Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Deaths

There was only one fatality directly related to the riots, the Babbitt person. Mr. Sicknick died of a stroke that was unrelated to the attacks, no external or internal injuries were found to be the cause. So no police officer died. The other Trump rioters also were not victims of their riot. One died of a drug overdose (Boyland); that doesn't really have much to do with the violent breaching of the Capitol. The other two deaths had little, if anything, to do with the riot; one died of a stroke (Philipps) and did not "participate in the raids." The other died of a heart attack (Greeson); once again, how does this relate to the riots? I suggest a rewrite of the deaths and injuries section, of course, if other users agree. Any ideas? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:599B:F10B:80DF:6CF9 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with complete erasure of these past mistakes. If people prefer the old developing story, they can find prior versions galore in the Edit History. But the current revision should reflect the present overview. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - this article shouldn't be whitewashed at the whims of the right-wing revisionists who swarmed back to it in the past week. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:94A4:1483:1CEE:DDA1 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not right-wing, and I'm not swarming back, I planned my part in these revisions quietly for months before speaking up. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The caption to Sicknick's picture was misleading in stating he died of a stroke without any context. I've changed it to "[Sicknick] was assaulted by rioters. He died of a stroke the next day." . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick should not be scrubbed. Not with the medical examiner’s statement that "all that transpired played a role in his condition". starship.paint (exalt) 10:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Good call, thanks for that. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway I’m not in favour of scrubbing any of the five deaths from the article. I’m open to not counting them as ‘casualties’ if RS agree, however they should be mentioned to at least explain the situation. starship.paint (exalt) 13:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If "all that transpired" meant "sprayed by protestors" or "assaulted by rioters", and "condition" meant "death" or "injury", maybe such desperate grasping could be a reasonable argument for casualtyhood. As is, he belongs in the Reaction section. His body played a sizable post-mortem political role. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, why would we substitute our personal views for those of reliable sources, which count him as one of the five deaths? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the same sources acknowledge he died of natural causes, officially, medically and legally. You're getting hung up on rhetoric. And possibly a desire to punish perceived political enemies. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Good job cleaning out the clump of citations from the infobox! But now that there's only one reference on April 24, isn't it weird that it's one from January 8? Maybe there's a more recent one that counts up three known natural deaths and one accident as four of those casualties? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, the one about what we now know about Sicknick's death (currently footnote 439) is "invoked but never defined", little help? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Done.Terjen (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, regarding "all that transpired played a role in [Sicknick's] condition", this is a direct reference to the storming, and widely reported, from USA to UK to France to Qatar. starship.paint (exalt) 09:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw the same reliable sources say it was a fire extinguisher and pepper spray, too. It wasn't. Neither is this vague glimmer of bullshit. If you want to get suckered again, be my guest. But don't spread it around, confusing innocent people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, do you genuinely believe that Brian Sicknick would have died when he did, had he not been hit with bear spray by the insurrectionists? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The problem was in his basilar artery. Bear spray temporarily irritates one's eyes, nose and throat. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's not shoot the messenger(s). Spinning by making much ado out of the "all that transpired" quote should simply be recognized as editorializing by the media, and we should avoid using it to create a questionable synthesis. Terjen (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The quote isn't editorializing by the media. It's a quote from the chief medical examiner. We do not make much ado about the "all that transpired" quote, we simply state it and move on. There is no synthesis here. starship.paint (exalt) 01:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - even the blog you provided highlighted the "all that transpired" quote. It goes as far as to say having a stressful encounter as a police officer likely played a role in why someone would have two strokes the following day. (note: I'm not saying this additional content or source should be added, the quote itself is sufficient) starship.paint (exalt) 01:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note the synthesis created by our but that "all that transpired played a role in his condition" which modifies the earlier statement saying the autopsy provided no evidence of injury nor allergic reaction. Stop the presses: Having a stressful encounter may have played a role in his strokes. What are we trying to say by including the quote? How could it be paraphrased to avoid the synthesis? Terjen (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - I'm thinking you may have misunderstood something here. The 'no evidence of injury nor allergic reaction' was said by Diaz to WaPo. The 'all that transpired' was also said by Diaz to WaPo. I see no contradiction, and very likely that Diaz saw no contradiction as well. It's possible that the riot affected mental stress on Sicknick. It's also possible that the riot exhausted Sicknick. I don't think either of these would leave injury or allergic reaction, though it would have affected his condition. Therefore there is no modifies the earlier statement. starship.paint (exalt) 12:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: The conjugation "but" in the sentence falls under MOS:EDITORIAL, indicating that the second part contradicts the first, or "calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." Terjen (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - easy, "but" changed to "and also". How about that? starship.paint (exalt) 10:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As the original IP who created this new section, I propose a change to my initial request: remove all fatalities except Sicknick and Babbit. The other three should not be included, their deaths are unfortunate but ultimately unrelated to the attacks; RS confirm their deaths had little to do with the riots. They can be mentioned in the reactions section or somewhere else, but not in the infobox. Their deaths were important for understanding the events, but it should be in the context that the initial assumption about their cause of death was erroneous. I was not aware earlier of the evaluation by the forensic pathologist that prior factors—"all that transpired"—had played a role in Sicknick's death. Thus, it is along reasonable grounds to include Sicknick among the fatalities in the infobox. So Sicknick and Babbit (2 dead) in infobox.

And to make it clear, I am assuredly not a right-winger trying to "whitewash" anything. The deluded IP is under the influence of partisanship and attempting to derail our discussion. I despise both liberalism and conservatism equally, though I am cognizant enough to know both have bad and good parts, albeit incomplete. I simply am trying to help this page reflect the truth better, and would like to work alongside other users to achieve this goal.

Any thoughts on my (new) proposal? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:19FB:2B26:FEB3:C4F8 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I propose resolving the ambiguity in the infobox by relabeling the "Death(s)" field to "Violent Death(s)", allowing us to not count those that died of natural or self-inflicted causes. Terjen (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No. We can't change the number from five until we have a source that unambiguously gives another number, and even then we would probably have to say "x-5; sources vary" or the like. The reason is because of the language in Medical Examiner's report, which states "an unprecedented incident of civil insurrection at the United States Capitol resulted in the deaths of five individuals." If you want the article to state that it resulted in anything other than the deaths of five individuals, you need a source saying so specifically - people's personal opinions about how we should count or define it simply cannot overcome the medical examiner's report unambiguously stating the incident resulted in five deaths. If you believe they counted it wrong or used incorrect criteria, you could send them a letter suggesting a correction; but until / unless they issue one we're stuck with their criteria and their count. --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree on reliable sourcing for violent deaths. The truth usually prevails. Until then, WP:NOTRIGHT. Terjen (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I envy how you can disregard the much more detailed part of that same report that says no signs of injury or allergic reaction were found in this natural death. Or how the same applies to Greeson, Philips and Boyland. But they were somehow still killed by a violent mob of alleged racist terrorists, because news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

To the good 2601, regarding "all that transpired", that wasn't an earlier pathological evaluation, it was cherrypicked from a longer interview with a reporter from and for The Washington Post, by a WaPo editor, over three months after Diaz certified Sicknick's death (which is not a synonym for "condition") as what it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I would argue otherwise, and frankly I would prefer Terjen's proposal. It makes sense that Sicknick died from the stress of the riot, that would stress me out as well. I suggest everyone to look at the 2020–21 United States election protests page infobox, with the short explanation regarding the deaths (perhaps we can do it via a footnote?). 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89CF:B997:98E8:49DD (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) Upon reading the article by Greenwald, I understand your argument, and I even agree. But I've been on Wiki long enough to know that this site isn't always factual. I think we can all agree that footnotes in the infobox, explaining the causes of death, would be beneficial for this article. Anyone else support footnotes in the infobox? I think it's a good compromise. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89CF:B997:98E8:49DD (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The sheer number of edits User:Terjen has made to this article is alarming, given their clear agenda as relates to the topic of USA politics, such as when they attempted to argue that the Boogaloo boys should not be classified as far-right. Where is oversight on this? 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:D20:DD2E:EE0B:A291 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop trying to poison the well. Your opinions on other people's opinions are irrelevant. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89CF:B997:98E8:49DD (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold on! Opening a civilized discussion to challenge a mislabeling is how we do it on Wikipedia. You are welcome to participate in the ongoing debate and voice your position, including responding to my arguments why we shouldn't label the anti-government, anti-authoritarian Boogaloo movement as far right, which we here on Wikipedia define to be "further on the right than the standard political right ... in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary". The shoe doesn't fit: They're reasonably neither left-wing nor right-wing, particularly as defined on wikipedia. Terjen (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The article you linked is filed under the subject "The far-right". It says "extremism experts agree that “boogaloo” ideology overall is, in fact, rightwing." Either you don't read the sources you cite or you're intentionally being intellectually dishonest. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:1457:D16B:CB79:4CBB (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The article showcases various experts clarifying what they mean with "right-wing" in ways substantially inconsistent our definition of far-right here on Wikipedia, such as: "Another clear sign that “boogaloo” boys are rightwing is their decision to show up with guns to guard private businesses"; "“They hold up things like the McVeigh bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building and the armed response to Ruby Ridge as heroic moments in American history,” where citizens stood up to government oppression"; "While some anarchists have embraced “boogaloo” rhetoric, these are primarily are “rightwing anarchists”" - protecting private businesses, celebrating citizens standing up to what they perceive as government oppression, and anti-government anarchism are all a stark contract to the "anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary" far-right. Terjen (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The boogaloo stance seems in line with the general messsage of Rick Derringer and Hulk Hogan's "Real American", which pretty closely aligns with this liberal Canadian stoner's worldview. "Courage is the thing that keeps us free" doesn't resemble authoritarian ultranationalist fearmongering at all, and "fight for the rights of every man" doesn't exclude those of coloured men, gay men, women or trans men. Theocracy is fine, if it's a universally recognized god, like fire. Long story short, getting mistaken for a far-righter hurts my pride, but if mistaken for a boogaloo, I could let it slide. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support and Oppose Support removal of Police Office Sicknick. His death is now not a homicide. He simply died a day and a half after the riots. That doesn't mean it's not tragic. As for the others, it's widely cited and so far no news reports about that they didn't die. Inkfo (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

We all agree they died during the event, just not whether they were casualties of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. This source says "Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes a day after defending the Capitol during the January 6 assault"JMM12345 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

• Oppose. We say what the sources say. If the sources are wrong, so are we. We are not here to correct the fact that the real world does not consider Ashli Babbitt to be the real victim of 1/6, or to whitewash out the toll that it took on others. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I don't care what you think about whitewashing or no whitewashing, your opinions of the riots are irrelevant. I do not oppose keeping the 5 deaths (what you wish), all I ask is that a footnote explaining the circumstances of their death be placed in the infobox. The footnote, of course, being sourced with RS. I am a dynamic IP, so I cannot edit this page; the implication is you pick the sources used for the footnotes. It's a compromise; the 5 deaths stay, a footnote explanation is added. I think we both can agree fully on that. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:6CF4:481D:906D:62D7 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

2601:85:C101:C9D0:6CF4:481D:906D:62D7, nope. If the sources are "wrong", then so are we. That's how it works. If listing Brian Sicknick as a victim hurts the feels of "blue lives matter" insurrectionist "patriots" then that's really not our problem to fix. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, your reply is rather daft, specifically because you bring up blue lives matter, which I don't care in the very least about. I struggle to understand why you brought that up. I don't know if you are intentionally trying to frame the discussion about footnotes around supporting the rioters. The fact that you had to bring up the stupidity of the side you vilify your comment, even when I didn't mention the idiots, makes me question whether you actually read my post. I will try one more time, because, surprisingly, we are actually in agreement.

I never said the sources are wrong. I never said the sources are right. You say that Wikipedia reflects what RS say, full stop. I agree. It is immaterial to me (and to you) if Sicknick is a victim or not. If the RS say so, Wiki puts that down. So... my proposal to add a footnote explaining the cause of death does not affect this. All the victims remain in the infobox, Sicknick included. All that is added is a footnote for each victim, explaining (using RS) the cause of death (using RS). That is it. A minor addition, helping visitors to this page understand the context of their death. See, this is not a "partisan" attempt to make Trumptards into "patriots." See? We are in agreement. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:6CF4:481D:906D:62D7 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with you two on those things. In a section above, JzG brought up a laundry list of things this event has nothing to do with, from Chauvin to Castille to the Reichstag, and he's still absolutely right. As for your proposed reliably sourced and currently up-to-date footnotes, original 2601, I support them as a compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I think the right place to discuss the nuance is in the section on deaths and injuries. Putting an asterisk by things looks like a nod to the fringe narrative of only one victim. I have read some of the coverage on conservative websites, and I think we are being pushed towards a narrative that is not seen in mainstream sources. Maybe you see it differently. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that pepper spray can kill is fringe. Absolutely baseless speculation. So is the idea that insurgents cause amphetamine overdoses. Stop talking to me. You've gone kooky! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I think both you and JzG make some good points, but both of you sometimes express them in a way that makes it hard for others to reach an NPOV consensus. Let's all try to cool down and remember WP:AGF. That last sentence ("gone kooky") is a personal attack. I think you should strike or delete it. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If I did, it would come across like I want him to stop talking to me for no reason. I wouldn't be so rude. I went kooky myself once, it's not terminal, I wish him well. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, not especially, no. It's a violent assault with a chemical weapon designed for use on bears, not humans. It's very much more powerful than pepper spray sold for use in deterring assault - bears are known for being quite a bit bigger than humans.

There's also a matter of consistency. Use of tear gas and other chemical and "less lethal;" weapons by police in Portland and elsewhere has, rightly, been called out in many reports. The idea that you should not be using chemical weapons on people is not exactly controversial. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Even CNN has walked back "that bear shit" line, agree with prosecutors and video that it was regular pepper spray. Just as safe as bear spray, but way more commonly used on humans. Tear gas was never even mentioned, but if that's the next straw you want to grasp at, I'm not surprised. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, again, using chemical weapons on people going about their lawful business has never been a good idea. The Kent State shootings started with tear gas, remember? And that applies even if your lawful business is stopping people trying to overthrow a democratic election. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• More to the point, for people claiming that our source texts are wrong, how do we know that the source texts are wrong? We need a different source. You can't just say "they are wrong" without providing the contradictory sources. The Medical Examiners report cites 5 deaths. Secondary sources discuss the medical examiners report and also report the five deaths. Where is your contradictory source? Another, equally reliable source, would be acceptable. But we can't just alter what the existing sources say just because we personally disagree with them. That's not how Wikipedia works. We can't even say the sources are wrong without sources to say so; that's just you asserting they are wrong. Anyone can assert anything; what you need to do to change the article is provide reliable sources to back up your assertions. --Jayron32 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Sicknick should be removed as well as the chap who died before the riot. The list of deaths for any event should only include people who died as a result of the event, at the event, or in some way that significantly affected the event. There is a bizarre insistence on including what every RS now says was a natural death. It is now abundantly clear that, per RS, the ME's report "cites natural causes in officer’s death, drawing no links to Jan. 6 attack." Hanging on to a single vague, tautological quote from a single source—which in no way draws a link between the riot and Sicknick's death—is absurd and contrafactual. We all now understand that the media blew this one—as well as the OD death misreported as a woman "trampled to death"—but that's not in any way an excuse for continuing to include thoroughly discredited misinformation. The brouhaha over Sicknick's death should be included—as it was a big part of the fallout from the event—but obviously not by including him as a death or casualty of the riot. There is a real credibility issue for Wikipedia here, and it's disturbing that this is even in question. Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose modification of the death count at this time. The alt-right havens are ablaze with efforts to disassociate Sicknick from the Capitol Hill death tally, but a premediated pepper spray attack and an otherwise-healthy man dies 31 hours later is not coincidental. This is still considered by the Capitol Police as an "in the line of duty" death. ValarianB (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of the unrelated deaths of people who happened to be at the protest at some point before they died. There was only one death at the protest, it was of the unarmed protestor. Any attempt to shoehorn other people in the body count is clearly done for POV purposes and is in direct opposition to the goals of Wikipedia. Innican Soufou (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Innican Soufou, s/unarmed protester/mad QAnon conspiracist who was part of an armed mob trying to breach the doors into the Speaker's Lobby and murder Nancy Pelosi/ Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Innican Soufou (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou, no, I don't think it is. casting Babbitt as "unarmed" is to isolate her from the context of an armed mob that caused life-changing injuries to numerous law enforcement personnel in their attempt to prevent the certification of the results of Trump's defeat.

Insurreections have consequences. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is exact the kind of toxic, uninformed, misleading rhetoric I'm talking about. You're free to have those opinions, even if they aren't based in reality. Just be careful about injecting them in a supposed neutral, fact-based platform like this one. Innican Soufou (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG, this comment provides no help to this discussion - it's merely you voicing your opinions on the one person everyone agrees should be listed. I respect that we have different views on a lot of things and I have seen you make very useful comments on this talk page, but this isn't one of them and in fact it's hurtful to this discussion. Please don't use talk page discussions to attempt to force your view onto others or explain your personal viewpoint - especially when it's completely unrelated to the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, alternative hypothesis: trying to portray Ashli Babbitt as the sole, and innocent, victim of the insurrection, is a gross violation of NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not what was said, that's not what you responded with. You responded to two words with what amounts to a rant as to whether she was at fault for her death or not - which is not what's being discussed. You're not helping here with that sort of comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, that's not what I said. What we have here is a small group of people apparently trying to portray four of the five deaths attributed by reliable sources to the insurrection, as somehow unrelated, and, at the same time, portray someone who was in the midst of a terrifying mob storming the Speaker's Corridor, as an innocent victim.

That's WP:SYN and a violation of WP:NPOV. Fixing the errors of reliable sources is not how Wikipedia works. Like the Hitch-Hiker's Guide, we are "definitively inaccurate". The infobox should say five died, as the RS do, and the nuance can be handled in the section on deaths and injuries (some of which were life-changing).

Any proposed "compromise" is between the way the mainstream media represent things (five deaths directly attributed), and the way the right-wing media portray it (one innocent woman shot by police inna George Floyd stylee, and some dudes who died purely coincidentally). The opposite of mainstream is not conservative. The opposite of mainstream is fringe. The narrative on NewsMax, OANN, Breitbart and the rest is a fringe narrative. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. We're not here to split the difference between reality-based coverage and the fantasy world of patriots peacefully protesting the theft of the election that their guy won in a landslide. Context matters here. We can understand the fact that people come here with heads full of Tucker Carlson, but we should not treat that as a reasonable or fact-based worldview. It's like WP:RANDY. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If context matters so much, why do you keep ignoring the context the RS provide around the 5 number, where virtually universally they clarify the number somewhere in the same article as being comprised of 1 shooting, 3 natural causes the day of, and 1 natural causes the next day? You cannot pick and choose which parts of reliable sources you want to use - you either use the entire context of the source or you don't. And no, they don't attribute the deaths to the "insurrection" - they carefully say that the deaths occurred at/around the events - not that they were caused by the events. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I'm not ignoring it. The context belongs ins the section on deaths and injuries, not in the infobox or lede, because the high level summaries in RS do exactly the same. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That's saying "it's okay for us to have incomplete and misleading information in the infobox just because we correct the context later on". No, it's not okay to have incomplete information in an infobox - either it should contain complete information (through the use of footnotes if necessary) or it should not contain the information at all. The high level summaries in RS clarify the natural deaths versus the shooting death - usually in the same sentence but at least in the same paragraph as the first time they say 5 deaths happened. It is not appropriate to advocate for incomplete and misleading information in the infobox just because "it's correct elsewhere on the page". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As the original poster, how about we focus on the compromise of adding footnotes regarding each death in the infobox. Everyone is kept, but an explanation (using RS) of the context of their death is given. Judging from the rhetoric being used in this section, I feel like this is becoming a debate forum on American politics. I think the compromise solution of footnotes will seal the deal. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:49FC:8AF0:F026:E26D (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How about we compromise and only include the death of the person that was directly a result of the protest, which is the subject of the article? Listing deaths of people that weren't a direct result of the protests is misleading. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou, how about we compromise and include all the people whose deaths and life-changing injuries are attributed by reliable sources to the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. That would mean that we only mention the injuries and single death of the unarmed protestor at the hands of capital police. Thank you for agreeing with me. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou, reliable independent sources attribute five deaths and numerous life-changing injuries to the insurrection. To state otherwise is to call into question your understanding of what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. To constantly and obsessively describe insurrectionist Babbitt as "unarmed" indicates a likely bias and motive for failing to follow reliable sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose modification of the death count at this time, as ValarianB said. The current text adequately acknowledges the ambiguities. We can afford to wait until greater clarity emerges before we run off to change it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) Damn it, let me try again, hopefully my proposal doesn't get hijacked by political commentary this time. I'll do it slowly. How about we add footnotes in the infobox explaining (using RS) the context (using RS) of death (using RS) for each of the 5 people (yes all five). I don't give a freaking damn what you think about anything, I don't give a damn what you think about Babbit or Sicknick or the rest. All I am asking, and listen closely guys, is that footnotes for all five are added in the infobox, explaining the reason and cause of death for each one. Strokes, gunshot, overdose, put whatever you like. Do you guys understand this time? A compromise. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:49FC:8AF0:F026:E26D (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think there's a civil way to say this? Innican Soufou (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

He tried five or six gentler wordings already, see above for what good that did. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me like this might overload the infobox, so to speak (in terms of keeping it readable, not in terms of what the software can handle); generally, boxes are good for data that can be expressed concisely. XOR'easter (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The same field had eight unbundled citations for weeks or months until five days ago, it can handle up to five nuggets of truth (some sources say how all five died in one). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If people are worried about having 5 footnotes linked from the infobox, how about we just have one foot note with a list of whatever explaining all five. That said I'm not sure if it's necessary since it seems that this sort of information can and should be dealt with in the article so there's no need for a footnote or five. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That'd be best, a neat bundle. But since the field is specifically for casualties of a human act, and four are known to have not been homicide victims, at least some disclaimer/clarifier/whatever is needed. Even if we went with the one actual casualty, we'd probably need to explain why to some people, for some reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I would be on board with that. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1458:E118:537B:E37A (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2601:85:C101:C9D0:49FC:8AF0:F026:E26D, mainstream sources say that five people died and others suffered life-changing injuries. Sure, there's nuance. Nuance goes in the section on deaths and injuries, not in the infobox. The fact that sedition supporters find the death toll offensive is really not our problem to fix. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I totally understand your point. We really are on the same page here. But I don't think footnotes or further explanation will harm the infobox much. I'll give a few examples. The Invasion of Åland page lists one Swede dead in the infobox, but describes it as suicide. Or the infobox date for the Somali Civil War page, it has a rather large footnote explaining the variation in dating. Or the The Holocaust infobox, the deaths part has a large footnote explaining why 6 million is the displayed number. Or the Strategic bombing during World War II infobox, the deaths for Germany and Japan have a long list of sources and quotes to explain variations in the toll. So the addition of a footnote would have precedence on Wikipedia. Of course, the deaths and injuries section would go into much deeper explanation of the victims' deaths, but a footnote in the infobox, with a summary from RS about the cause of death, would be quite helpful. Personally, I think it would make a small improvement to the page. I, like you, oppose catering to fringe lunatics. And to assuage your fears, I can assure you, from a politically neutral fellow, I do not think footnotes (or just a singular footnote of context with RS) would be catering to the far-right. It would just make the infobox, which is a summary of the events, more complete. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1458:E118:537B:E37A (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Guy, Aquillion, XOR'easter and ValarianB Wikipedia is solely based on reliable sources, the death count we record in this article is based only on those reliable sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  There's a box with ten reliable sources in this very section, explaining how three of the presumed casualties died naturally, and one by a non-violent accident. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • • All those citations only really cover Sicknick. Yes they all quote DC Chief Medical Examiner Dr Francisco Diaz that the manner of Sicknick's death was "natural" after the riot (with no direct evidence of it being brought on by physical or chemical injury) BUT they also clearly go on to say that

      "Diaz’s ruling does not mean Sicknick was not assaulted or that the violent events at the Capitol did not contribute to his death. The medical examiner noted Sicknick was among the officers who engaged the mob and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”"

      We know what had transpired was that a few hours before his collapse Sicknick in the line of duty had to grapple with an aggressive mob of pro-Trump rioters who violently attacked and overran police to force their way into the seat of US government. How much the riot played in his death is not known BUT as Diaz clearly states in all ten reliable sources that all that transpired played a role in his condition.” Officer Sicknick and two other police officers were injured and temporarily blinded “as a result of being sprayed in the face” with an unidentified substance by Khater and Tanios, according to the F.B.I. Capitol Police force said “This does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol.” Ashli Babbitt, was shot to death during the riot. Two others died of complications from heart disease (stress of a mass riot not helping) and one death yes was an amphetamine overdose. But I am no seeing a ruling or statement saying the riot played no part in their deaths. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Sicknick's death leads, but BBC, NYT and AFP (to name three) cover the others, too. By learning they're natural and accidental, we know they weren't caused by rioters (or anyone), by lack of homicide ruling. We don't need a source explicitly saying so, anymore than we need one denying everything else that didn't happen, from dinosaurs to shootouts to bonfires. I get that "all that transpired" can refer exclusively to a brief scuffle or spraying eight hours before collapse, to those predisposed to think so. But it really means all that transpired. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The BBC, NYT and AFB hardly cover the other deaths in any useable detail, no evidence of accidents in any of the citations, agree the was no homicides or being eaten by passing dinosaurs LOL, however what transpired on that day can absolutely not be described as a brief scuffle Much Bigger LOL. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The deaths are clearly part of the story of this violent riot, and need to be covered in this article. It also needs to give weight to the assaults on officers, including Sicknick, sustained in the line of duty. One has found it "very difficult seeing elected officials and other individuals whitewash the events of that day or downplay what happened. Some of the terminology that has been used, like ‘hugs and kisses’ and ‘very fine people’ – very different from what I experienced and what my co-workers experienced on the 6th." ` More on this – Pilkington, Ed (28 April 2021). "US officer beaten by rioters condemns effort to 'whitewash' Capitol attack". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 April 2021.. – looks to be a developing story. . dave souza, talk 17:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any removals or changing the number at this time, support one footnote after the number of deaths which explains that 3 died due to medical issues that were not caused by the riot, one died the next day of a medical issue. As an example footnote: Three people died during the riot due to medical emergencies suffered at the riot, and one police officer died the next day due to strokes. There are other articles with footnotes that explain why people are/are not included in a count - alternatively, some list similarly to "5 total" and then leave it to the prose to describe the manner of death for each - that would potentially also be acceptable. I also support replacing the source currently in the infobox with a more recent source that says there were 5 deaths - because most are correct that sources are still widely using "five". However, what a lot of people don't seem to look at in the sources is that they say 5 people died at the riot, not because of the riot - and I think that labelling deaths as "5" without a footnote implies that they were all caused by the riot. We are supposed to look at reliable sources in their entirety and not just cherry-pick the number 5 out of them without also including the same qualifications the sources do - i.e. intentionally describing 3 of them as natural causes during the riot, and one of them as natural causes after the riot. I think everyone here needs to take a step back and realize that neither extreme (5 without a footnote, or changing that number) is wholly in compliance with NPOV - because both of them ignore one part of the sources. You cannot say that "we take RS that say 5 to cite this" without also saying "we need to provide the same qualifications as the sources do when they say 5". As such, a footnote is the best way to rectify this issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I wholly concur. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C5ED:2AAF:FEC6:B88 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support "I suggest a rewrite of the deaths and injuries section" was the original inquiry. It seems very clear to me that with a new piece of developing news coming to light, that a rewrite of the deaths and injuries section is order. That is not to say that the passing of Sicknick or the other three deaths are not tragic, irrelevant ,or should be scrubbed from the article entirely. Sicknick is certainly relevant and he should be mentioned in the article given his relevance among reliable sources in addition to the fact there is an entire article dedicated to Sicknick in particular. That being said, it's dishonest to say that Sicknick or those three deaths were causalities of the riot. Reliable sources very clearly say that Sicknick died of a stroke the day after the riot at the Capitol. Their causes of death, as the original posts elaborates, were unfortunately natural and unrelated to what occurred on Jan. 6th. Are they irrelevant to the Jan. 6th riot? Absolutely not, and I do not support expunging them from the article entirely due to the plethora of sources mentioning and discussing them. However, the infobox should make it clear who died on that day because of what happened. Stroke, heart attack, or drug overdose should not be counted as deaths caused by the incident. AdvancedScholar (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just because the deaths were not caused directly by any action during the riot, does not mean the mob violence that day did not cause stresses that led to heart attacks and strokes. Just being directly involved in a mob riot/ failed insurrection has real life changing consequences ~ that is why Washington's Chief Medical Examiner Dr Francisco Diaz makes very clear in his decision that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” So no we should not remove the 'natural' deaths, simply because they were not directly caused by any specific action, they were still part of the hostile events that transpired on that day and we simply have zero idea if the deaths would have occurred without the extra stressful anarchy of that day (strong possibility not). The only death I would remove is the drug overdose. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved admin: as purely a point of policy, the most-recent highest-quality sources should be considered to trump earlier sources, even if those older sources are of the same high quality. We have to balance recentism with this, but if the preponderance of the highest-quality sources are now saying something different from what they were saying in January, we should too. —valereee (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree. In the first flush of reporting, media saw police officers injured by assault with fire extinguishers, and a lady who had been carrying a "don't tread on me" flag apparently trampled by the mob. Deaths became the story, with a tendency to ignore serious assaults which plays into the hands of those pretending it was a peaceful demonstration – see "US officer beaten by rioters condemns effort to ‘whitewash’ Capitol attack" in source linked above. The deaths are part of the story, as are the injuries, and need to be assessed in the light of newer high quality sources say. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the point you're making? Please try to be clear, as your most recent post I'm seeing seems to have a POV. I don't know what "The deaths are part of the story, as are the injuries, and need to be assessed in the light of newer high quality sources say. . ." means. Can you clarify what you're getting at? —valereee (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Future historians will be able to summarise these events, at this stage speculation in initial reports is apparently overstated, but we need to cover the 5 deaths and should put it in the context of multiple Police injuries. Reports of 8 January identified five people who died [in] an attempted insurrection, including a Capitol police officer. Causes of death were being investigated, only Babbit's seemed clear. More details are emerging, a "police officer who was attacked by Trump-supporting rioters during the Capitol attack on 6 January has decried the efforts of some politicians and other public figures to 'whitewash' and downplay the insurrection." Our article section looks good but it's difficult to adequately summarise in a few words. The Trump bio had "died as a consequence of the riot"", I changed that to "died in connection with the riot", but was reverted as unsourced. That bio doesn't mention injuries. Can other editors review the bio wording and put forward the best sources? . . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support The sources at one time may have justified 5 deaths in the infobox, but what is backed by news sources sometimes changes as new info comes out. Based on the sources I am reading, it is no longer appropriate to call Officer Brian Sicknick a casualty of the event.JMM12345 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

  JMM12345, sure, because he totally would have died at exactly the same time without the assault. Just as George Floyd would. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't George Floyd where a jury verdict actually said that he was murdered. In this case, we don't know the counterfactual. We don't know when he would have died otherwise. We can only go by the ME report which says that he died of natural causes. It would be totally inappropriate for us to speculate past that.JMM12345 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

• Support The fact that this page has shown 5 deaths for months now is a disgrace. Read WP:NOT and tell me that wikipedia should be regurgitating dubious claims. You can place the blame on the New York Times or any number of other "reliable sources" all you want but it should have been clear to editors of this page from the start that the coverage of this event was ripe for "fog of war" style misinformation, even from the even keeled of newspapers. There is/was no need to quickly re-scribe what they wrote. Books will be written about this event with (hopefully) more evenhandedness. That applies to many issues surrounding this article, but the deaths are the most egregious one right now. This needs to be pulled back. Nweil (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds like you want to disregard mainstream sources and promote fringe views on the basis of your "original research" – WP:NOTFORUM, so are you going to provide good quality sources? . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not promoted any fringe views or original research? Not sure what you are referring to. Nweil (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Core policies require verification from published sources, not unsourced thoughts on the matter, and due weight to mainstream published views. Your rejection of "the New York Times or any number of other 'reliable sources'" and forecasts about future publications don't meet these policies. . .dave souza, talk 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza:The context here is that the New York Times has already been wrong and updated their reporting on this topic. You keep talking about core policies which I am not flouting or disputing. Not including a detail, even if it is printed in the New York Times, is perfectly within policy. In fact, a little perspective goes a long way on such a politically charged topic. As I'm sure you know, this is not the place for propaganda (WP:NOTSCANDAL). Arguably some propaganda was on this site (as in "Sicknick died from fire extinguisher", then "Sicknick died from bear spray") for months. It seems like this should upset you more than it apparently does. Nweil (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nweil: So? No evidence there that Sicknick wasn't a casualty, which he was as defined by NATO (irrespective of the cause of death). It's original research to claim otherwise, without an explicit source and due weight to all the reliable sources saying casualties included five deaths. The article has been kept in line with sources and looks right. Some propaganda you've been following may say otherwise, but it needs to be published in a reliable source before it has any place here. . dave souza, talk 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose not substantially covering the death of Sicknick. His death assumed to result from the storming is significant as it became a reason for the Second impeachment of Donald Trump. The article of impeachment itself stated that Trump supporters ‘injured and killed law enforcement personnel’, with the pretrial memorandum claiming that "the insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher." After the impeachment trial, President Biden issued a statement saying Sicknick lost "his life while protecting the Capitol from a violent, riotous mob."[1] Support clarifying in the infobox which death(s) were violent based on WP:RS, and also attribute the shooting to the police. Use WP:INTEXT rather than wikivoice when reporting the death count in the article. Terjen (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Casualties

The infobox item heading (though it's not in the detailed section) refers to 5 casualties, and a source headed "Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes after Capitol riot, medical examiner says - CBS News' is cited to claim he's not a casualty. Leaving aside that source saying "all that transpired played a role in his condition", it also reports that Capitol Police said it accepted the finding that Sicknick died of natural causes but said "this does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol." So clear;y not a civilian. Casualty (person)#Non-battle casualty "A person who is not a battle casualty, but who is lost to his organization by reason of disease or injury, including persons dying from disease or injury". So, Sicknick was clearly a casualty. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Sund phone log citation

Does anyone have a citation for the claim that Sund's phone logs showed no call between Sund and Waters? The referenced line is in the Capitol breach section. I have not been able to find any references that support this claim.

Thelectronicnub (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"induced by chemical irritants"

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.

---

I can find no reliable source that explicitly claims the blood clots leading to his strokes were "induced by chemical irritants" in this article. Further, the text in the article doesn't support that assertion. Maybe I'm blind - so I'm posting here so someone can correct me if so - but if there is no reliable source saying it's been proven that a "chemical irritant" caused the blood clots leading to his stroke, I'm going to reduce the infobox to just saying that a police officer died. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Good call. The claim was introduced by Elliottharvickfan94 in this diff. Terjen (talk) Terjen (talk) 02:07, 14 May 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.

When WP:BLPCRIME does and does not apply

Yousef Raz insists on removing the word "insurrection" based on their bad reading of WP:BLPCRIME despite no actual BLP vio existing. There doesn't appear to be consensus for this removal nor support for changing it to "demostrators [sic]", so I'm bringing this up here to avoid an all out edit war. YODADICAE👽 23:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is a specific crime defined in the https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. Not one person has been charged with the crime of insurrection, and not one person is convicted of the crime of insurrection. Documenting anyone committing insurrection or an insurrectionist is not consistent with WP:BLPCRIME.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation and it doesn't accuse any one person of insurrection. This is what RS call it. YODADICAE👽 23:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

But it does accuse people of being insurrection. "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." clearly accuses people of insurrection.

The researchers concluded that these "middle-aged, middle-class insurrectionists" represented clearly accuses people of insurrection.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are summarizing what sources say. If they said magical flying unicorns scaled the walls, we'd also include that. It is not a BLP violation regardless. YODADICAE👽 23:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If it said flying unicorns scaled the walls that would be ok, but if it said flying unicorns were insurrectionists then it would be not consistent with WP:BLPCRIME.

I believe there was a past consensus that outside of quotes, the word "insurrection" was not to be used in this article in any forms to refer to specific or groups of people unless they've been charged with it. Trump's the only one that fits to this date. It was that way for months - I did a control-F search a couple months ago for a related question and found no use outside of quotes and the mention of Trump's article of impeachment. There are now 3 uses outside of those use cases - and all of them can easily be replaced with "rioters" or "protestors" or even just "people". BLP does not apply when only referring to one specific person - it also applies when referring to groups, at least some of the people in such groups may be easily identified. It's clear that many of the people in the group of "rioters" can be identified - thus BLP applies to referring to the group as "insurrectionists". I further think that a discussion should be had before using that label outside quotes/the impeachment article because past discussions here came to a consensus against doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, "insurrectionists" is a POV and loaded word, and doesn't include any more information than "rioters", and as such, we should prefer the less loaded word per longstanding practice on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's literally quoting the source and the Capitol Police: "During the meeting, no entity, including the FBI, provided any intelligence indicating that there would be a coordinated violent attack on the United States Capitol by thousands of well-equipped armed insurrectionists," Sund wrote. and is used entirely in context.YODADICAE👽 23:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not required to duplicate sources exact wording - and in fact in many cases we do not do so precisely to remain neutral and not use loaded language and "puffery" just because a source does. BLP applies to labelling a group of people when some of them are or could be easily identified - which is the case here. If the use of the word is a quote, it needs to be in quotation marks. If it's not, we shouldn't be using the word "insurrection(ists)" in Wikipedia voice per past discussions here and for neutrality. Even if sources call them "insurrectionists", the word "rioters" gives the same exact information without the POV implications inherent in the word "insurrectionists". It's more neutral, and more acceptable. Why are you fighting so hard to call people "insurrectionists" anyway? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME does apply to one people, and I've been taught this by much more experienced users. See here for the use of murder when discussing a person that shot and killed multiple people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings#Category:murder. Also calling people 'rioters' would be incorrect as well, as riot is a crime that none have been convicted of.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In the context you are using this, it isn't correct. I'm aware of our BLP policies and referring to "insurrection" where reliable sources do is not a BLP violation. They do not call them "demostraters" as you incorrectly added to every instance of insurrection. It also does not say that every individual involved participated in insurrection. YODADICAE👽 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Those RS are not held to the BLPCRIME standard that editors of wikipedia are held to. We need to summarize their statements in a neutral perspective that does not accuse people of a crime in which they have not been convicted.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We do and calling insurrection a "demonstration" is not neutral or factual. Your argument has been flawed this entire time because we do not refer only to the individuals involved as insurrectionists in the article, we refer to insurrectionists where appropriate and designated by independent reliable sources, including the US government. They can be insurrectionists by partaking in an insurrection, it is not a sole legal determination based on charges alone. Many of these people were and are being charged with participating in an insurrection. YODADICAE👽 23:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They have not been charged with "insurrection", which is a specific crime. The primary charge has been "unlawful entry" along with various charges specific to weapons/theft/vandalism that occurred. If you're going to claim that people were or are being charged with insurrection, it's time to start providing sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Literally more than a dozen sources in this article refer to them as insurrectionists, participating in an insurrection. Our use of insurrection is not undue nor is it a BLP violation. You're more than capable of clicking the source after each statement here and you'll note the inclusion of the term "insurrection" and "insurrectionist", and has been discussed extensively on this very talk page. The desire to whitewash this article is truly mind boggling. YODADICAE👽 23:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not obligated to repeat exactly what reliable sources say, especially when what they say is using loaded language and puffery. I'm not sure if you've even read those discussions - because there's a longstanding consensus not to use the word "insurrection" or its forms outside of quotes or Trump's impeachment article here - because the term is considered less neutral and more loaded than other terms that would suffice. You are now attempting to use personal attacks by saying people want to "whitewash" something when we've simply been replying to your desire with legitimate policy basis for not using the term - which has been thoroughly discussed as you say and has been used only in quotes/Trump's impeachment article for the longest time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You're repeating opinions. Summarize the facts. Zero people have been charged with the crime of insurrection, so how can there have been an insurrection and how can people be insurrectionist? The answer is easy, there cant.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is literally called an insurrection by the very government who wrote the law. An insurrection does not require specific insurrection charges. YODADICAE👽 23:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not literally called an insurrection by the government who wrote the law. The government does not write laws, people write laws, and the people that wrote the law are likely long dead. So they have no opined on this incident. The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for has not indicted a single person for insurrection, that and the subsequent jury are the only opinions that matter.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is literally called an insurrection (and insurrectionists) by the government, government officials speaking on behalf of the government and 100+ reliable sources. An insurrection does not require charges of insurrection. YODADICAE👽 00:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, if you'd look through past discussions, there's some really nice analysis of sources that show about 40% use exclusively "riot" and related terms, and only maybe 20-25% use exclusively "insurrection" - if you want to pull the "reliable source" argument. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There are more than 100+ reliable sources ranging from The New York Times, AP news, ABC news to The Atlantic calling it "insurrection" and referring to groups as "insurrectionist" and that's not even including the United States government, so no. YODADICAE👽 00:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, and as I've said multiple times now, we aren't obligated to repeat the wording of reliable sources, and we're encouraged not to when their wording is not neutral. Furthermore, the plurality of reliable sources use the term "riot" - and only maybe a quarter use "insurrection" exclusively. So your argument to reliable sources actually works against you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware we aren't obligated to do anything but ignoring that 100+ reliable sources call it an insurrection, and refer to particpants as insurrectionists would violate our POV policy. Here's a brief example of 30 sources - that are well regarded and known to be RS through our own community. YODADICAE👽 00:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You're ignoring that even more sources refuse to use "insurrectionists" and use instead the term "rioters". Again, an even more "in depth" look at sources, that isn't limited by your own bias, was conducted during prior move discussions, and you're ignoring the fact that more sources don't use it than do. We don't just cherrypick sources for your ideology. And no, we aren't encouraged to use "multiple terms" and "mix" them - we should use the best, most neutral term that fits the situation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussions are related to whether the term or a variant should be used in the article title. That is a very different question than whether the term can be used in the article. Your suggestion that a term should be expunged from an article if a plurality of sources don't happen to use it, is bunkum. VQuakr (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The source analysis that was present during the move discussions are relevant here - and not specific to the move discussions. Again, Praxidicae is making a "sources use this a lot" argument - which simply isn't true when looking at all the sources (instead of just ones that support their view). I find it interesting that people in this discussion refuse to look at the past discussions on the term "insurrection" here - they came to clear consensuses against using "insurrection" both in the title and elsewhere - and no new arguments have been provided. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: whether a source uses of the term "insurrection" exclusively is irrelevant. Whether anyone has been specifically charged with the (obscure) crime of insurrection is also irrelevant. Editorially, using a mix of accurate terms throughout the article makes for better reading. Which is, of course, also what RSs do. ...we're encouraged not to when their wording is not neutral is circular reasoning. VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:SAID for a related discussion about why it is more important to avoid loaded language that makes undue implications than to avoid repetition of terms. Terjen (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty tangential. "Riot" and "insurrection" are pretty equally loaded and both are accurate and fine to use in this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's just stick to rioters. Terjen (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah. Let's stick to a mix, consistent with the sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't duplicate wording of RS - we duplicate ideas. We use neutral language to summarize what they say. Saying we use a "mix" just because RS do is an abrogation of our duty under WP:NPOV to summarize neutrally what they say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You have it backwards. As discussed at WP:NPOV we use reliable sources to determine what constitutes neutral content. We don't decide what is neutral, then "correct" the sources to fit that prescription: we build an article based on the sources without editorial bias. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

They aren't equally loaded at all. Both are the same action, insurrection implies much more about motive, and also can have potential positive/negative connotations depending on situation. So you yourself admit that they're "equal" - then let's use the one without any connotations at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we'll continue to use both, consistent with the RSs that form the basis of this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't copy language from reliable sources - we form encyclopedic language based on those sources. The plurality of sources do not use "insurrectionists" because it's a loaded term that's inappropriate - and we don't get to say "because some use a loaded term we must do so as well". Again, this has been fleshed out on this talk page many times before, and without a large-scale RfC that hasn't changed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Except I don't agree with your personal assessment of what is "encyclopedic" or not; there is nothing wrong with the sourced use of the term "insurrection" in this article. I don't view the term as particularly loaded so I don't see it as a NPOV issue, just up to editorial discretion. But if you are presenting it as a NPOV thing, then we WP:WEIGHT the coverage in proportion to the level of coverage in RSs so "insurrection" still gets used. I also don't accept your vague handwave as evidence of clear consensus on this word (a pretty unusual thing) at any point in the past (not that that matters; consensus to exclude the term obviously doesn't exist now). VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You have no problem with Praxidicae's vague references, but you do with mine. Odd. Regardless, there's at least two people (three if you include Yousef Raz, who I feel is likely commenting in bad faith and am not including) saying that "insurrection" shouldn't be used. That's at most a 50/50 split, and at worst a split that doesn't go in favor. There's clearly a consensus against it still - if you think differently, feel free to start an RfC to overturn the multiple past consensuses against doing so in WP voice. And no, DUE does not apply to specific words - it applies to ideas. We word things in WP voice based on neutrality - not use in reliable sources. If all reliable sources are using non-neutral language, that doesn't mean we don't use neutral language to describe the same ideas. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You're the only one waving your arms at some unspecified (but apparently ironclad) previous consensus. DUE applies to viewpoints, which is a more specific concept than "ideas". "The 2021 storming was an insurrection" is indeed a viewpoint. Not sure on what planet you think a "50/50 split" equals "clearly a consensus" to expurgate but I'll assume that's just bluster on your part. It shouldn't come as a shock to you that I don't accept you as an arbiter of what constitutes neutral language. VQuakr (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A BLP violation occurring in quotes (essentially, our amplification of another person's libel), is not ok. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Fortunately, that is not the case here. Referring to the people, as a group, as "insurrectionists" does not violate BLP because no individual is being targeted (directly or indirectly) with the label. @Yousef Raz: this edit is not justifiable on the basis of WP:BLP and should not be repeated. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr: You just said the people that are being referred to "insurrectionists" are not being referred to as "insurrectionists".Yousef Raz (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Try again. VQuakr (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr: You did though. "Referring to the people, as a group, as "insurrectionists" does not violate BLP because no individual is being targeted (directly or indirectly) with the label".... other than the people that you are referring to "insurrectionists" with that label.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You can read more about the difference between an individual and a group at WP:CIR. Something this basic should not be able to fly over any editor's head. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on the rest of this debate, but the immediately above comment is an oversimplification of how BLP applies to groups. See WP:BLPGROUP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed I could have linked WP:BLPGROUP, but as I noted above the key distinguishing factor (as noted at that section) is whether the claims are in practice ascribable to individuals. VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: It doesn't matter if you have a trillion relable sources that call it an insurrection. Those sources are providing their opinion and don't have a BLPCRIME standard to follow.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You really should read VQuakr's link to WP:CIR if you think over a hundred sources are merely presenting their opinion. YODADICAE👽 00:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The jury's opinion is the only opinion that matters. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Straw man. No one is supporting stating that any individual has been convicted of a crime if no conviction exists. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation cannot be correct. For example, terrorism is a crime, but many terrorist groups (as designated by the US) do not have any members who have been tried and convicted of the crime. Your logic would mean that we can't call any of them terrorist groups, or any of the individuals as terrorists. Heck, same would apply to people like Ayman al-Zawahiri. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:That's not an accurate comparison. People are officially designated a terrorist by the Department of State or Treasury. The article should state this person has been designated a terrorist by this authority. Merely sending one of those designated persons a nickel will result in your indictment. If a person is not designated nor been convicted of the crime terrorism crime then an article stating such person is a terrorist would not be consistent with BLPCRIME.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: @VQuakr: @Praxidicae: @Terjen: @Berchanhimez: I have presented this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol Yousef Raz (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae your comment at 23:20, 14 May 2021 that we can call it an insurrection because that is what police called it is contrary to BLPCRIME. In the American and other justice systems, police accuse people of crimes but they are only considered to be guilty when they are convicted by a court. Hence BLPCRIME says, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."

The term insurrection itself presents problems. It was not a crime historically but entered statue law as a condition that allowed governments to suspend civil rights if they believed the state was in danger. The people responsible could then be charged with insurrection. But President Trump never declared a state of insurrection and police have charged no one. The best legal opinion shows that it is very difficult to convict on insurrection. I could not find any cases.

TFD (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling the event an insurrection isn't an issue with BLPCRIME. Saying person XYZ committed insurrection would be an issue. The event is/was an insurrection whether or not anyone is charged with the specific crime of insurrection; one does not automatically follow the other. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

By my understanding of Wikilaw, we're on thin ice here, but haven't technically broken through. As long as we don't attach an insurrection to any identifiable person within this article, it's smooth skating, let RS sink or swim on their own prejudices (real and imagined). Calling generic mobs as a faceless whole a bunch of dirty crooks is like calling an unpublicized federal official a son of an unnamed goat (or similar), harmless beyond making our biases in opinion painfully obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as we use intext attribution for the term, the ice should hold. Labeling a group in wikivoice rubs off on the individual. Terjen (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are certainly acceptable waterwings. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling the event an insurrection isn't an issue with BLPCRIME right, sources don't make individual legal accusations but use a common English language description, some sources also used stronger language including domestic terrorism. It would of course not be appropriate to use the latter description everywhere in the article when few news articles called it as such, other than mentioning that some sources did. More sources support the insurrection term however. You're repeating opinions when sources are reliable and not op-eds or blog posts, their content is not generally treated as opinions and in most cases attribution is also unnecessary. Even for BLPs, it's only a problem when not supported by reliable sources... WP:NPOV for more information, —PaleoNeonate – 04:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context.

To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist.

Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Out of date (Sicknick died of natural causes)

Surprised no one hear heard the news yet, but the coroner ruled that the death of Officer Sicknick was unrelated to the riot. I've made some attempt to update the article, but, reasonably, even more information should be removed as it's off topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see the massive discussions above, and revert the related changes you made on the main page. We're working on getting this right, within policy requirements such as using reliable sources and avoiding original research. Terjen (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: Bodney (who just reverted your latest edit) has a different assessment than me about why Sicknick is included in the death count. It's not because "all that transpired played a role in his condition" but because reliable sources still do. Terjen (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I meant to/should have included that more important wiki point. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Also note, Sicknick was a casualty irrespective of natural causes. . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Diaz was unable to say whether the officer had any pre-existing medical conditions. However, he did acknowledge the policeman's role in the events, telling the Washington Post: "All that transpired played a role in his condition.". So yes it did have an impact upon his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

No, Officer Sicknick is not off-topic from this article. We've had a lot of coverage on him, and we should inform readers about what his death really was, instead of censoring it from the article. Same for Greeson, Philips, Boyland. starship.paint (exalt) 12:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• FFS. This again? Yes, yes, the right-wing narrative is that "only Trump supporters were victims". We've seen it from members of the Treason Caucus. But sources say Sicknick was a casualty of the insurrection, and so do we. Anyone who seriously believes he would have died when he did in the absence of the events of that day, I have a nice bridge you might like to buy. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Name: Is it time to discuss again?

I wanted to see if there was an appetite to re-attack the article's name. To me, the best way to go about this is to use google news search. First, it contains sources that are generally considered RS. Then I limited the search to only the word in the title for the word we are considering using. That provides a better understanding of how WP:RS are titling articles, not simply what words they used in an article. What I like about Google News, is that it drops older search hits. In that way, it provides a good snapshot of what sources are using now. I would note that because you are using recent sources, the number of hits changes over time. However, as of posting the OP, I got:

• riot used 50,000 times,
• attack is used 59,100 times,
• insurrection is used 9,220 times
• storming is used 3,230 times.

My issue is storming, is that is still the worse choice to meet WP:COMMONNAME. I think we should look at what WP:RS are calling the event now, and change the name to reflect that. It has been a few month. I was thinking now might be the time to attack this again?Casprings (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Google's numbers are wild overestimates in most cases. By navigating to the last page of results, I got the following:

• riot used 246 times
• attack used 239 times
• insurrection used 249 times
• storming used 195 times

There may be reasons to change the name, but they can't be based on COMMONNAME, where we're looking for much more dramatic discrepancies in usage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit lost as to what navigating to the last page of results provides? Why wouldn't just take the total number of recent results? I don't get the logic here. Casprings (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Because Google wildly overestimates. On the last page, you can see how many actual news articles Google was able to find. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The research done by Casprings is too primitive, and this method of rudimentary google searches, as well as the "last page of results" method, has been criticized multiple times. The latter however works for short periods such as a week, but the search must be narrowed down with advanced operators, and multiple people should post their findings. An actual talk subpage involving much more worked-out methods exists for this kind of discussion, here: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. Users who have substantially contributed to prior name discussions should be pinged at some point, if the broader naming discussion is to be restarted. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)