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)

No, that's original research and quite a stretch. Time to drop the stick. Terjen (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

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)

• No, that is completely incorrect. Google caps the number of pages it will actually return for a news search result and cuts them off at around 250 regardless of the search - try searching for Obama, it cuts off at the same place. Or for Attack (on its own, no other words) or Israel. I hope you haven't been using "navigate to the end" in other discussions - search results are useful (not the last word, but they do tell you something.) Navigating to the end is completely meaningless and tells you nothing whatsoever - you should never rely on it for anything, and if you've brought it up in other discussions and people mistakenly paid attention to you, those discussions need to be re-evaluated. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for teaching me that. I brought up a similar point at one other move discussion and it did not influence the decision, so no worries on that front. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:20, 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)

I agree with both pinging past participants and with a more thorough analysis. We cannot simply look at what Google or any other website says for something that's potentially this close. We need to look at each individual article, determine for sure it is a reliable source, and then count the number of times outside of quotes each term is used in each of those articles. Only then can we actually determine what's the common name. With many articles quoting people calling it an "insurrection" but not calling it that themselves, this is the only way to find the true common reliable source name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• As I pointed out above, navigating to the last page of results doesn't tell anything at all. Actual search results tell something, but the number of pages you can navigate to do not tell anything at all when there is a large number of results - in that case, Google truncates the number it will actually show you arbitrarily at around 250 pages. Navigating to the last result tells you nothing whatsover and should never even be brought up. Search results (especially dramatic ones like these, where the differences are entire orders of magnitude) are valuable, even if they have limitations; navigating to the last result means nothing and anyone who is trying to use it to respond to actual search results needs to understand that and stop immediately. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion: It doesn't truncate if you limit the search to a short period and narrow it down to certain domains, so that you get a small number of potential results, which is generally an exhaustive list that fits on one page. That way you can get an accurate overview for that period, but it is suspected that the results somewhat vary from one user to another so they should be pooled from multiple users. Please review the research included in the subpage (Exhibit A specifically), the results have been updated. It can be probably be done for past weeks as well, separately. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral but common names applies. None of these terms is the generally accepted name for the event, and at least two of them are POV, since they contain the allegation of a crime, although no one has been convicted or AFAIK even charged with riot or insurrection. If it was a riot or insurrection, then everyone present would be equally guilty. Per no original research and BLPCRIME, those are calls better left to the courts. TFD (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, numerous people have indeed been charged with crimes, but that's not the point. What matters is what reliable sources call it. Which, for the most part, is variations on insurrection or riot. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

'Attack' has some respectability too, see the PBS tag "U.S. Capitol Attack". But that's it: insurrection, riot, attack, and a smidge of breach. Siege, invasion and all of the other speculative descriptors have long withered away, together with storming. In the past week, storming was only used once, in the titles of articles that appear on Google News... by The Epoch Times. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Dang it Alalch, I really didn't want have to reopen this can of worms, but that does sort of cinch it, doesn't it?! "Storming" has no claim to COMMONNAME anymore. Among the names that are commonly used, "attack" is probably the most NPOV, "insurrection" is probably the most technically accurate. Feoffer (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is also much less common than "attack", and both are much less common than "riot". Riot is the clear plurality common name - even if it's not a majority (which it may be at this point). Insurrection has POV issues, riot has much less (if we believe that it has any at all, which I don't think it does). Unfortunately, even with evidence at that subpage, people will still corrupt move requests if one is made. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The "riot" numbers are tricky because they're not mutually exclusive with others descriptors. To be sure, the attack included a riot, but it also included pipebombs. Feoffer (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Another comment on the results obtained by Casprings: searching intitle:storming "Capitol" mixes up the verb (continuous form) with the noun (gerund); instead of searching merely for storming and separately for Capitol in titles, which produces many titles such as "National Guard soldier charged for storming the US Capitol" (which are completely irrelevant for this discussion as "storming" as a verb in the title in no way indicates that CNN would choose "storming" as a descriptor – which they incidentally generally don't), a search must made such that it is based on the gerund, which is the only type of "storming" apt for a descriptor; this can be done with allintitle: "capitol storming" | "storming of" capitol, and it produces 1,430 instead of 3,230 hits. The same logic applies to attack. Edit: a gramatically relevant search for attack (using allintitle: "capitol attack" | "attack on" capitol) produces 9,670 instead of 59,100 hits. The rudimentary search for attack that produces so many hits includes titles such as "There are hundreds of posts about plans to attack the Capitol. Why hasn't this evidence been used in court?". Does that indicate a news org chose "attack" as a descriptor in that instance? No it doesn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (Cont:) Therefore:

• riot used 53,300 times,
• attack is used 9,670 times,
• insurrection is used 10,600 times
• storming is used 1,430 times.

This means that what Berchanhimez has ascertained regarding 'insurrection' and 'attack', possibly based on Casprings' less-than-valid research, isn't correct - it isn't that 'insurrection' is much less common than 'attack', it is somewhat more common than 'attack'. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG I wrote, "no one has been convicted or AFAIK even charged with riot or insurrection," not that no one has been charged with anything. Both these crimes require that all the persons participating had a common criminal purpose. I don't know if that is true or not, but don't think it is a call that Wikipedia editors should make. The article for example names 18 current and former Republican legislators who were present. Although one of them was charged with "entering a restricted area," neither he nor any of the others have been charged with riot or insurrection. I don't feel confident saying that all of them were gultly of the crimes of riot or insurrection unless they have been at least accused those offenses. TFD (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the points in favor of "attack". It encompasses rioters, insurrectionists, bombers, and whatever else might come up without accusing any particular person of any particular offense. Feoffer (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If we base ourselves on google hits, this is what a "None of these terms is the generally accepted name" argument rests upon, in visual form:

_________________________riot________________________ __insurr.__ __attack__ ┌ current title

█████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ███████████ ██████████ █▄ — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

COMMONNAME says, "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." So we can't just use the most common term, we have to consider all the criteria, which include neutral tone and accuracy. I notice also that the terms used apply to the storming of the Capitol Building. But most demonstrators did not participate and it's not clear that they committed any criminal acts by demonstrating outside the building. TFD (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Of the three terms commonly used by RSes, "insurrection" is likely the most accurate, while "attack" is probably most neutral. "Riot" isn't a bad title and appears to be most common, but for reasons TFD lays out, it's likely the least neutral/accurate of the three -- the main body of the demonstrators didn't become violent, as suggested by "riot'".

I could support any of the three, but I think my preference would be to lean into neutrality -- everyone can agree police were attacked on Jan 6. Feoffer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel "attack" can fail at the same reason you don't think "riot" is preferable - because the main body of the demonstrators didn't attack police. The most neutral is "protests", but I can see and agree with arguments that would not be preferable as it doesn't convey the entry into the building. Of note, however, there were a not insignificant number of riots that took place during the George Floyd protests, with our own article on those stating over 14k arrests - and yet it's not called "riots" - even the more riotous George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul, where $350 million in damage was done to over 1,000 properties and causing two deaths, even those aren't called "riots". I'm not sure if this is because of potential bias among editors, but it seems that our page here, which says only $30 million or so in damage (10% of that of the MSP events linked above), should not be called "attack" or "riots" when it was virtually the same thing. I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that based on consistency with other articles' naming, we should be calling this "protest" - because other articles that had very similar events - where small percentages of people became riotous and caused damage/injury/death - are called "protests". Looking through more articles, it's clear that discussion of the title for this article has been suffering from quite a bit of bias from editors who think this must be called the worst name possible - I think this discussion without a formal requested move is providing some useful information. I worry that a requested move will devolve into the same that all past ones have - editors expressing their clear political motivations behind their !votes and attacking anyone who doesn't accept their suggestions. TLDR: "attack" suffers from the same problem "riot" does - and similar articles are named "protest(s)". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"protests" is a total nonstarter for me -- maybe for a separate article focusing just on other events, but this article covers an attack, not a protest. Feoffer (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, but approximately half of this article doesn't discuss entering the capitol, vandalizing, attacks on people, etc. at all. Further, the attack started as a protest - while there were some people that went determined to go into the building, the same can be said about some people going to the George Floyd protests wanting to loot, vandalize, etc. I think there's something to be said for consistency here - the event, at its core, is an event quite similar to the George Floyd protests - you have a group of people who all thought they were just going to protest, and in the end there was rioting, looting, vandalism, etc. If we can't even consider the consistency aspect of it, by saying it's a nonstarter, what does that say about our ability to carefully and consciously analyze the potential bias Wikipedia and its editors are having with respect to either issue (either the Black Lives Matter movement, being potentially biased towards, or republicans, being potentially biased against)? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, no, this is nothing like the Floyd protests. Those were a spontaneous response to yet another murder of a Black man by police in broad daylight. Here, the insurrection was the result of calculated rhetoric promoting a double lie: first that Trump won the election, and second, that Congress could somehow make Biden not have won it.

It doesn't matter how hard a segment of the media tries to both-sides this, there's no comparison between a reactive protest against injustice and a concerted effort to overthrow an election you lost. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter to the side you hate how hard the news you love tries, this afternoon riot that only seriously injured a few dozen or so was nothing like how insurrections work everywhere they actually happen to other countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly didn't want to open this can of worms again, but even I am persuaded by the documentation from Alalch Emis and others that "storm" is not used by RSes while "attack" and "insurrection" are. Feoffer (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Storming and insurrection are QAnon and Democrat buzzwords, respectively, an attack at least occurred. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Our own article on this event makes clear that while some planned violence/storming/rioting, that was a minority - most people were there for the rally and merely got "roped into it". That's no different than the George Floyd protests, called protests on Wikipedia, or the Kenosha unrest, called "unrest" on Wikipedia. In all of these events, a significant minority of people planned violence before attending the "events", and carried out such violence, which roped other people into it as well in many cases. The rioting in Kenosha and at George Floyd protests was not spontaneous, and that's been shown and in reliable sources in both cases - people showed up to those protests intending to vandalize and destroy property, and in some cases even with intent to potentially shoot/kill people. The only difference is the political viewpoint involved. This is a clear example of the known systemic bias on Wikipedia to be weighted towards "left" viewpoints, which you're not helping with by being so blatantly POV in your opinions, JzG. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You bring up the Kenosha protests, the notable people who planned to show up and start violence as their goal were mostly of the same political persuasion as those who did the same at the U.S. Capitol, unless you're arguing that Kyle Rittenhouse was somehow left-leaning. Which I can't see any evidence of at all. Your attempt at "bothsidesism" needs some better examples if you're going to be taken seriously. --Jayron32 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna say anything, NOTFORUM and all, but since Jayron mentioned, I'll chime in: I also was confused by the Kenosha analogy, because we do in fact have a dedicated article on the Kenosha attack. This mirrors the relationship between this article and its nonviolent ("protest") counterpart Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. There's room in Wikipedia for an entire article just on the non-violent protests of Jan 5-6, if someone wanted to write it. Feoffer (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

An excellent and very doable suggestion. BusterD (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Feoffer, agree completely with this suggestion, and it would eliminate any concern whatsoever about the POV of the word in the title here, because it would be hard to argue that it's POV to state that people "attacked" and "stormed" or "rioted" at a building when that's what they did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This talk page section is already so long and hard to follow as it is. Could we refrain from unhelpful, NOTFORUM essays about one's personal thoughts about the event and media coverage, etc.? At the very least, save it for the naming votes to come. Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(EC) "the attack started as a protest" Reliable sources disagree: Chief Sund: "I'm able to provide you a quick overview of why I think it was a coordinated attack. One, people came specifically with equipment. You're bringing in climbing gear to a demonstration. You're bringing in explosives. You're bringing in chemical spray ... you're coming prepared." Feoffer (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel "attack" can fail at the same reason you don't think "riot" is preferable - because the main body of the demonstrators didn't attack police.

Irrelevant, since the article is about the "2021 VERBing of the United States Capitol", not the "2021 [VERB]ing of the police at the United States Capitol". --Calton | Talk 05:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say that we wait until the first anniversary and see how reliable sources refer to the event as. That might give an insight into what the common name people will use going forward. There is no rush to change it right now. Z22 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For the non-date part of the COMMONNAME (see the date subsection below for the rest), I want to suggest a different approach, to use in tandem (if people want) with the raw searches that most people can't agree on the utility of. Each major media outlet has by now its own standard naming convention for the event. We should catalog the term that's used by each of the top 10 or 20 most well-respected news outlets in the English-speaking world, with an emphasis on the US: the NYT, Washington Post... that whole scene. To me, at this point in the process, that information is more useful than Google searches of who knows what exactly. Moncrief (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We already have this: Exhibit B — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the outlets I mentioned is listed there. Moncrief (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You're free to add them, it's a collaborative effort. Edit: Moncrief: I added NYT and Washpo. Please comment. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm intrigued by your limited prepositional choices, as I'd think some articles would say, for example, "riot in." I also don't understand the "incite_incited..." part of searching for the word "insurrection." But I'm sure you have your reasons, and thank you for making the effort. It looks from that chart like "riot" is leading as the most common name, but I'll dig deeper later. Personally -- and maybe it's just me -- I'd be more interested in the nomenclature over just the past two months rather than the Jan-March period, which we already know was unsettled for naming. Moncrief (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Moncrief: When all the inflected forms of 'incite' aren't eliminated from the search it leads to the inclusion of titles such as "Trump Impeached for Inciting Insurrection - The New York Times", which are false positives as they don't indicate "insurrection" as a chosen descriptor by a nyt editor or journalist. I'll think about "riot in" and other prepositions. Thanks. Edit: A search based on "riot in":

allintitle: "riot in" capitol site:apnews.com OR site:bbc.com OR site:theguardian.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:reuters.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:cnn.com OR site:cnbc.com OR site:npr.org OR site:pbs.org OR site:nbc.com OR site:abc.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:latimes.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:csmonitor.com OR site:wsj.com OR site:ft.com OR site:afp.com OR site:aljazeera.com OR site:bloomberg.com OR site:politico.com OR site:usnews.com OR site:upi.com after:2021-5-9

only produces 1 non-specific result: "Miller, Rosen To Defend Federal Response To Capitol Riot In ... (Congress)" — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

January 6th?

I brought up this topic on the talk page on April 22nd. [2] Almost nobody responded, and the topic was only just archived, so...that's a little weird. I guess I didn't phrase it in an exciting enough way.

Anyway, I want to put "January 6th" on people's radar as being part of a future title, instead of 2021 (I'm not in favor of the date *and* the year). The main word for the action doesn't have a COMMONANME yet, but "January 6" is almost always in the media's naming conventions. Like the September 11 attacks, this event seems so far to be inseparable from its date. (And, no, I don't think it's just because we're still in 2021; other major events of this year aren't definitionally linked in that integral way to their date.) Moncrief (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that this deserves its own subsection, so I've created a new subheading.

I hadn't thought of this at all until Moncrief brought it up, but yeah, "January 6th" -- used with one of the above nouns or just by itself -- might be the most-common factor, so it makes since to include it in the title for instat reader recognition. --Calton | Talk 04:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't call it "January 6th" - they may refer to "the events of January 6th", but that's because it's still super recent. That name will be something to consider maybe 3-4 years from now - especially after Biden leaves office (or is re-elected for a second term) - because by that time, it would be used as a name, not merely as a temporal reference - and it would be done so under a different political and news climate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the article be titled "January 6th." That would be silly. Just that the temporal mention in the name be the date, not the year. Example (and I probably wouldn't vote for this particular iteration): January 6 United States Capitol attack. Don't really get what your Biden stuff is about; it doesn't seem relevant. Moncrief (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The events ARE sometimes referred to with the shorthand "January 6th", but thanks for objecting to a proposal made by precisely no one, ever, including me.

That name will be something to consider maybe 3-4 years from now. No, we're all here, now, discussing how "the events of January 6th" are being talked about, now, considering the name, now, is what we should be doing. Or you could come back in 3-4 years and bring it up then. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The only way that would be acceptable is if "January 6" was a common enough name to be used on its own. 2021 is more concise, and no less precise, than January 6. Furthermore, it's actually more precise to say 2021 - because it did happen in 2021, but it did not happen every January 6. January 6 is a nonstarter unless that name becomes appropriate in years by being the common historical name for the event. That's why I recommended waiting for the next election - by that timeframe, inquiries into this event and trials surrounding it will likely be done. Further, there will be either a new or re-elected president in office, who will likely refer to this event in some way (assuming it doesn't repeat itself) when he (re)takes office. If at that time, it's being referred to as "January 6th", then that would be an appropriate consideration. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This is opinion phrased, rather unnecessarily combatively, as if it were fact. Our purpose is to find the COMMONNAME, whatever it may be. The gravity of the event is not the same, but for naming purposes, the article on 9/11 has never been called "2001 ... attacks", because that doesn't align with the common name. All of this will obviously come to a vote and further debate. I find your tone to be rather outrageous and unhelpful. Moncrief (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"January 6" is nowhere near the common name at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And no one is saying that it is, as we noted above. Moncrief (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moncrief: Our purpose is to find the COMMONNAME, whatever it may be. This is not correct. WP:UCRN (WP:COMMONNAME is a bit of a misnomer) is just one section in WP:TITLE, a policy that contains five main criteria. The purpose of a naming discussion is to best meet those criteria. VQuakr (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The only way that would be acceptable is if "January 6" was a common enough name to be used on its own.

That's nonsense on stilts. The purpose of words in a title is to help the entire title identify the topic of the article, and there is no test -- none -- that demands that individual words or phrases have to uniquely identify the topic. By your logic, Wikipedia can't use "2021" -- which, by by the way is pretty much by definition less precise that "January 6th".

Oh, and just out of curiosity, I Googled "January 6th", The top hit? This article.

Other top Google hits include "Congressional leaders reach deal on Jan. 6 commission, but McCarthy has concerns" from NBC News, and "What Should We Call the Sixth of January?" by Jill Lepore of The New Yorker. Huh, I guess there ARE reliable sources that just refer to "January 6th". --Calton | Talk 05:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Calton, I searched in a private window, the first hit was January 6. But this was second... Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

January 6 definitely should be in title. Feoffer (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've used this or similar phrasing myself, but don't think it should be in the title. It's convenient in certain contexts because, while what happened is disputed, nobody disputes when it happened. If it's truly impossible to get consensus on whether it was a "riot" or an "insurrection" or a "disruptive protest" or an "attempted coup" or something else, this might be the least bad option, but I don't see that as likely. I don't see September 11th as a parallel, that's sui generis. We don't title articles after June 4, December 7, or November 5. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting naming the article after the date. The suggestion is to use the date in the title rather than the year. Or perhaps the date and the year, despite what I said above (this is obviously an evolving discussion). My point is: the date January 6 seems to be integral to the naming of the event as it's described in the wider world. I'm reminded of how we title articles like the 7/7 bombings in London: 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the date because it's so well known, even if "just the year" might have sufficed for disambiguation purposes alone. Moncrief (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh. In that case my objection is slightly different - the Electoral College vote-counting happens on that day every time, and I'm not confident there won't be a repeat incident in the future. Also, putting "January 6, 2021" in the title is too long. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say concern about future events should not be considered in the article naming discussion per WP:CRYSTAL. We have enough considerations to balance without worrying about hypotheticals. VQuakr (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, the whole event seems to identified more as "January 6th" than anything else. If there were a renaming discussion, I would strongly support it. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding to this, it's worth noting that January 6th is also being used in official nomenclature -- the proposed and much-in-the-news January 6, 2021 Commission. Moncrief (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty definitive. Feoffer (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely a name Wikipedia chose for an idea from months ago that may someday be a thing. But "official nomenclature" is a stretch. Do any sources call it that? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The House bill, to be voted on tomorrow, calls it the "National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex."[3] That's a little bit long for a Wikipedia title though. Moncrief (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Long, but way more actual. If that article wanted a common name, "9/11-style commission" is clearly ubiquitous. But that's that one; I see no reason to make this one longer ("January 6 attack" is nice). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Moncrief, this would definitely favor "Attack on the United States Capitol" as opposed to "storming" - consider adding this to the subpage (if you haven't already, I don't have it watched) as a data point for future consideration :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "January 6" should definitely be in the name of the article, no question. At this point I would argue that the WP:COMMONNAME includes January 6 - and of course if this changes to 2021, we can change it back. I also agree that "storming" should be removed in favor of something a little less noble-sounding like attack, in the honor of WP:NPOV. But looking all of the failed name changes before, I'm wondering if we should try to just get this "January 6" change through before changing "storming" to "attack" (or something similar), since this change might have more support. BappleBusiness (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that approach. Moncrief (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: I don't really think people have the appetite for two back-to-back RMs... Elli (talk | contribs) 06:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Totally get that. I was just raising that option in case there wasn't enough consensus for "attack". There seems like there is widespread support for "attack" though, looking through the discussion. BappleBusiness (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"January 6 attack" is it, however we get there. Feoffer (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The name a partisan political commission gives to a recent controversial event is likely tainted from an encyclopedic perspective. Whatever name they come up with should be avoided. A generic "Events of January 6" name would also be misleading because the notability of this event is in the criminal or at least controversial aspect of it. The peaceful rally and peaceful march should not be impugned with the criminal aspects of that day.Nweil (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The formation of the committee may be a partisan issue, but the name is not -- "January 6 commission" is the consensus name, whether people supporting actually having one or not. Feoffer (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't splitting the peaceful protests and speeches of January 6 off from this page be a superior solution than renaming?

I'm following up on User:Feoffer's suggestion made in a thread above. I have previously opined that "storming" is the better term because it's the most precise descriptive word which has been presented to the actions of those breaking and entering the capitol building on January 6 of this year. Given the good faith enthusiasm and persistence of those who seem to prefer (through pagemove) to emphasize the non-violent behavior of the vast majority of those present on the capitol grounds that day, perhaps another article could be created. Pardon me if I'm ascribing intent, but my suggestion is made to answer reasonable concerns I've seen raised in previous discussions on talk. I would argue that the precise reason many reliable sources use softer words like "riots" and "protests" is because many RSs doesn't want to tar and feather all participants in the events of that day. This doesn't answer naming issues here, but it certainly separates the two discrete events, one largely law-abiding, and one demonstrably not so. Such a splitting might obviate many assertions about pagemoves here, IMHO. It would also serve to avoid painting negatively all 1/6 participants with an overbroad brush, which is a weakness of the current state of affairs. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The evolving events of Jan. 6 are a single subject, and this subject is best treated when not split into it's violent and non-violent aspects, as violence is just another part of the fabric of reality and doesn't qualify things as special and therefore needing special and separate treatment. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you generally, but in the valid example Feoffer gives above, Kenosha unrest and Kenosha unrest shooting were separated for exactly the reasons I've asserted above. I'll quote the closer there: "The main argument in favor of splitting, phrased several different ways, is that there is enough coverage in RS to support the independent notability of the shooting and that the shooting's notability overshadows that of the protests at this point." That appears to be the case here as well. The breaking and entering overshadows the main events of the day and falsely paints peaceful protestors as criminals. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Many reliable sources do use 'riots' but they don't use 'protests' at all to refer to the whole goings-on that day. There's evidence that they don't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but I can't work on that right now and likely can't for the next couple weeks. There's definitely a lot of encyclopedic information out there about the lies leading up to the "Save America Rally", and that rally and march over, that is separate from information about those who entered, vandalized, and rioted at the Capitol building. Reliable sources also do, when referring to people who remained a good distance away from the building itself, refer to the participants as "protestors" as opposed to rioters or "insurrectionists". A split should be heavily considered for both ARTICLESIZE reasons (it'd allow this to be expanded with further information about the events that took place in the building) as well as for encyclopedic reasons. Would need careful watching of both articles to ensure neither turned into a POVFORK and didn't duplicate content between them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes and no. I would't go for a strict 'split' for the reasons Alalch states, but I think we absolutely should make an article focusing primarily on the peaceful protests, summarized as needed in this article. This is particularly the case in light of Sund's testimony that a coordinated, planned, surprise attack began "approximately 20 minutes before [Trump's rally] ended". The vanguard of highly-motivated violent insurrectionists may never have even been at Ellipse. Feoffer (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In the abstract, I agree with you on a daughter article as a good thing, but it may not be viable. That's because I don't think that there's any additional layer of depth not already contained here that "waits" to be included in a daughter article, in order to justify it's existence; conversely, there is no extraneous layer of detail in this article. I don't see how removing anything with regard to the rally etc. could make this article better. So ultimately I don't see a benefit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't excise anything from this article. As to benefits, consensus for an "insurrection"/"attack" title might be one benefit. Agreed that there's no content that particularly "waits" to be included -- we could use a little more info about what Jones, Flynn, Papadopoulos and Stone had to say on Jan 5, but we should do that here. Feoffer (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The events of that day are only article-worthy because of the unprecedented domestic breach of the Capitol and the ensuing violence. While the pre-attack, nonviolent Jan. 6th rally was the largest such protest, and perhaps the only one in which Trump himself spoke (I won't swear on that, but I think it's true), it was also just one of a series that had occurred in D.C. between the election and January 6th. The other rallies don't have their own articles, nor would this one if it had remained nonviolent. (The other protests are described in 2020–21 United States election protests, which could be fleshed out further with nonviolent Jan. 6 details if desired.) While reasonable people can argue that the nonviolent part of the day should be emphasized more in this article, and that this article should have a more neutral title to reflect the totality of the day's experience, it would be a mistake to give the morning Jan. 6th protest rally its own article. (I'm humorously imagining a line at the end of the new article that says, "To read about what happened after 1:37 p.m., see next article.") Splitting this into two articles is not a realistic way to represent reality. Moncrief (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment D'oh! BusterD (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Huh? Moncrief (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. No offense intended. I was visualizing your imagining and it made me feel a bit foolish for my suggestion. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, got it now! No worries. I'm glad I could make you chuckle. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I need to disagree with the premise of your first sentence. The events of the day were article-worthy because for the first time in American History, a group of protestors invited and encouraged by the current President of the United States gathered in the capitol to express their dissatisfaction with the U.S. Congress performing a purely administrative function and approving the output of the Electoral College's vote on December 14. All because they didn't agree with the outcome of the EC's vote. That was unprecedented. I'd like to think wikipedians would have covered such unprecedented activity before any violence broke out. As it turns out, User:Another Believer created this page at 18:34 UTC (2:34pm EST): "On January 6, 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election"(NPR and Washington Post as sources) as events were unfolding. BusterD (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your points are fair enough, but all of Trump's reactions to the election results were unprecedented. It wasn't just a January 6th thing but part of a larger pattern. Perhaps that can be made clearer in other articles like 2020–21 United States election protests. I don't see the need to create a new article specifically about the first half of January 6th for the reasons you specify. Moncrief (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Moncrief, I don't support an article for that one protest, but I think that an article covering the early January protests/rallies/etc in general is likely due - including information about Trump's repeated exaggerations and outright lies, as well as protester activities. That would go on to cover the march to the Capitol, and then summarize (with a hatnote here) the storming thereof. Alternatively, I thank you for saying "reasonable people", because I've been looking for this to summarize more about the non-violent part of the day all along. However, we then run into ARTICLESIZE issues and a potential split for that reason anyway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez We very much have that article already 2020–21 United States election protests#January 2021 — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Alalch Emis. That's a much better example than the one I gave for nonviolent Jan 6 events and earlier. I'm going to edit my answer to include that link instead. Moncrief (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, there's definitely more encyclopedic information about the two days prior than just two short paragraphs - hence why I'm saying it may need to be split out of that article too for ARTICLESIZE and then summarized there and here - would also allow this article to be expanded much further without running into size issues. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If the relevant sections of the protests article (the parent article to the storming article) were expanded, it would be done simply by copying the corresponding portions of this article there. The result would be duplicate content, and that isn't satisfactory. Logically, a "solution" would be to indeed make a second daughter article and do what you propose. But if that article is also to be composed of the same content present here (indubitable), in order not to produce duplicate content, portions of the storming article in it's current state would have to be split elsewhere -- Well, I don't see how moving anything from the background section elsewhere would make this article better (only worse). And this article must be the best it can be and has priority over many other considerations because of it's formal importance rating. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but it's a little complicated, and from where I'm coming from, ultimately - no benefit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lol at protest article cliffhanger! If we make another article just on the protests, it would have to summarize the attack and links to the protests, not just pretend it never happened. Just as: Kenosha unrest summarizes the fatal shooting. Feoffer (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Moncrief, there's really only one event. It started down the National mall and moved to the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think the point people are making is that many of those who were at the rally at the Ellipse didn't end up going to the Capitol. But of course I agree with you in that I think the events of the day are inseparable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article about the event. Moncrief (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Moncrief, sure - but at the risk of invoking WMF's former counsel, not everyone who marched into Poland in 1939 went on to murder Jews in person, but history is pretty clear about them being Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• JzG, this is absolutely false and you know it. There are two separate events - both notable - Trump's lies and the associated peaceful rally/protests, and Trump's lies that led to what you insist on calling an insurrection, but is more accurately described as a group of people not present at the rally/protest but who stormed the Capitol building. I get that you disagree with Trump and the GOP on a lot of things. I get it. I do too. But you have let it affect your WP editing greatly. It's absolutely not helpful and is not leading to an improvement of the encyclopedia for you to continue violating NOTFORUM and NPOV on talk pages. It's valid to say the events are "inseparable" as Moncrief said - but Moncrief, unlike you, has remained civil and discussed based on WP policies - whereas you have continued editing based on your personal POV/opinions and attempted to derail discussions like this too many times. It's not helpful at all, and I'm going to respectfully request you disengage from this talkpage completely as you haven't been helping this discussion one bit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I second that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez, re: more accurately described as a group of people not present at the rally/protest but who stormed the Capitol building... I've not seen that said before, that there was a group of people who did not attend the rally but did storm (or whatever wording) the Capitol. Do you have a source for that? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, it would be more accurately stated as "people present in DC for the purpose of storming the Capitol, not for a peaceful rally/protest". It's well known, and others here have stated (and our article itself does) that the storming was started by people before the rally even ended and people started marching there. No, they didn't breach the building while the rally was ongoing - but the rioting started before the peaceful protestors even left the Eclipse. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"Absolutely false"? Bullshit. Other viewpoints certainly exist, but the Trump cult is not a peaceful thing, in any context. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"Insurrectionist" applied to groups and specific people

I undid a recent edit that used a Daily Beast source to justify applying the label "insurrectionist" to Babbit. I am of the opinion that the term "insurrectionist" violates NPOV whether applied to groups as a whole, or to individual people - especially when it is done based on known biased/opinionated sources such as the Daily Beast. I would like others to opine as to what guidelines we should follow when using the word "insurrectionist" in place of a more neutral word such as "rioter" in this article - both as applied to a group of unidentified people, as well as specific individuals. Obviously, we should not change direct quotes from sources when possible - this is about when we use that word in Wikipedia voice. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

While many of the participants were in fact spontaneous rioters, others came to DC explicitly to participate in an regime-changing Storm, a "day of reckoning" long predicted by the Q-cult. Reliable sources indicate Babbitt is one such person who "believed January 6 would be “the storm,” when QAnon mythology holds that Trump would capture and execute his opponents." (wapo). We can bend over backward for neutrality by preferring "rioters" and "attackers" in most cases, but enough is known about Babbit that the article should accurately label her: she wasn't swept up in a spontaneous riot, she flew across the country to participate in "the storm". Feoffer (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact you keep quoting "the storm" seems to be assuming that this was going to be a "storming" regardless. She went to participate in a "storm of support" is more accurate. Yes, she rioted, and attempted to enter the Capitol. But there's a reason the WaPo article doesn't call her an "insurrectionist". We can talk about how brainwashed she was, but that's still inappropriate sourced to a Daily Beast article. Furthermore, I opened this section (rather than just undoing and waiting for you to) to discuss in general the term - and hopefully get some consensus as to when we should and shouldn't be using it. There's clearly a consensus that "insurrection" is more POV than "riot" (and both their associated forms). So let's come to a consensus when it NPOV should be violated because the benefits outweigh the negatives - in general - and then we can discuss whether those apply to Babbit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)