitment to one or other party line and their faithful allegiance to the constitution and government of the United States as they severally understand it. With that in mind, we can see that (not surprisingly) the document is overloaded with 'insurrection' wording with a fair share of 'riot' wording to go with it. But the main point for the purposes of a decision about retaining 'storming' in the name 'storming of the United States Capitol' is that it shows that when a word is needed for expressing the concept of the entire event that happened at the Capitol that day, then, even in the context of that document, the word chosen is 'stormed'. The other words fail in that respect, no matter how many times they are repeated and counted. Qexigator (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2021

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack – Now that the last RM has closed, and as discussed as a possibility before in a now archived discussion, I am opening a move request for the title 2021 United States Capitol attack. During the previous RM, there were lots of different potential names and phrases for this article suggested, with seemingly a consensus to move away from "Storming" but no exact consensus for a new title. However, I am starting a RM to this particular phrasing, using the term "attack", for several reasons;

• The word attack has proven to be the word that has been disputed least with regard to describing the event. Alternatives such as "riot" imply a lack of coordination of the attack and as such might be less accurate. "Insurrection" is potentially appropriate, but this was voted down in a previous RM. "Storming", the current title, is technically accurate but has some potentially loaded political connotations, according to some editor opinions.
• Various term searches and tallies have determined that there is no singular WP:COMMONNAME for this event, but maintain that "attack" is certainly ranked highly among the most commonly used terms in the media. A reminder that a "common name" may be just one of several "common names", such as there seem to be for this event.
• In the consensus table of suggestions for the previous RM, editors could voice support or dissent for various names. Of these, "attack" received the highest amount of support from editors, and one of the highest ratios of support to opposition. This alone makes it the most likely follow-on RM candidate.
• There was some debate over the inclusion of the year in the naming. Some people feel that the use of the year is unnecessary as the event was fairly unique. However, I will continue the argument I made in the now archived draft RM:

There have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE.

• Edit: Furthermore, I think that the phrasing "2021 United States Capitol attack" is both fairly concise and also contains a natural phrasing of a description of the event.

In conclusion, the "attack" name including the year would seem to be the title that thus far has had the most support, is clear and unambiguous as possible, and would seem to be preferable over the current page title.

If you wish to suggest alternatives, please be aware that many such alternatives were extensively discussed during the previous RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: @Alalch Emis: pointed out to me that per WP:CANVASS it is permitted and may be beneficial to inform editors who participated in the previous RM of this new one. As such, I am sending a ping to those who contributed in that previous discussion, based on an extracted list Emis provided me. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC) @웬디러비, 5440orSleep, 777burger, A'kwell, Amakuru, Anachronist, Antonio Basto, Bear6811Wiki, Beland, Ben8142, Berchanhimez, Bodney, BusterD, Calthinus, Casprings, Chrisahn, Coin, Crouch, Swale, Czello, Darryl Kerrigan, Des Vallee, Dlthewave, DolyaIskrina, Dswitz10734, Dylanvt, EDG 543, Ekpyros, El C, Elijahandskip, EnPassant, Featous, Gam3, Goszei, Gouncbeatduke, GreenMeansGo, Guy Macon, Haha169, Hansen Sebastian, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, IHateAccounts, IP75, Jared.h.wood, Jayron32, Jmill1806, K.e.coffman, Kizor, Kyyl0, LegendoftheGoldenAges85, and Liz: @LordPeterII, Lukan27, MaGioZal, Malcolm L. Mitchell, MelanieN, Most Humble and Obedient Servant, Ohconfucius, Plumber, Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, Psychloppos, Qexigator, QuercusOak, Ramaksoud2000, Red Slash, Ribbet32, Robertiki, Scope creep, Seven Pandas, Shearonink, Slatersteven, Soibangla, Somedifferentstuff, StAnselm, Super Dromaeosaurus, Swordman97, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Tataral, The Fiddly Leprechaun, The Four Deuces, Trillfendi, Tsavage, Vowvo, VQuakr, Wingedserif, Wollers14, WWGB, XOR'easter, Yallahalla, and Z22:

If you have been pinged and do not wish to contribute to this new RM, simply ignore the ping. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• User:BlackholeWA - I do not believe the previous close was correct, and I think a consensus may exist in that discussion for attack, so I'll please ask you to withdraw this until the closer has a chance to reconsider/reopen, and/or it is finalized on move review. These RMs that occur within hours of another one closing are not useful or helpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If that close is successfully disputed and the old RM reopened then this will of course be procedurally closed, although I think at this point it might be better to start over with the attack title, as the previous RM became such a convoluted mess by the end it is difficult to ascertain what consensus if any could be drawn from it. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

    User:BlackholeWA: I agree that "starting over" with the attack title is the best next step if that close stands and after people have time to recollect their thoughts. Part of the reason the last one was such a convoluted mess is because no time is being taken in between these RMs to discuss on this page. All I am asking is that you wait a day or two at least (and if it ends up at move review, wait until the conclusion of that process) before opening yet another RM. At this point, since the event, there have been maybe a couple dozen hours where a move wasn't being discussed, as compared to weeks where it was - a little more time in between won't hurt, and will likely actually help - regardless of the challenge of the closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

    If anything the protracted process of that RM is what enables starting another one fairly rapidly; there was already discussion on what a follow-up RM should look like, although I fear that some of that discussion would/will get lost of not acted upon swiftly with another RM. I'm not sure what giving downtime following the RM closing would specifically achieve, as this "follow-on" RM was already discussed during the last RM, and as other discussion of the new name would mostly take place in the context of an RM anyway.

    Personally, I feel like that, as a RM closure is a closure until successfully disputed, and to ensure that discussion remains directed regardless, this RM should stay up so long as the previous RM is not actually re-opened. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that disputing a decision doesn't delay the onset of procedural effects, such as the permissibility of starting a new RM in this context. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Two questions: 1. Is there a time limit for !voting in this RM? 2. Given that "Storming", the current title, is technically accurate what amounts to potentially loaded political connotations? Qexigator (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

One appeal to the above editor: In the spirit of WP:BOTTOMPOST, I appeal to you not to interpolate your posts in an authentically chronological discussion, on top of your disputants' posts (very convenient, I know) in order to give yourself a pulpit. This is not a conversation between you and the starter of the RM, but a flowing and formatted discussion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The proper place for preliminary questions addressed to the opener is before the !voting. It is no part of a 'flowing and formatted discussion' as you seem to imagine. Qexigator (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Firstly, I'm not sure that as the RM instigator I would even have the power to set any time limits. Although, of course, as with all RMs, it may be closed after a week if there is no further discussion or if consensus is reached. 2. I was mostly thinking of sentiments along the lines of those of @Liz: in the previous RM: "Riot is better than Storming. In the wake of the riot, I've read a lot of pro-Trump media sites & social media posts and they describe what the rally attendees were going to do after the rally as "Storming the Capitol". I don't think Wikipedia should use the language of the rioters to define what happened. "Storming" is also seen as heroic and I don't think that image is appropriate considering the destruction and loss of life that occurred on that day." Now, I think that whether storming does violate NPOV in this way is potentially debatable - a lot of editors in the previous RM liked it. However, even beyond the NPOV issue, many other editors felt it didn't fully encompass the event (not everybody "stormed" the building, the building was not fully "stormed", the attack had other aspects such as the attempted bombings), and overall in the previous RM "storming" did fairly poorly across the table polling, hence this RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support proposed title has previously garnered consensus in previous RM discussions. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's natural that there is consensus to move away from "storming". A number of people so far have given arguments in defense of this provisional name ("stopgap measure" in the words of the closing admin back then), including "that's what happened", and "it's the most neutral title" which have not proven resistant to critique. An interesting detail: even the starter of the RM to "storming" advocated for another subsequent proposal. It was proven that "storming" as a descriptor (noun, gerund) has relatively little support in reliable sources. "Attack" is an adequate descriptor because it is essentially accurate and captures the scope of the subject of the article. "Attack" is unspecific but it not terribly imprecise as it's hard to put the events in the Capitol, outside the Capitol and the planting of pipe bombs under one umbrella, while also including the goals of the insurrectionists. The proposed title is well supported by reliable sources, and there is no indication that it would be considered controversial. I have so far advocated for "insurrection", and I still do; the proposed title is the only other good option. Changing the name of the article will make this article better, and will improve coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is the best alternative, as it accurately and objectively describes the actions that took place. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Storming, a type of attack, is a more precise description of what occurred. In addition to its broad dictionary definition, attack has a strong modern connotation of a tightly coordinated and targeted offensive, usually with the goal of murdering as many people as possible in an indiscriminate way. See [132] for a group of Wikipedia's "lists of attacks." The events of January 6th wouldn't fit neatly into any of these lists, as far as I can tell. January 6th was a specific sort of attack in the dictionary sense: a storming or a breach. This article describes the full events of the afternoon that followed Trump's speech, and the semi-inchoate intentions of many of the law-breakers. Wikipedia is about precision, and storming seems to me a more precise and accurate word than attack. I would certainly reconsider if a clear common name develops in the media and through public usage, but that hasn't happened yet, and thus I don't see the need to change the title to "attack" at this time. If we do change to attack, then 2021 attack on the United States Capitol seems to me a more accurate phrasing than the proposed title. The proposed RM title, as phrased, sounds more like a singular, internal attack, such as a bomb going off. Moncrief (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let me redirect you to the previous RM discussion, specifically to a table that Goszei contributed. While a title mentioning "attack" has a fair amount of search results and title matches in WP:RS, a title mentioning "riot" is much more common. With that said, I don't think a title mentioning "attack" would be considered a WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Love of Corey (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  There is clearly no one COMMONNAME for this event, as multiple terms are used. I believe that attack better fits with Wikipedia policy, and also the previous RM to move to riot failed to achieve consensus for that title. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

But one would think the most commonly used term to refer to this event in WP:RS would be the closest thing one would get to a COMMONNAME such as this. Love of Corey (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Goszei's research is bad (sorry Goszei, hope you don't mind; maybe you even agree). A much more valid and comprehensive research to which multiple people contributed, and which was seriously scrutinized and debated is below. Please don't rely on earlier attempts to demonstrate a common name. Edit: as of Feb. 4: attack 300 results, riot 365 results, storming 90 results, so "riot" is only a little more prevalent than "attack" ~~ in more current articles, published in the last two weeks (Google News): attack 169, riot 172, storming 46 — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A table of google search results are not really all that helpful for determining a title. Google does not "read and comprehend" any of the articles on Wikipedia (despite their claims to using AI in their search engine), they just simply cache them then rank the results based on how many web sites backlink to a particular URL page. This is a far cry from an intelligent human being reading the content of an article and deciding on a title based on the content. What this means is that any results are skewed by how many other websites link to the page or search term. Wikipedia is not an automated web caching system like google. So using research of google search results and frequency means that we are relying on Google's ranking engine to determine an appropriate title. This is not a good method for picking a relevant title. There is no substitute to a human editor reviewing article content and proposing a title accordingly. Any reliance on google or another search engine is fatally flawed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that other table. My bad. Love of Corey (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For the very same reason I did not rely on such research when I started an RM a little while ago, but people just want something quantitative, and default to rudimentary searches that give off random numbers (guesses of results) that don't mean absolutely anything. What is provided in that research is much better than earlier attempts to use Google, but naturally, it's not a method of picking a title in itself. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Most articles on Wikipedia that use attack do so with regards to terrorism. (See 2019 Pulwama attack (suicide bombing), Ankara Esenboğa Airport attack (bombing, shooting, and kidnapping), 2016 Nice truck attack (Vehicle-ramming attack), 2016 Uri attack (military base ambushed), 2017 Sinai mosque attack (bombing, shooting), January 2010 Kabul attack (suicide bombing, shooting), Garissa University College attack (kidnapping, shooting), Ghouta chemical attack (mass murder using a chemical weapon), 2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack (Vehicle-ramming attack), 2018 Sunjuwan attack (military camp ambushed), 2017 Westminster attack (Vehicle-ramming attack), etc.) That conflicts with WP:CONSISTENT of WP:CRITERIA, The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. Under Precision of WP:CRITERIA (and clarified at WP:PRECISION), The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Attack is vague and does not clarify what specifically occurred. This is also a problem under WP:NCE where the topic name should explain when, where, and what regarding the incident. The name follows when and where, but is too vague to explain what happened. Attack should not be used, unless as noted at the Resolving conflicting points of view section of WP:NCE, where attack was used for the article September 11 attacks as A debate here concluded that there was no common name for the event. In the previous RM, numerous arguments were made that there was a COMMONNAME and even a chart that listed which names were used more than others by sources. As such, the argument that there is not a COMMONNAME seems to just be that there has not been enough consensus yet on a name to describe the event. (Additionally to briefly cover their third point, said table had issues where users signed for other users and where users signed without discussing their reasoning, making the results somewhat unclear.) To resume, WP:COMMONNAME states in the case of multiple names, When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Assuming that the proposer of the RM is correct that there is not a COMMONNAME, then attack should not be used when considering the criteria. Of the five criteria, attack fails two of them and it isn't clear that it would pass WP:NATURALNESS of CRITERIA. (Are users searching for something like 2021 United States Capitol attack over other choices? That hasn't been a question that has been asked yet to my knowledge, but maybe it should be to help resolve this.) In the end, I cannot see moving the article to attack would be an improvement over the current title. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Amended regarding the year: I do want to add that under WP:NOYEAR, The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur ... or murder or death articles that can only happen once ... Given that the Capitol has been looted and burned in 1814, been the site of two shootings in 1954 and 1998, been bombed in 1983, and had the events of January 6th occur, it is sadly hard to say that future incidents at the Capitol are unlikely to recur. Thus, I support including the year in this RM and any future RMs, if needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Note: If the argument being made is that the name would not be consistent as this event was not terrorism, a RfC at the head of this page found that this attack *should* be characterized as terrorism. With regards to the specifics of the event, bombs were of course found on premises, although they were not detonated. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest a 6 month moratorium on RMs here. This title is neutral and accurate so there's no pressing need to change it, and the next discussiuon is likely to be based on the consensus on yet-to-be-published books and scholarly journals, which should be easier to discern. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

More splitting/shortening of the article?

I see we're beginning to approach 500 citations for this article again. Though development on this article is coming along more slowly compared to the hours and days after January 6, I sense this article is about to become quite lengthy again by the end of the month, at the very least. Should a split or shortening be in order by then? What is everyone's thoughts? Love of Corey (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It is quite a long article: I don't think we have a problem yet, but, sure, if it grows further, good to think about these things. There are several points where there is a spin-off article, but we still retain quite a lot of text here, e.g. in the "Events outside Washington, D.C." > "State capitols and cities" section and in the "Completion of electoral vote count" section. Trimming there would seem easy. We have an "Investigations and prosecutions" section at the same level as the "Aftermath" section. The "Aftermath" section points to a spin-off article that includes details on investigations and prosecutions, so some combining and trimming of those 2 sections looks easy. Those are my suggestions of where to start in terms of shortening. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the "Events outside Washington, D.C." should always remain in this article, as they are an integral element. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Remain, yes. In that much detail? I think one could summarise the current text. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)