Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Military-style parties in infobox?

Both sides are armed, so it may well make sense, but I think the use of the side params should be discussed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be something to discuss at Template talk:Infobox civil conflict, since it's the standard template. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear that that is the right infobox to be using. It is not clear why certain names are included and others aren't. This is breaking news, obviously, and we should not be rushing to fit it into a template. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou. /Julle (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou for two other reasons: (a) it's very unclear how the unrest was coordinated (or whether it was) (b) parties should characterize all parties. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that part of the infobox for now given it's 4:1. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of bringing it back, it was very useful FAISSALOO_(talk) 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflicted. It was a violent confrontation. Adding side complies with standard in other American riot articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Washington,_D.C.,_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement. But generally US violent riot conflict do not use the tag. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Strongly opposed adding it. It doesn't make sense and it was a source of vandalism. Puts the deaths on the same level as soldiers in war rather than an unfortunate loss of life. Suggests protestors and capitol police all went into it expecting casualties like a war. As a first-order logical problem, few people in the capitol were associated with an "organization" and of those who were, many were associated with multiple. This is not like the Allied forces and the Axis. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties in infobox

Someone removed the sides part of the infobox 'as per weight of support' with only 4 or 5 users even weighing in their opinion. I believe it's necessary to know the involved parties, and that the only problem was overcomplication. I think that it should be re-added, but kept simplified. Such as Pro-Trump protesters, and then just DC, VA, MD, NJ and the national guard or something? I'm not sure but I feel putting the involved parties in the infobox will help give a better overview. Flalf^Talk 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest discussing this at #Military-style parties in infobox? rather than starting a new section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this suggestion doesn't really cover the reason given by Bondegezou and DenverCoder9 for why they opposed it. Maybe you should make a sandbox version of this proposed change with citations so that it is a bit clearer and to try to resolve the issues. So far, I am in agreement with their responses. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest it should eventually be added back, but only after the dust has settled a bit and we can get a good sense of what happened from the sources. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If/when the participants are added back at some point, here's what I propose based on preliminary knowledge of whom the participants were. All with stringent citations.

January 6 United States Capitol attack
Parties
Trump supporters Proud Boys Boogaloo Boys Three Percenters Oath Keepers QAnon believers Other pro-Trump and far-right rioters Metropolitan Police Capitol Police FBI DHS U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives

ImperatorPublius (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When you include sides in a conflict, you should include the number, or if not possible, approximate number of "soldiers" in each "country". Scare quotes because this obvious isn't a traditional conflict box. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead parties in infobox

I don't see how this isn't pure WP:OR. I initially removed it but then noticed that fatalities and injuries were organized by side, so self-reverted. But seriously, who decided that (e.g.) Madison Cawthorn was a lead figure on the Trump side? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes this seems fraught with difficulty. Dividing the fatalities by "side", especially when at least one was unrelated to the storming, seems inhumane. These deaths (and even the injuries) did not seem to be the goal of either side. If you watch the video of the breach of the barrier you will see protesters helping a police officer to their feet. You may also have seen pictures of an officer treating a protestor's eye with an eyebath. The officer who shot Ashli Babbitt will be investigated, not sent back with a clap on the back, and a medal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Removed

I've removed both the "sides" and "leadparties" values from the infobox after they were once again re-added, since I haven't seen any consensus to reintroduce them, and there are major sourcing issues with them. I've left an inline note asking people not to reintroduce them without achieving consensus first; I assume people just haven't realized there was already discussion about not including them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Noting there is some additional discussion below at . GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Can there be a vote on this of some sort? I support the mentioned infobox due to ease of determining who the parties involved were. At the current moment we can omit and debate as to whether political parties should be involved but the actual actors like Capitol police and Q should not be delayed in posting 50.75.4.146 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

See #Proposed enriched, new Infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no rush. Elsewhere people are maintaining that the Capitol Police assisted the protesters (though I think they are wrong), and no-one knows what "Q"'s objective is, it's quite likely that they are laughing at their followers. Not much is as clear cut as in a military conflict. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Agreed. Inhumane to try to describe it as a war and many of the people caught up in it as soldierrs. Capitol police assisted protestors.

I support having the infobox belligerents added, as seen in 2020 United States racial unrest for example Bruhmoney77 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I support having the infobox belligerents added as well. It was used for the2020 United States racial unrest as stated above. One may argue that this event was even more severe considering a group of people entered into the building that represents the United States government. Football3434 (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll re-voice here the sentiment from many editors that this kind of comparison is horrifically offensive. I assume editors who don't oppose haven't thought through the implications of equating this to a battle. I'm in favor of deleting this section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it offensive to have belligerents for a civil conflict. 2020 United States racial unrest, 2019-20 Hong Kong protests, 2019-2020 Chilean protests all have them for example. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

We use this in many instances that are similar to this one. This was a conflict to say the least. Many conflicts have had a belligerents infobox. Football3434 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So I guess I’ll just put a support toward adding belligerents to this article’s infobox. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Riots generally have military style info boxes. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol should have a military style info box because it is a civil conflict with obvious sides, moreso than other similar events as it is widely considered a coup attempt, sedition, insurrection, ...etc by Congress, other members of US government, mainstream news organizations, ...etc; all consider it to be a literal armed conflict. There were clearly two sides with opposing goals. The attackers include various organized groups unlike most other riots, and they had a clear goal that was not unifying. Of course there are some good acts by rioters and police, but there are good acts even in war between enemies. Warlightyahoo (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Role of Capitol Police in the early entrance to the Capitol building

Having seen serious reporting on the role of (some) Capitol police in hindering, or not hindering and possibly aiding, entrance to the Capitol, am a bit curious why it is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that it was the ease of entrance, facilitated by (some) of these armed security force ppl, is why a number of persons (see the lede paragraph) are calling it a coup. Would be helpful to gather articles and references and explicate the situation, to see if their is a consensus verifiable view on these alleged actions. N2e (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mind sharing this serious reporting you've seen? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't come across any 'serious' reports so far, but Tyrese Gibson has been posting a lot of videos on his Instagram. One of them also shows a 'protestor' carrying the disputed flag. Not sure about the credibility or sources though. example 180.151.224.189 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This Reddit-linked video may apply to this question: 'The police opened the gates for Capitol rioters'. Reddit says it was posted at about 4-5pm EST. Might be worth preserving. It's clear in the (small) video that many other people are videoing the event ... so there may be more. Twang (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A section in the article has been added—2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Scrutiny of Capitol security response—with quite decent sourcing. Thanks! N2e (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there are many protesters on the near side of the barrier already. This may have simply been a pragmatic move to reduce the chance of crush injuries or stampedes. (Another part of the barrier was beached by force, presumably before this.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

MOS:LEADCITE and readability

Do we really need so many citations in the lead? "The riots and storming of the Capitol have been described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." currently has six references on it, this seems excessive as it's clearly explained later in the article, too. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. This is a recent and controversial event, so erring on the side of caution by adding citations is probably the smartest move, at least in the short term. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but six citations on such a statement still seems excessive. One or two per statement, maximum. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The six sources are being used to support the use of three very specific and politically charged terms (insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism). The use of each of those terms needs to be sourced, so more sources makes sense. (Essentially, instead of putting 2-3 sources next to each of the three terms, the sources were all put at the end.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be put next to the word they are backing up, then? Would be more useful to readers than a block of sources. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Elliot321: that having the citations closer to the words they're supporting would be helpful here and want to add that WP:CITEBUNDLEing for multiple sources supporting a single claim would also help. Wingedserif (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif, problem is, nobody cares about citations in the lead. It is not current anymore, as it only occurs in Jan 6, so it is encouraged to have the least amount of citations, as they must be covered about in the body. GeraldWL 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, it's still a current event. I'm not sure the lead of the article only summarizes the rest of the article which might be the bigger issue. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Elliot321, yes, it simply summarizes the article; a lead is essentially a summary. It's not current but recent, there's a big line differing them. Though it will still be hard to clean the article, the event has passed, and it might be easier to do so. I tried to, but the high activity of the article caused several edit conflicts and I gave up in eventual. Using an In use tag I think is also ineffective, so I'll wait until activity slows. This debate also initially occurred in the Talk of COVID-19 pandemic; as you can see, its lead has minimal citations now. GeraldWL 13:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis yeah, edit conflicts can be quite a pain (were you here yesterday? it was impossible to get anything in).

Anyway, I'm just somewhat opposed to slapping an ugly template on the page. At least, wait until the "recent event" template is removed and the page calms down a bit, meanwhile, having a few extra sources isn't really a big problem. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Incited by Trump

New York Times has gone ahead and labelled the riot/protest/blabla an "attack incited by Trump." Should be included in the article somewhere. 180.151.224.189 (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Donald Trump has called the people to do that. We have to consider him as an abettor of this. Also I hope the term protest would be removed soon from the title. The apropriate title is 2021 Far-right attack at the US Capitol.

No. The article MUST remain neutral to both parties and not heavily BASED and lean and pander to the far-left. Bombastic Brody (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen no evidence that President Trump, explicitly or otherwise, Called for anything like the storming of the Capital Building. I have found what appears to be a transcript of his remarks here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-told-supporters-stormed-capitol-hill/story?id=75110558Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with brody, it wouldnt be too neutral to say that donald trump insited the 'Storming' Call me Deathisaninevitability Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Right now in these times of tension, we really do not need to incite more claims that will only cause more tension between users and their political affiliations here on Wikipedia. Bombastic Brody (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved partially with the article renaming/move, but I would like to challenge the idea that changing an article title to be more descriptive counts as pandering, in itself. "Protest" is already such a vague word, especially given how many take place in DC all the time. And in this case, in particular, it's hard to define who the "sides" are—falling into standard left/right divisions is unhelpful here. my 2¢. Wingedserif (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What's unhelpful when they're clearly the far-right? 92.0.9.176 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that incitement to riot is a crime (as per https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2101.html), which President Donald Trump has not yet been convicted of, it seems premature to describe the riots as incited by Trump. Perhaps that he has been accused of inciting the riots?

Agreed, thank you. Also please sign your comments. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't post in this section unless you've read "WP:BLPCRIME" below. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

shot intruder

In this article (compliments to all the editors) it states that the fatality ..."was shot by law enforcement "... whilst in the specific article Ashli Babbitt it says ...It is unclear who shot her.... with both being referenced. Until it is clear who shot the woman should this article read that it is unclear. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 09:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(7:48) "Multiple individuals forced entry into the Capitol building and attempted to gain access to the House- and attempted to gain access to the House Room, which was still in Session. They were confronted by plainclothes US Capitol police officers, at which time one Capitol police officer discharged their service weapon striking an adult female. She was transported to a local hospital where, after all life-saving efforts failed, she was pronounced deceased." The quote is from Police Department Chief Robert Contee as noted at 4:18 in the video. Given that the DC Police Department Twitter account is the official account for the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, I would say that it is clear enough based on Contee's words. There are aspects that are unclear, but those will be dealt with pending their investigation. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, a clear good reference. As the article Ashli Babbitt has been merged the problem (if there was one) no longer exists. Ta. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

hello, I'm not good at editing the page or I would try. I hav an issue with the "tally marks" section. the death is listed under United States government. it is noted that the loss is a former U.S.A.F. member, which would make her part of the us government, BUT she was also shot because she was part of the "storm" which would make her casualty on the left side of the "tally marks" section. I wish I had better vocabulary, but as a donator to this site, I'd like to think it is accurately portrayed. I use it for information, and falsely labeled information causes a loss in faith.32ashu (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)32ashu

We have since removed this. Bear in mind we are all volunteers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

The "coup" & "insurrection" discussion

Seeing that there are now sources beginning to describe this as a "coup attempt", I wanted to make an organized section discussing the situation. It also seems that some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt, but the forceful entry into the capitol was a coup attempt. Below I will make a few sections to organize this discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what is meant by "some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt." Which legislative act? The joint session counting votes? RobP (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In the heat of the moment, most newspapers will use emotive and hyperbolic language because their job is to attract readers' attention. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should describe the event as it is described by authors after the event, not in the middle of it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Coup", "Insurrection", and "Sedition" have specific legal implications. Beyond WP:BLPCRIME, confirmation needs to come from an official source. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources describing as "coup attempt"

This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "coup attempt" or similar (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

Generally reliable sources

• The Atlantic – This is a Coup
• Bellingcat – "what many are calling an attempted coup"
• BuzzFeed News – "Facebook Forced Its Employees To Stop Discussing Trump's Coup Attempt", "President Trump Just Used Social Media To Attempt A Coup", "Trump Is Justifying His Supporters' Attempted Coup With More Lies About The Election", "There’s No Evidence Antifa Was Involved In The Attempted Coup At The Capitol"
• CNN – "Wednesday's coup attempt at the US Capitol.", "Trump's stunning attempt at a coup"
• The Daily Beast – "It’s Our First-Ever Coup Attempt—and There’s No Doubt Who’s Behind It"
• The Daily Dot – "engaging in the first attempted coup against the American government since the Civil War"
• The Guardian – "the attempted coup continues to unfold"
• Haaretz – Trump’s Legacy: From Charlottesville to Coup Attempt, an Embrace of Far-right Violence
• The Intercept – "Trump did make a half-hearted effort to end the attempted coup he had requested"
• Los Angeles Times – "looking a lot like an attempted coup, as violent Trump supporters laid siege to the nation’s Capitol"
• Le Monde diplomatique – "after participating in the coup d'état in Congress", "A woman who participated in the coup in Congress"
• Mother Jones – "It was outright rebellion, an attempt at an actual political coup"
• MSNBC – "Trump incited a riot as part of a clumsy attempt at a coup"
• The Nation – "Joe Biden spoke about the attempted coup"
• The New Republic – "A Very American Coup", "praised those who carried out the coup attempt", "As for Trump, his cuckoo coup attempts"
• New York – "American democracy in a violent crescendo to Trump’s coup failed attempt", "Fourteen senators had originally indicated support for the attempted coup"
• The New Yorker – "Only after a riot and an attempted coup has Congress finally ended the 2020 Presidential election"
• Rolling Stone – "The Attempted Coup at the Capitol Proves This Is the United States of QAnon"
• The Times – "watching a coup unfold in the final moments of the presidency"
• Der Spiegel – "Coup of the losers"
• TheWrap – "The former NYC mayor, it seemed, tried to call one of Trump’s Senate allies to beg for more help pulling off what amounts to coup"
• U.S. News and World Report – "It looked like a coup attempt in the very sort of undeveloped country"
• USA Today – "With the Capitol's breach, President Trump's virtual coup on Twitter became all too real"
• Vanity Fair – "urging White House officials not to speak to Trump or enable his coup attempt", "Trump's attempted coup", "The Eerie Charlottesville Echoes of Trump Supporters' Capitol Coup"
• Vox – "The effort is flagrantly undemocratic, a kind of legal coup"
• The Washington Post – "She was one of four fatalities from the violent coup attempt", "stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup"

Other sources

• Government Executive – "OPM Failed to Issue Guidance for D.C. Federal Workers During Coup Attempt"
• Fortune – "A coup attempt and an undivided government", "Attempted coup at Capitol presents key opportunity for cyberattack, experts warn"
• NASDAQ – "GOVTS WRAP - Blue sweep stirs stimulus reflation trade, put on pause by Trump's coup d'état attempt"
• The Mercury News – "Trump’s clumsy coup fuels dangerous national division"
• Lexington Herald-Leader – "McConnell’s defense of democracy far too little, far too late amid Capitol coup attempt"
• Kansas City Star – "Assault on democracy: Sen. Josh Hawley has blood on his hands in Capitol coup attempt"
• Washington City Paper – "D.C. Shuts Down After Violent Insurrectionists’ Attempted Coup"
• GQ – "Scenes From a Coup Attempt"
• The Jerusalem Post – "Can the coup in Washington happen in Jerusalem? - analysis"
• Business Insider – "Advertisers pull commercials around news coverage of attempted coup at US Capitol"
• Gizmodo – "American Airlines Bans Alcohol on Flights Out of D.C. After Trump Loyalists Attempt Coup"
• Mashable – "The attempted coup revealed what really poisons America"
• TechCrunch – "Social media allowed a shocked nation to watch a coup attempt in real time"
• Uproxx – "Sen. Josh Hawley’s Home State Newspaper Took Him To The Woodshed For His Starring Role In Trump’s MAGA Coup Attempt"
• Perfil – "Trump leads the US to self-destruction and there is fear of self-coup"
• elDiario.es – "An attempted coup that bears the signature of Donald Trump"
• Okdiario – "Attempted coup in the capital of the world"
• Grupo Noticias – "Attempted coup in the US: Trump supporters break into Congress and confront the Police"
• Handelsblatt – "Trump's unsuccessful coup: Biden faces a Herculean task"
• BFM TV – "Pro-Trump coup in the US Congress"
• Orange S.A. – "Pro-Trump coup in the US Congress"
• Euronews – "Calm in Washington after pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill"
• France Info – "Pro-Trump coup: "Will democracy be able to reduce these fractures?" Asks a political scientist specializing in the United States"
• Ouest-France – "IN IMAGES, IN PICTURES. The coup by supporters of Donald Trump"
• La Voix du Nord – "Pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill: one dead, curfew in effect in Washington"
• Stuttgarter Nachrichten – "Trump supporters occupy Capitol: The second coup - a low point in democracy"
• Luxemburger Wort – "The pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill"
• Habertürk – "Last minute US coup attempt: Congress building was raided: 4 dead"
• Yeniçağ – "Coup attempt in America. Is the USA behind every coup and every uprising good?"

Sources describing as "insurrection"

This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "insurrection" (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

Generally reliable sources

• Associated Press – "Insurrection Marks Moment of Reckoning for Republicans"
• Axios "Former presidents denounce "insurrection" at U.S. Capitol" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxterria (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• CNN – "Insurrection fueled by conspiracy groups, extremists and fringe movements"
• The Guardian – "'Incited by the president': politicians blame Trump for insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• The Intercept – "INSIDE THE INSURRECTION"
• Mother Jones – "Liveblog: Trump Incites Violent Insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• NBC – "A 'surreal, bizarre' day: Congress returns after pro-Trump insurrection"
• NPR – "What Groups Were Involved In Pro-Trump Insurrection?"

• Lulu Garcia-Navarro (senior NPR journalist) – "NPR guidance: we won’t be calling the people who stormed the Capitol ‘protestors’ - they are ‘pro-Trump extremists’ and what they are doing is ‘insurrection’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Insurrection At The Capitol Is A TV Event That Will Live In History RobP (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Quartz – Big business is turning against Trump and his fellow insurrection enablers
• Rolling Stone – ‘Deeply Disturbing and Alarming’: World Leaders Condemn MAGA Insurrection
• USA Today – "'Disgraceful': World leaders shocked by US Capitol 'insurrection' "
• Vanity Fair – "DONALD TRUMP SAYS VIOLENT INSURRECTION THAT KILLED AT LEAST ONE PERSON WAS JUSTIFIED", "'Unfit to Remain in Office': In the Wake of Insurrection, the Nation’s Newspapers Excoriate Trump En Masse"
• Vox – "The far right is falsely blaming antifa for the pro-Trump insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• Washington Post – "Pence says 'violence never wins,' McConnell decries 'attempted insurection ' as Congress resumes Electoral Count.", "From historic day to 'insurrection,' how the mob takeover of the Capitol unfolded in news coverage"

Trump caused the assault on the Capitol. He must be removed. "Failing that, senior Republicans must restrain the president. The insurrection came just as many top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), were finally denouncing Mr. Trump’s antidemocratic campaign to overturn the election results." RobP (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• ABC News - 4 dead after US Capitol breached by pro-Trump mob during 'failed insurrection' RobP (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• New York Times - Resuming electoral counting, McConnell condemns the mob assault on the Capitol as a ‘failed insurrection.’ RobP (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Foreign Policy - The Military Stayed Out of the Insurrection, but It Isn’t Over Yet RobP (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Others

• ABC News The insurrection at the U.S. Capitol offers a new, and perhaps final, moment of reckoning ...
• Capital Gazette From Washington to Annapolis, dismay, anger and disbelief follow insurrection on Capitol Hill
• PBS News Hour – "Acting U.S. Attorney General says U.S. Capitol insurrection an ‘intolerable attack’"
• Marketplace (radio program) What the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol means for economic recovery
• Irish Times ‘Insurrection’: How the world’s media covered the storming of the US Capitol by Trump supporters
• CNBC Trump tweets amid violent Capitol Hill insurrection as leaders beg him to address the nation
• WAMU-FM A Fatal Insurrection At The U.S. Capitol Leaves D.C. Under Curfew, Public Emergency
• Oregon Public Broadcasting Portland’s protesters spot double standard in restrained response to Capitol insurrection
• KMGH-TV Denver leaders react to U.S. Capitol insurrection
• Variety TV News Scrambles to Cover Insurrection at U.S. Capitol in Surreal National Moment
• KSAT-TV Some Texas Republicans decried Capitol insurrection — but didn’t connect the violence to their own rhetoric (preceding 12 added by Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC))
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – "'Insurrection at the Capitol': Trump supporters storm Congress in a deadly assault on American democracy" Alalch Emis (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

In the sections above, "coup" is more widely used internationally. On the other hand, it seems that "insurrection" is more prominent in English sources and in use among US politicians. "Storm" does not appear to be more popular than the other two, though it appears frequently in German media.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Very few not-in-the-moment sources use coup without attempted, because the word coup does imply a success. The word storm doesn't have that implication, a storm is a still a storm whether it's successful or not. Same with a protest, an attack, a demonstration, etc. I think that we should avoid using coup simply because we can't use it without putting a qualifier there, which instantly strays into commentary territory. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Holding on Changes I appreciate the work that went in to making this list, however, caution should be exercised. Business Insider is currently the subject of an intense discussion at WP:RSN and I question the quality of Uproxx for reporting civil-military relations; many of these are op-eds and editorials that are using the word "coup" as a term of art; and several of these are non-English language sources where the nuance of the word coup does not precisely reflect in English translation. Factually, if it were determined to be a putsch of some type, it would be an autogolpe and not a coup. A coup is an attack against the existing executive power, while an autogolpe is an attack against the existing legislative power. As time progresses, this nuance will be learned and internalized by reporters on beats that normally don't deal with this subject and we may see an evolution in nomenclature. We must chronicle the terms used by RS, however, that does not preclude us from proceeding with deliberation and caution, particularly insofar as current events are concerned. Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Not a survey, but thanks for the info as I agree that we should wait and created this discussion so we can pick apart the sources while we wait. The op-eds included are written by the editorial boards of the said sources, showing that the term they use is what the publication decides best describes the event. "Putsch" is not used often in English and especially not in this circumstance, though it is often synonymous with "coup" when used. Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue. An autogolpe or self-coup is a type of coup, so it would still be accurate to describe it as a "coup attempt" without being too specific on what type of coup it may be (which seems like many publications have done by simply calling the event a "coup attempt"). Also, we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt", such as the 1851 French coup d'état, the 1973 Uruguayan coup d'état and the 1970 Lesotho coup d'état. So if the event were to be determined to be a self-coup attempt, then it would be acceptable to name this the 2021 United States coup d'état attempt in accordance with predecessor articles. That is, unless, sources give us a special name for the event.--WMrapids (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue." I regret to inform you that's an objectively false statement. As the French term is invoked in English, a coup d'etat is understood to be an attack against the executive power in all literature on the subject while the Spanish term autogolpe is invoked to mean an attack against the legislative authority by the executive. I can't find my copy of Luttwack's Coup d'Etat at the moment, but I'm pretty certain he clarifies it that way (and it is the definitive source on the subject), but there's a breadth of other scholarship on this as well in the academic literature (e.g. [1] or Paul Brooker's Non Democratic Regimes [page 83 in my edition]). "we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt"" Please see WP:WINARS. In any case, this is all neither here nor there since it sounds like we both agree we should wait to implement any changes. Chetsford (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I did some searches just then, most of the articles I just read referred to it as a "riot" or the "protestors storming the capitol building". I'm not seeing a lot of obvious references to coups, and my personal feeling is, a coup would involve some level of sophisticated organistion, this is just the working of a mob. Just my 2c! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: The simple definition of a coup is "the removal of an existing government from power" (Wikipedia), "a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power" (Oxford) or "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" (Merriam-Webster), all meaning that it is the removal or change of a government, which generally can constitute multiple branches, not only the executive. However, it seems that you are more interested in the intricate definition of a coup according to various scholarly opinions which, as you can see in some articles above, are divided. Your opinion is respected, but we do not use WP:OR. Reliable sources seem to be using the simple definition approach. As for WP:WINARS, that is obvious. The articles were listed as examples for if this event is determined to be a coup attempt by reliable sources, not as a source to determine the article title.--WMrapids (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate you looking up the word "coup" in the dictionary, we generally frown on WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I feel like this article by the Brookings Institution makes good points and pretty much gives an explanation of what I said above.--WMrapids (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Dropping the not-a-guideline essay WP:COUP. It's a pretty hardline stance, used a few times discussing South American politics. Kingsif (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: That's helpful. It seems like many reliable sources are describing this a "coup attempt", though it's still early so we are working on determining Wikipedia:Verify. Due to the importance of this article, we can be sure WP:OR should not be a problem as well. WP:NPOV seems to be alright too as numerous reliable sources have verified that Biden had won the election and that such acts of reversing the election are unlawful, so describing this as a "coup attempt" would be neutral. It seems like we are just working on the verifiability regarding how to describe the event at this point (insurrection, coup attempt, etc.)--WMrapids (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• If looking at more sources, The Guardian has now collected all its coverage under the tag "US Capitol stormed" on its website. But then they have a headline calling it an insurrection, and an opinion piece saying to call it a coup. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Look at the multiple sources added above into a generally reliable section. Many new sources being released this morning.--WMrapids (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but The New York Times has published an article that explicitly rejects the "coup" label. Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is in my mind too early to use these types of words. The most accurate statement is protest turned riot. Unless someone can prove that the people involved had an organized plan to overthrow Congress, which is very doubtful, than the other labels don't apply. Also a lot of the sources using these terms are opinion pieces, they can be useful in describing what people 'think' of what happened, but not what it actually was. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside my own personal opinion about this event, I wonder why do we need to count noses & apply just a single label. Why not write something like the following: "While this has been described as a coup [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], others have described it as an insurrection [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], or a riot [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here]." IMHO, that would adhere to NPOV: we are reporting what others say, not our own opinions. (And we can save our discussion energy for which sources to use as examples.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• this is about the name. The RtM to something other than "protests" was urgently needed, but there will be another name change, ideally in about a week from now. Alalch Emis (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would consider a coup to be an attempt by a group of high ranking government officials to suddenly seize the reigns of power, generally by posing a threat to the life or freedom of the existing leader. The storming was not by government officials and did not appear to have their support to take control of the government. It also seems that most of the people who broke in were not there in some sort of an attempt to take control of the government. As such the 'coup' label is unhelpful to readers. I am more supportive of insurrection, especially given its use by NPR and AP. Generally speaking, this seems most similar to Euro-Midan. ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.... an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Also, Biden used that term.

A coup is a quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.... a sudden violent or illegal seizure of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What these guys did was really stupid. I would put that in the article if I could. For now there is only speculation about insurecction or conspiracyt. I'm joining others in voting wait and see. Spudlace (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I really apologize if I'm in the wrong section, I'm really rarely contributing to Wikipedia as a whole, I just wanted to point out some thoughts on the naming convention for this article:

1. The "See Also" list gives other examples of "storming the legislature building". However, none of those articles are titled using the same naming convention. For example, the Armenian and Serbian articles are listed as "Protests" and not "Storming of X", even though the situation is almost exactly the same.
2. Different naming conventions are often thrown around as political rhetoric, so a media site calling something a coup does not (by itself) make it a coup, any more than political rhetoric from conservative news sites are taken in the opposite direction
3. Strictly speaking, a coup implies a military insurrection of some kind, but all the people in this situation are civilians, not military

So the naming convention of the article I would support, one way or the other, would be simply something that is consistent with other articles that already exist LutherVinci (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Federal law enforcement assistance of Trump

European officials are now saying that Trump received assistance with establishing supporters within the Capitol. Security officials from Europe stated they train with US federal forces and that "it's obvious that large parts of any successful plan were just ignored". This is interesting as one argument regarding the definition of "coup" is that it requires assistance from armed branches of the government.--WMrapids (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection?

While the previous move was closed with the recommendation to wait about a week, we are now about three days after the event. After reviewing more recent sources, it seems that the term "insurrection" has been determined to be the most common term. CNN is even hosting a special titled "The Trump Insurrection". Any opinions on this?--WMrapids (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jake Angeli - the most notable protester

Shouldn’t Wikipedia mention Jake Angeli, the most notable protester with costum and horns? He gained world fame and surely is notable. Topjur01 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as it is clearly expressed he is a neonazi, conspiracy theorist and Proud Boys member. Samuel D Rowe (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I created a one-sentence stub to get the ball rolling. Improvements welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently the section "Response" lists three protestors: "Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli..." Proposal: Extending this paragraph with two other protestors with a sentence like: "Further identified protestors include Richard “Bigo” Barnett who was sitting in Pelosi's office and Adam Johnson who was smiling while carrying away a lectern."

Sources: --- 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done Notable involved protesters/rioters/terrorists/<your loaded descriptor term here> will be mentioned at some point if they aren't already but not as a result of this edit request. Especially due to the fact many sources are still in the air. Additionally we shouldn't glorify the involved parties unless they are supremely notable or necessary to mention. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support Topjur01 for the inclusion of an image of Jake Angeli (and a brief but of info about him). He appears to be heavily associated with the protest, and there are pictures of him in the media - not just the US media, but International media. IMHO, for whatever reason, he seems to have been picked as the poster boy of the protesters. There is a bunch of RS referring to him, including articles discussing him in the title. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

#metoo. Jake Angeli is THE symbol of that crazy event. Virtuella (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are we using such soft language

Why are we normalizing this by using soft language like storming. CatLife4ever (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the wording that reliable sources use. Majavah (talk!) 14:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources also use insurrection. Storming was chosen by the user who started the request to move, as the media was using the verb "storm" while the situation had been developing to describe what's going on, but immediately afterwards the media and public officials also started using "insurrection" to qualify the event. There is no serious division here: "storming" the how to the what which is the "insurrection". I believe that eventually, the name will be changed to insurrection. Probably already more reliable sources use and advocate using "insurrection" at this point. Some advocate using it with particular certitude, and the same can't be said about storming, which appears to be an ad-hoc term. It hasn't been demonstrated on this talk page that more RSs use "storming" in the title, it's just a vague impression of some, and possibly not a currently relevant impression as the headlines are multiplying. Alalch Emis (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO "Insurrection" is more of a value judgement, and a statement of intention. It's more ambiguous than "storming", which describes the physical act. Personally, I don't find "storming" to be particularly soft language either; it's usually reserved for times of war or insurrection, and it (accurately) implies violent conflict and forceful entry. 69.172.176.96 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia need to use reliable sources and I agree. But we are talking about something that is happening live, we see it with our own eyes and all the planet watch it. So, I agree that generaly the language is too soft. I am not talking about the word storming. But I think we have to talk clearly about a dark day for democracy. I think we have to talk about Neo-Nazis supporters of Trump (this is something clear, the alt-right flags are clear even in the image of the infobox), aiming to destroy democracy. Why we are hiding obvious things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarises what Reliable Sources say about a subject. Being able to see something "with our own eyes" is irrelevent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet more sources national and international use the terms 'coup' and 'insurrection' than 'storming'. Very few reliable sources use the latter. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources are using all kinds of language for this, they are definitely not just using storming Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As of the last few hours, insurrection seems to be the word of choice from reliable sources. We can wait until Monday when we will know more. Spudlace (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming is the correct word because it describes the facts of what happened on the ground. To use the word "coup" is to add an interpretation separate from the ground truth. Unless there's broad consensus, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. That's why storming is such a good word for a fraught event: it describes exactly what happened. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is the ground truth. There was no consensus about "storming", only consensus about "not protests". There will be another RtM in a few days to change the name to "insurrection". This term is supported by RS. Alalch Emis (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Mob: biased words

Should some other neutral word (e.g. crowd, supporters, etc.) be used (except for quotes) or is it ok as it is from the aspect of NPOV? Mob sounds derogatory to me and we should use neutral language regardless of our opinion about the event and the people involved. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Many, many reliable sources use the "mob" language. We follow the language used by the sources. Neutrality^talk 14:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• These sources have an opinion about the event (as they should). Our job is to keep that voice out of an encyclopedia.

• These same sources might describe a homicide as a "slaughter", but it's our job to use a more neutral word. There's no point in using a value word when there are equivalent words without the negative tone. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point of view, but there are also numerous sources using the word 'rioters' or 'crowd' or something else. And the media takes a stance that or another way, which we as an encyclopedia should not. Taking a look at WP:NPOV, I find the following: "neutral terms are generally preferable" and "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:EPSTYLE states: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think mob is fitting to be used occasionally throughout the article. The definition provided by a Google search was "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." While not all demonstrators were there for violence, there obviously were many that were. We could use mob more frequently when addressing the individuals that breached the building? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The point isn't the definition. The point is the connotation. There are logically equivalent words without the value judgement.

This could work in specific contexts (as occurs in the article: "angry mob", "violence of mob"). Then, the more specific question is whether we should use this in the lead: "Subsequently, a pro-Trump mob marched on Congress and eventually stormed the building." Probably something else would work better in this place; the section providing details uses the terms "rally attendees" and "rioters", so one of these terms should also be used in the lead. Also as per WP:LEAD. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Mob" sounds right because this is language from sources. And the "mob" is not necessarily disorganized. Some of the video show groups or organized and apparently trained attackers. That is exactly how Russian GRU-led forces took over the entire Crimea without firing a shot. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• From Merriam-Webster: "a large and disorderly crowd of people; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action." The crowd storming the capitol was large, very disorderly (had no clear goal in mind), and there was much documented destruction. I can't really see any argument for them not being a mob. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition misses the point that the word is charged. "demonstration" equally fits the definition because it includes violence, but we would not want to use that word either for its charged connotation. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy does not forbid, for example, to acknowledge rather common opinions such as death being bad or puppies being cute. Nor does it require us to describe serial killers in such a way that reading the article does not negatively affect your opinion of them. If you feel describing the events here reflects negatively on, say, the president-unelect, the cause if far more likely to be found in the nature of the events themselves rather than the way they are presented. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A serial killer can commit an heinous act, and this article should make anyone think less of the protestors, but it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to describe a murder as a "slaughter". That's the point OP is making and I agree with her/him. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• While I have added two uses of the word "mob" to the article myself, I think we should be very careful here. I have reviewed the use of the word "mob" in several hundred pages in the category Category:2020 United States racial unrest, and we rarely use the word at all in Wikipedia's voice, even when it is used in a cite or quotation. For the curious I counted (roughly) 7 usages in WP voice, 2 referring to historic incidents, about 10 in references and 2 in quotes. This article has 4 in WP voice, 6 in quotes and 28 in references. So:

  It looks as though we are following sources.

  We are not using "mob" a huge amount, but still far more than we usually do when discussing something that can convincingly fit the definition.

• However Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, no tone. We should wherever possible avoid words that imply judgement, even when that judgement is widely shared.
• For this reason we should avoid "mob" in WP voice wherever possible.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

• Strongly agree. There is no point in using the word "mob" when there are equivalent definitions without implied judgement. Removing "mob" loses nothing. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you a lot to everyone for your insightful feedback. It seems reasonable to me to conclude that this word mob could work in some contexts, but should be used very sparingly and hesitantly. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we haven't reached consensus about whether it's ok to use at all, but for now editors should really favor equivalent, neutral words that lose none of the meaning. In a week we'll know what to call it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Treason and Insurrection and Sedition

WP needs to (for obvious reasons) be superhumanly careful with these three words. They may fit, but they could quickly be editorialized and get out of hand. Whereas, I, a regular "dude" may find them appropriate; WP may (and some users) take odds or offense with their inclusion. But, let's face facts, if "coup" or "attempted coup" and "insurrection" are proper terms, we can only assume the "treason" and "sedition" may equally work as well. I'm not saying this because the words are used heavily (or at all) in the main article; I'm saying this because I want WP to simply "be careful, and let calmer editors prevail." The dust must settle, fuller perspectives will shine through like a beacon, and the truth will win the day.

America will rebound from these events. The Union is stronger than a rabble storming a building, after all. Thank you for reading this. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the terms, so not using them in Wikipedia would be wrong and inaccurate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, I think the majority of regular editors have this in mind, if you've read the talk page. I've not seen anyone mention "treason" or "sedition", for that matter. But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places. "Insurrection" is widely used, and in probably dozens upon dozens of reliable sources at this point, in editorial voice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable, but slanted sources. It's important to also attribute these characterizations, and keep it out of wikivoice. 2607:9880:1A38:138:AC21:BA4E:B6EC:478E (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. A murder should never be characterized as a "slaughter", no matter how brutal it is. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussions on the first sentence

First sentence

Note, there is an in-line before the lead of the article. Until consensus is reached, please do not add/change the lead with any of the words or phrases in question.

I think the first sentence should include something about the storming happening at the urging or incitement of Trump. That is really quite central to the reception of the incident and its political magnitude. (RS have overwhelmingly stated that Trump and his associates incited (or similar wording) the storming, so that's not the issue here, only whether it's important enough to be in the first sentence)

I would propose e.g. one of these:

• On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of Trump and his associates
• On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol, incited by Trump and his associates.

--Tataral (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My official thing is a strong oppose to adding anything about Trump into the lead. I am not as opposed to the 2nd one, but the first one I am very strong to oppose it. That lead sorta says “Pres. Trump said ‘Storm the Capitol’, which he never said.” Elijahandskip (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead already includes a ton of material about Trump, including his incitement. The question here is only whether it's important enough for the first sentence as well. Note that the proposals above are only two possible wordings to summarise how Trump's incitement was central to the incident. --Tataral (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the 2nd one saying that. “Urge” doesn’t refer to incitement. It refers to “ recommend or advocate (something) strongly.” (Oxford dictionary). President Trump never recommended or advocated to storm the capital. So if urge is added, it says a false statement. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has insisted on the "urge" alternative. Personally I prefer the second version at this point. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.

Read the talk message above. There is an on-going discussion about the lead hosted by WikiProject Current Events. The discussion can be found here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC) That may be the case, but the content of this article is really decided here on its own talk page, so discussion regarding the precise wording of this article should take place here rather than somewhere else (particularly a rather obscure WikiProject devoted to an equally obscure portal, that few editors and readers really use). --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I moved the discussion to the talk page. Look below for the official discussion about it. {Also, if you look at the Portal:Current events, you can see the daily view count. Had about 60,000 views since January 1. Not really that obscure.} Elijahandskip (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC) It is better to continue the discussion here based on the concrete proposal. Your new/second section is not any more "official" than this discussion. This article alone had nearly 200,000 readers only during the last six hours of yesterday, and probably at least a million readers today. --Tataral (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Just copy/paste the proposal below. Also, the discussion on the WikiProject was before the proposal, so technically it should all be moved together (Time checking and stuff for formatting). Elijahandskip (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC) The fact that you started a discussion on a little-noticed talk page for a little-noticed WikiProject, where no editor active on this article would look for any discussion of this article's content and its details, and with no other participants, doesn't mean that your discussion was "first". This discussion was first, on the talk page that matters for this article. --Tataral (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First Sentence (Lead) Discussion Originally on WikiProject Current Events-Moved here

This discussion is about the lead for the article. Originally, the lead read “On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of President Trump and his associates.” The new lead currently leaves the “urging of President Trump of his associates” off due to Wikipedia needing a neutral lead. The discussion is about whether to add that last part into the lead, or keep it out of the lead. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, even if you are not a part of the WikiProject.

• Leave it out due to President Trump’s message on twitter to leave peacefully. President Trump never said the words “Storm the capital”, so saying that he urged them to do it would be a lie and would be a slight “bias” on Wikipedia’s part. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Of course, Trump didn't stormed the capitol himself. And of course he said on twitter that people should go home (BUT THE STORMING HAD ALREADY DONE THEN!). Donald Trump is the abettor of the storming. (By 5.54.43.217 {User didn’t sign})

Discussion was originally on WikiProject Current Events. It has been moved here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.

There is a discussion on the first sentence above (Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#First sentence. I suggest you move this section there as a sub section. The only reason I don’t want to move the discussion again is the amount of “times” of interrupting the talk page. So far, this is the 3rd discussion about it on this talk page alone. It is also at the bottom currently, so people will move to here instead of the one above. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Also the discussion on the WikiProject page was before your discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC) That doesn't matter. No editor active on this article would look for any discussion of details in this article on that WikiProject page, and this talk page is the central place for discussion of this article's content. --Tataral (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• That "Trump didn't storm the capitol himself" and that he "said on twitter that people should go home" don't change the fact that reliable sources have overwhelmingly reported that Trump incited the storming. The question here is only whether it's important enough to be included in the lead, based on how it is covered in RS. And Trump's incitement is really the key issue here. Washington DC see protests every day, but not violent mobs incited by the president. --Tataral (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is included in the lead, just not the first sentence. It's a few sentences down. I have no further opinion on the matter, but wanted to correct an incorrect statement in your summary. --Jayron32 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant the first sentence rather than the entire lead, as I clarified in the main section devoted to this question above. --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tataral, that was exactly what I said (see the second half of my comment). I think that almost all sources agree that president Trump is responsible for what happened. The video on twitter doent't change it. About the question if it's important to be included, the fact that we are talking about the president of the United States himself, makes it more important than any other person had evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

*Support adding it back - Having accurate information about seditious acts against a country is important. Even if someone is able to make a well reasoned argument per WP:NPOV, I believe that WP:IAR needs to supersede. This is important enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Had a chance to calm down. The first sentence as it is now is still too loaded. Perhaps something like this, "On January 6, 2021, a mob of rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, occupying the building for several hours." Jdphenix (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose re-addition - per Elijahandskip. Jdcomix (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• The WP:RS sources about the riot (looking particularly at WaPo and NYT) tend to include Trump's inciting role prominently, so I would support us doing similar. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support adding it back - The New York Times speaks of Trump openly inciting a mob that then attacked the United States Capitol. Later, they add "Mr. Trump encouraged his loyalists in his capacity as a leader of their movement".−:They also quote Mitt Romney with "... the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning. What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the president of the United States.”". Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "incited", "white supremacists" in the first sentence per Elijahandskip. This information can be discussed later in the paragraphs, but for a first sentence, it is much too loaded Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support re-addition. Reliable sources like CNN, NPR, and the Washington Post are reporting that Trump's actions incited the riot. Therefore, I find it acceptable for the sentence to read that the riots were inspired or incited by Trump. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing per WP:BLP and Elle Ekpyros and Brboyle's comments elsewhere on the talk page. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The ongoing discussion here regarding the above concrete proposals is now moot due to subsequent changes to the lead including the first sentence. --Tataral (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is now moot. Decent consensus to prevent the word "Urge" from being used in first sentence. Any agree to form that consensus from this discussion and close it? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protestors vs rioters (Lead)

Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It is back to rioters, but a the term should have a discussion. Words are so key, that a discussion on that is probably a good idea. (Changing name to discussion about protestors vs rioters). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) is my vote. I believe the people that actually entered the capitol are rioters, but they people outside the capitol are protestors. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad way to break it down. Thank you Elijahandskip. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashli Babbit, the woman who was killed

This person had an article but it was speedily deleted and supposed to be merged but was not merged.

Who is this person?????? Many news articles but I want a concise summary here on Wikipedia, the World's News Source.

The police officer who shot her has been suspended. Wikipedia needs at least a separate section on her in the article. Vanny089 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, a full section is WP:UNDUE in this very high-profile main article on the attack. A short mention, maybe two or three sentences, is appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the discussion was conclude to redirect the article (NOT merge the text) back to this one (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt). Also, Wikipedia is not the World's News Source. You seem to be mistaken about that. --Jayron32 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to include the names of the protestors who were killed at the rally. Maybe not full biographies, but definitely include them. W33KeNdr (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@W33KeNdr: Disagree. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor a newspaper, and in the case of low-profile individuals whose sole notability is their death/injury as part of a violent insurrection, the article's text should presume in favor of their privacy. Obviously it's important to note any deaths from this incident, but not to unduly publicize the identities of people who many sources would describe as terrorists. RoxySaunders (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

may discover that the other 3 deaths are not notable but Babbit is notable because of much coverage in reliable sources. However, like Melania Trump, I don't care do u. Carry on with wp. Vanny089 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Very good reference

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55581206

It is is on the BBC

Vanny089 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think an unarmed protestor being killed by the police at a rally is an important part of this story, and including their new had been a Wikipedia norm for all protests. W33KeNdr (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said previously, it's absolutely important to the story that a woman was shot while she and a mob of armed protesters attempted to force their way through a broken window into a chamber of evacuated congresspeople. This woman's identity MIGHT be notable if she receives sustained coverage in reliable sources, or if she is recognized as a police martyr, and her death sparks a movement in her name. At this moment, it's too early to tell, and we should err on the side of caution. RoxySaunders (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There's agreement that there's precedent for adding it, but the question is whether it's the correct organization. Given how long this article is becoming, it would be appropriate to move all the coverage and facts about the Babbit incident to a separate page. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a mention that an unarmed protestor was one of victims of police violence at the rally is extremely important. W33KeNdr (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

First time since war of 1812

I don't think this is really accurate or at least lacking context due to the 1954 United States Capitol shooting. I understand that overrun is different than attack, but I think the context is needed. Here is a source to back up [2] 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thought the same thing when I saw that line, there was also a 1998 shooting. [3] Flalf^Talk 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be removed. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this from the lede (at least for now). The term "sack" doesn't seem to apply here, and there's been violence (shootings and bombings) more recently than 1814. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit you were referencing, and it seems to have returned, Power~enwiki. Neutrality, just tagging you to make sure that you were aware of the rationale behind the deletion. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Zanimum, thanks. "Sacking" isn't accurate (and I removed that), but the sources cited are pretty clear that this is the first time that the Capitol itself has been "overrun" or "breached" in this way. The other attacks (shootings, bombings) etc. didn't involve this kind of mob attack. If we wanted to include the "first time since 1814" fact but also wanted to put in a footnote about previous incidents of violence, that would be fine by me. Neutrality^talk 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Overrun is ... barely acceptable. I assume this will be revisited in a few weeks, but it's fine with "overrun" for now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I see you trying to hold the line and want to thank you for it. When an article has a word like "overrun", you know it needs to be edited. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

New Name

I think we can come up with a better name per Wikipedia:TITLE, I don't think you need the title for it. Also, I am not so sure about the word storming. Riots seem a little better. I will hold off on a move request, but I think something like United States Capitol Riots. Casprings (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think "protest" or "rally" are the most accurate. W33KeNdr (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Protests was the original name, and both riots and rally were discussed above. See Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Closed_discussions_re:_page_title, a consensus on the current title was made after an RfC. Flalf^Talk 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened to that discussion? I don't see it now. --Chronodm (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Found it — moved to the Archive page. My NPOV objections re: Stormfront, Daily Storm, and QAnon stand -- this language is not NPOV, even if some of the media are also using it. --Chronodm (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much discussion on riot. If we look at WP:RSes, there is alot of support.

ABC: US Capitol riots by Donald Trump supporters end with four deaths, including a woman shot by police

BBC: Capitol riots: What happens on Capitol Hill?

CNBC: More than 50 police officers were injured at the pro-Trump riot at the Capitol

I also think we need to add Trump to show the connection. Perhaps Trump's United States Capitol Riots. Casprings (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It should not be called storming, protest, or rally. It was an insurrection. Call it what it is, not what you want it to be. Sources calling it insurrection:

• Gaurdian
• BBC
• NPR
• CNN
• NPR
• Economist
• ABC
• CNBC
• USA Today

The list goes on and on. Maybe call it United States Capitol insurrection. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I can buy that. If sources say it was a a violent uprising against an authority or government we should say so.Casprings (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Every one of those sources listed refer to the Capitol being stormed (mostly in the first paragraph). Several of them only use the term ‘insurrection’ in the article title and not in the body of the article, often within quotes i.e. not in the voice of the source. Insurrection appears to be used as a loaded term. At best, the cited sources indicate no more than equal support for storming and insurrection. It seems to me using dictionary definitions that storming is more appropriate - insurrection gives more political heft to what was simply rabble violence. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's claimed that the discussion has been closed, but I don't see where it was discussed or who decided it was closed. Given Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, not to mention QAnon's repeated use of "storm", I really don't think it's a neutral choice. --Chronodm (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgot about that. Might start to put together a move request and bring it up. United States Capitol insurrection.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please. Some other possibilities: the New York Times are both using the words "riot" and "breach" as well as "storm"; CNN is using "riot" and "domestic terror attack"; Fox is calling it "Capitol riots". (I'd supply detailed references but I haven't got time to stay on this right now.) --Chronodm (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason I was fine with storm is because, in my opinion it can be either negative or positive, so I think it's pretty NPOV. Flalf^Talk 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming seems good but only for part of what happened. (Even then, it's important to think carefully as the unfolding of events becomes clearer.) Possibly occupation might be an alternative if one was wanted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

2021 Invasion on the US Capitol and Coup d'Etat attempt , could be a clear and exact title.

United States Capitol Insurrection: Out of all the terms I've seen to describe it (riot, mob, storming, sedition, coup attempt) I feel they lack the specificity of insurrection, a term with a dictionary meaning of "violent uprising against authority or government" and one that also has legal ramifications in the United States via the Insurrection Act of 1807. Another point is does this need a year in the title? The insurrection act article doesn't seem to suggest any such major incidents at the Capitol that would warrant a pre-emptive disambiguation by adding a year to the title, and specific incidents rather than generalised titles (eg the nat turner slave rebellion, the selma to montgomery march and the george floyd protests) don't have a year in them. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

'storming' is commonly used for an event of civil disorder such as Storming of the Bastille, or the mob Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad[4] or Tehran[5] [6] while words such as 'insurrection' and 'coup' are politically loaded. On the day, the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was an act or event of civil disorder not amounting to an insurrection. It could be described as a mob invading the Capitol. While President Trump's speech-making, videos or twittering, could be part of an attempt to overturn the election, they were not acts of insurrection. Qexigator (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. Also see WP:BLPCRIME. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bastille storming was the first act of a revolution as they attacked a symbol of power, and the Embassy was just a violent protest against an invader who had been at war in their country for 20 years. They are both on the other ends from the 'middle ground' of what was an Insurrection that stopped the lawmaking process of the US Government because they wanted their fascist leader to stay in power. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The main point is that the disorder and rampage, including riotous conduct, criminal assault, malicious damage to property and theft within the Capitol did not stop the lawful proceedings of Congress at the time or any later lawmaking of Congress. The proceedings were suspended, and when order was restored continued and completed after a few hours. The proceedings were affected by some lawmakers deciding to withdraw their objections, which the objectors were aware would have been outvoted anyhow. That did not amount to an insurrection event, nor a coup, whatever the intent of the wreckers may be supposed or hubristically self-declared to be. 09:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the term invasion (or coup d'etat but we have to wait the court to add it) than the term insurrection because: Insurrection is a situation that people revolt violently against an authority. Some times people that rebel are completely right and they are fighting for their freedom. With the term invasion, it's clear that a crowd invaded the sanctum of democracy. Because the actions need to be judged not only by what happened but from whoose happened. Here, a far-right neonazi croud tried to destroy democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Characterization as domestic terrorism

The following discussion might be of interest to the editors of this page: Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States § Attack on the United States Capitol (2021). --MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in the page move debates above, the debate over the title of this article needs to center on the descriptive term for what happened yesterday. MarioGom's comment adds one to the list ("attack"). So, what would be the preferred term to center the title discussion around? a) "attack", b) "breach", c) "insurrection", d) "protest", e) "storming", f) "standoff", g) something else? -- RobLa (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RobLa, for the overall events, I would call them protests. I still think the original title was better, but there was already an RFC so I drop the stick there. Storming looks quite accurate and neutral for the... storming of the Capitol. Attack would have made sense if the protesters actually killed or tried to kill people at the Capitol or something like that. I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate here. By the way, attack was used at Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States to imply it's a terrorist attack. MarioGom (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

They are no protestors neither terrorists. They were far-right crowd that attempted to make a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a very good question; I think that the actions clearly exceed what we usually call "protests". Ziko (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

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

Transcluded discussion from other talk page

Support

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

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

• Strong support: the RNC and DNC pipe bombs are terrorism alone, nonetheless breaking into the nation's capitol. ɱ (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: It has to be. They stormed the U.S. Capitol for the purpose of wanting to alter the election in favor of Trump instead of Biden. That's just as political as it can get. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: Echoing everyone else above. Strongest possible yes. Brad (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: I wouldn't object to the article being renamed to "2021 terrorist attack of the United States Capitol". -- RobLa (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - per sources [7]. And they did terrorize members of Congress. Pipe bombs were found. BTW, taking over parliaments is not anything new, even recently. The Crimean parliament was taken by the green men, but the most similar incident was probably Armenian parliament shooting. It is only through sheer luck that the members of the Congress were not harmed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously Per User:Nfitz this fits the definition as clearly as you can get, widely supported by many RSes. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - it checkes all boxes of terrorism, there wer bombing attempts aswell. and CNN as well as polititians call it terrorism Norschweden (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The events were an unlawful use of violence and intimidation for the advancement of political goals. Plus, there were multiple IEDs found. Bravetheif (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The intention of the rioters was clear, and that was to terrorize lawmakers and shut down the United States Government. That fits the definition of terrorism. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – their intention was to overthrow the joint session of Congress in order to change the results of a democratic election. That is a coup. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (sparingly) This was an act of domestic terrorism. A lot of sources frame it in these terms. However, it's important we don't overuse the term in an NPOV way. We must use this term in a reliable-sourced, explicitly-defined way. Provided the reliable sources characterize it this way, there should be no issue to the proper use of the term. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support: Clearly yes as per intent, reliable sources, evidence, definitions and the leading comments above. I would suggest its a No Brainer. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes open and shut pre-meditated anti-democratic political violence intended to control using fear. What could the objections be? GPinkerton (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Yes - Reliable sources use it, it fits the definition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — A number of officials including President-elect Joe Biden have referred to this event as an act of domestic terrorism. Courier (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - This easily fits the official FBI/DOJ definition of terrorism: "Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Verumregium (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — It's pretty simple: These individuals used violence to attempt to further their political views. Terrorism is the use of violence as a tool for political and social change. -- Phyzome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Undoubtebly Yes - This event was the textbook definition of terrorism. It was politically motivated and was aimed to instill fear into the U.S. government as well as the American people. It is pretty clear cut. The rioters also had zip ties ready for the capture of government officials.
• Yes. They caused nothing but violence and destruction. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes We need not to use such terms wildly however causing congress to evacuate and causing an immense amount of damage with the intent of terror is undoubtedly constitutes an act of terrorism. Using the dictionary definition without the lounge of national definitions it fits the universal term. Des Vallee (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other

• Wait. If individual rioters receive charges of terrorism, terrorism-related charges, or charges of sedition - we should refer to this act as "terrorism". Until then, I propose that we simply wait. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. I would prefer to wait until there has been news of individuals or organizations being referred doing "terrorist" behavior. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per Mt.FijiBoiz. This seems reasonable and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait I would wait until such individuals are charged with terrorism-related charges, once they are I will be in support. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait While the definition of terrorism has been expanded significantly in recent decades, it's looking like a very few of those involved were prepared for terroristic acts. When this is clarified we can have a suitable section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Wait Personally these seem to be acts of terrorism to me, but I agree with the above that we should wait for charges or expert opinions. Ziko (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per above. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and as this isn't classified as terrorism (yet?), we should wait until it is classified as such. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Per WP:LABEL, value-laden labels should be treated cautiously even if used by reliable sources. Sources will begin to describe the event more neutrally as it leaves the realm of news and enters the realm of history.Jancarcu (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Wait a bit and see what RS converge on, and we get a clearer picture of motivations, who the leaders were, who planted the bombs, how they organized, et cetera. Terrorism isn't really well-defined, so I'm opposed to an appeal to definitions. DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if there are charges of "terrorism" for people involved I'll consider it, but I don't see the support for that label as-of-yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait Too soon, but if a majority of reliable sources begin using the term, so can Wikipedia. Usage in RS will probably be influenced by what kind of charges will be brought (i.e. terrorism-related or not). Sjö (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until a consensus is reached within our sources. -- ToE 11:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

Wrong information

This article made a couple of false statements in just one sentence when they said "TAKEN OVER FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1814". First off it was taken over in 2018 by an anti-Kavanagh protests. Then secondly the Trump supporters did not break down the door AKA "TAKE OVER" there is video after video showing the Capitol Police opening the doors and letting them in..— Preceding unsigned comment added by BhcPatriot (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen no such video User:BhcPatriot. I've seen lots of photos and video of doors being barricaded, and police trying to unsuccessfully push rioters back through doors and windows. I did see a barricade outside being moved in a video ... but that's not a door into the Capitol. Can you provide a link? Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DONOTFEED Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It would violate WP:AGF to suggest that a user is a troll, after a single polite request. You shouldn't do that - instead a variant of WP:ROPE may be better. Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time the capitol has been violently breached since 1814. The 2018 rally you're referring to did occur on capitol grounds, but remained largely peaceful, and protestors did not attempt to forcibly enter any restricted areas in the Capitol Building. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally watched live on PBS as rioters broke windows and entered the Capitol. Your claims are false, unless you can find a source proving otherwise. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed false information. "MLive" may not be a reliable source. Protesters have forcibly stormed into the capitol building at least in 2018 during the Kavanaugh hearings, in 2017 during Jeff Sessions hearings, there are probably other similar incidents as well. But the real biggie was 1954, when Puerto Rican nationalists entered the capitol and started firing weapons.96.241.129.33 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence for “forcible storming” in the above links - can you find a source for broken windows? Recollections of seeing live TV can be inaccurate (memories can be strange that way - cf Mandela effect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:AA30:2D4C:CE8:3B69:7FC4 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As it says in one of the linked articles "Televised hearings are open to the public" so they didn't break in. They were allowed to be there, until they started disrupting the hearings. Sjö (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Under deaths section there is a line about a Capitol Police Officer dying, the article it links to states that this was false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.216.101 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears his death was prematurely reported. Then he actually died. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Babbitt shot once

As I can't touch modern American political articles, I ask someone else correct this purely physical error. Article says she was shot by "law enforcement officers" (those who drew handguns are also called "guards"), later died of "injuries". Sources generally say she was only injured once by a single US Capitol Police officer, per Chief Robert J. Contee III in at least one of nine existing citations. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed the reference to "injuries". I would recommend reviewing WP:TBAN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, GorillaWarfare one can have more than one injury from a single gunshot. At close range, an entry and exit wound is, I imagine, likely, and damage to multiple organs/systems is multiple "injuries". GPinkerton (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect so too, but the wording can be avoided. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Because I was advised to not post here, but was pinged for comment, I believe saying I have no further comment at the moment is a proper compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk) 09:52 8 January 2021 (EST)

The video of her being shot shows a plainclothes capitol police officer stepping out of an alcove, firing one shot at her from a distance of 6 - 8 feet as she is climbing through a window into the Speakers Lobby". No Additional shots are fired in this area by Law Enforcement or rioters. Sources referring to her having multiple wounds are most likely referring to the entry and exit wound from the bullet on her body.

After reading the example at WP:TBAN, replacing "weather" as appropriate, I am confident that an objection to accusing multiple people of killing someone only one person is reported to have killed is not a TBAN violation. It is possibly a BLP violation, though neither killer is identified in the lead sentence. But it is very obviously wronger to state two or more officers at the scene shot the same woman than it is to discuss anatomy and arithmetic in an apolitical section of an otherwise largely politicized talk page. I will defend my right to raise and respond to legitimate questions of fundamental importance herein, with or without express written permission.

GPinkerton, you are correct. Dependant on trajectory, one bullet can cause multiple individually fatal injuries. But one bullet cannot and should never have been suggested could come from more than one "law enforcement officer", howsoever the individual(s) in question shall henceforth be described.

Just drop the fake S, people, we can tell it's incorrect regardless of any perceived political differences, just plain math and English analysis of existing police statements, presently appended inline. If my polite demand is not met within a very reasonable 72 hours, I may be forced to do it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, it's done. GPinkerton (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed "officers" instead of explicitly relaying how it was just one. I formally accept this as "good enough, just less specific" and rest my case. Thank you, my friend! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• InedibleHulk, this is a rather clear violation of your American Politics topic ban. I know you yourself have described your editing this topic as an "obsession", but that doesn't excuse the violation. You've been around long enough to know better. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

According to my search results, I've described exactly one thing as an "obsession". It was from June 19, 2015, and the context is currently unmentionable but verifiable. I forgive you for misquoting me, so forgive me for carefully and politely requesting a math error in a Main Page lead be fixed per source. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction, found two more. In the summer of '14, I described a bunch of monsters' twisted desires; two summers later, it was related to AP2. But neither were about me, just by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit on Jimbo Wales' talk page, as I noted in my reply on EvergreenFir's talk page. However, I've seen you refer to it before and after using various euphemisms, including on my own talk page, where you phrased it as "I have a history of taking of my shirt" in the edit summary, per the popular 90s song. I'm not "after you". But you are clearly unable to abide by a topic ban in this area, and it should either be extended to an indefinite ban, and/or other sanctions taken. Dude, it's easy. Just stay away from AP pages. Don't respond to this. 12:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

More videos

Please include if anyone sees fit:

A Message from President Donald J. Trump Jan 7 2021

1 7 21 Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany Holds a Press Briefing

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, Victor, that first video with Trump looks seriously doctored. Do we know if that first video is a legitimate video? I suppose I could go over on WP:Commons and figure it out, but I'm lazy!  :-D -- RobLa (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RobLa this video was posted by Trump's official Twitter social media account yesterday (U.S. time), so I'm entirely sure that it's legitimate. :) Nick Camarillo (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What Nick Camarillo said. Victor Grigas (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rioters?

Nazi sympathizers and terrorist would be more in order. weapons and bombs found? need more proof? 37.188.243.3 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. We have an ongoing discussion regrading the characterization of these events as terrorism on this page. Regarding "Nazi sympathizers", I'd find reliable sources that use that terminology. I think that characterization of the rioters as Nazi sympathizers gives WP:UNDUE to the minority of rioters that were carrying Nazi symbols. Jdphenix (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts matter. One of these fascists thugs had even a "Camp Auschwitz Shirt" on! Look with our own eyes: How World Leaders Are Reacting To Capitol Hill Riot | TODAY. Letting far right extremist groups run wild, emboldened by much of the Conservative leadership and the right-wing media. --87.170.200.180 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts do matter, which is why we rely on reliable sources. There certainly appears to have been some Nazi sympathizers in attendance, given the shirt and various other photos circulating, but we cannot call all attendees Nazi sympathizers without some serious reliable sourcing to back it up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Members of crowd heard shouting 'Sieg Heil'", Neonazis-tattoos "including a Valknut, a Yggdrasil, and a Mjölnir", "Demonstrant mit einem mit „Camp Auschwitz“-bedruckten Kapuzenpullover", NS-Parole »work brings freedom« (»Arbeit macht frei«), "Konföderierten-Flagge, die für Sklaverei und Rassismus steht, ein weiterer Mann zeigt den Hitler-Gruß"... Reliable Sources from Germany, where Nazis are a specialty:

• https://www.mopo.de/news/panorama/bekannte-rechte-auschwitz-pulli---sieg-heil--rufe--das-sind-trumps-anhaenger-im-kapitol-37900312
• https://www.spiegel.de/stil/jake-angeli-was-ueber-den-qanon-schamanen-aus-dem-us-kapitol-bekannt-ist-a-be3f2bb7-6b59-4e76-9ffd-9abedffe1c3a
• https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1146689.sturm-auf-das-kapitol-faschist-terrorist-oder-nur-ein-patriot.html
• https://plus.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/veteranin-neo-nazi-abgeordneter-q-glaeubige-das-sind-die-menschen-die-das-kapitol-stuermten-86918.html
• https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article223901406/Jake-Angeli-Wer-ist-der-Mann-mit-den-Bueffelhoernern.html - need more proof? --93.211.211.47 (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some rioters were neo-nazis. Some were also neo-confederates. Some were "proud boys". Some were neither of those three and just generic Trump supporters. The fact that neo-nazis were present should be in the article, but in a list of the types of participants, rather than as an adjective describing them all. If the facts and reliable sources show that some, yet not all, of the rioters were neo-nazis, then that is what this article should say. Caleb M1 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

100% Agree with Caleb M1. Some in fact belonged to multiple of these categories but not others. This is not appropriate. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Raided"/"Raiding" instead of "stormed"?

Agreed. I have a specific concern with the word "storming" in the title. This is a loaded term, especially among white supremacists and militia types. I have little doubt it would be their preferred term, given the name of one far-right neo-Nazi publication, "The Daily Stormer," which is a reference to the original Nazi-party paper, "Der Stürmer." I'm not the first to worry about this name catching on for this event; here Jill Lapore's writing in the New Yorker: "A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a 'storming' of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a 'Storm' in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January 'the Storming of the Capitol.'" I prefer something less loaded, like "attack." Even "insurrection" is preferable, I think. The fact that the term "insurrection" sounds archaic to my ear is perhaps because it's been so long since we've had to apply it. Chadwalk (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we replace all instances of the Capitol being "stormed" by Trump supporters with "raided"?

Golfpecks256 (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bum-rushed. I think the word 'stormed' is used in the press. I also see "rampage" and presumably "rioted". Mcfnord (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

De bestormers van het Capitool

„The Storm“ stürmt das Kapitol

--93.211.211.47 (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Raiding doesn't even register on Google Trends when I added it ([8]). Storming appears to be COMMONNAME EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per EvergreenFir. I haven't seen "raided" in the coverage of reliable sources, but I've seen "stormed" and "rioted", so I think we should stick with those terms. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rare alternative uses of the word by a small number of neo-Nazis shouldn't influence the naming of our articles. The overwhelming majority of people know what we mean when we use the word "storming". Also keep in mind Wikipedia is not censored; shying away from the use of that word because it's misused by fascistic groups would interfere with our ability to write an objective article. — Czello 13:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

identification of rioters

https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1346922707431129089?s=19

Add that Alex Jones also participated in the riots, since FBI said they want everyone to identify those involved for prosecution. Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see our reliable sources policy, namely WP:SPS. Wikipedia is not in the business of identifying people from photographs without reliable sources to back them up; the FBI can do that themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare,thanks for the tip, I need to read the policy Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Is The Independent considered RS? (Its Wikipedia page describes itself as a tabloid, but I don't remember where the source list is.) They're quoting Jones' claims that he was there, and saying that "was reportedly seen later in the day, standing on top of a car near the Capitol building and shouting into a bullhorn." -- Zanimum (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox images and caption

"Top to bottom, left to right: Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to supporters at the "Save America" rally, protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza"

Was there a Black Lives Matter protest occuring at the same time as the events described in this article? Can someone tell me why the Black Lives Matter image and caption have been included? It's incongruous and genuinely confusing; it gives the impression the storming of the Capitol and Black Lives Matter protests are somehow connected. Thanks. Anotheranothername (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anotheranothername "Black Lives Matter Plaza" is the name of a public square in Washington, D.C.; the caption is merely stating that the depicted events occurred there, and is not claiming any connection to the Black Lives Matter movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNimon‎ (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anotheranothername, see: Black Lives Matter Plaza GPinkerton (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Doh, reading comprehension failure. Thanks for the reply. Anotheranothername (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bellingcat confirms Ashli Babbitt shot at 2:44 EST

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/ Zhould be incorporated into the sources. 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:48DB:C29A:9C27:7E77 (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump incited the riots?

I just had a quick question regarding this. So, early on in the article, the phrase "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." seems to imply that he encouraged them to specifically "storm the capitol" which he factually did not do. While I agree that his rhetoric definitely raised the temperature, in his speech he literally called for the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today" Casting the blame on anyone for inciting something is a matter of opinion/a judgment call unless they outright call for the act that is carried out. Not trying to say Trump didn't raise the temperature just that the word "incite" ( definition: to urge or persuade someone to act in a violent or unlawful way) seems to imply a direct correlation between what Trump specifically called for (a peaceful and patriotic protest) and the what actually happened (storming of the capitol).

Perhaps a better sentence would be "The riots occurred following fiery comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." This implies a correlation between the two (the Trump speech and the riots) without implying that he specifically encouraged riots. You could even tack on a "which many view as having incited the violence" to the end of it.

So in conclusion I think that the sentence "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." would be more factual if it were stated as "The riots occurred following divisive comments made by Trump at an earlier rally, which many view as having incited the violence." I think this maintains the NPOV better, without implying that Trump specifically called for the storming of the capitol and without making a judgement call on whether or not Trump incited the riots which is a matter of opinion.

Let me know what you think. --Brboyle (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Spare us all the weasel-wording. Front-page, above the fold headlines from some Thursday papers

• Boston Globe: TRUMP-INCITED MOB ATTACKS THE CAPITOL
• Chicago Tribune: ‘Insurrection’ at Capitol: 1 DEAD AMID CHAOS INCITED BY TRUMP
• Des Moines Register: CAPITOL CHAOS (first story hede: "After weeks of egging them on, Trump then asks rioters to leave")
• Los Angeles Times: TRUMP-INCITED MOB STORMS U.S. CAPITOL
• New York Times: TRUMP INCITES MOB
• Politico: DEMOCRACY UNDER SIEGE: Trump rioters storm the Capitol, halting election certification
• San Francisco Chronicle: INSURRECTION: As Democrats win the Senate, a violent mob incited by Trump storms the Capitol and delays certification of Biden’s victory
• Washington Post: Trump mob storms Capitol: President incites crowd to acts of insurrection, violence

So please, no bogus Wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some lead paragraphs, with emphasis added. I can do this all day:

McClatchy News:

"Hundreds of rioters encouraged by President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, crashing through police lines to lay siege to the building and force a halt to the constitutional process of certifying the Electoral College count after the Nov. 3 presidential election."

LA Times:

"Violent supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, shattering windows, ransacking offices and pounding on the barricaded doors of the House chamber while shaken lawmakers huddled inside.

"The extraordinary breach of democratic order — blamed by both parties on the president’s incitement — forced members to flee the House and Senate floors under armed guard, delaying Congress’ constitutionally mandated count of electoral college votes."

New York Times:

"Congress moved late Wednesday toward confirming President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory after a mob of loyalists urged on by President Trump stormed and occupied the Capitol, disrupting the final electoral count in a shocking display of violence that shook the core of American democracy.

"There was no parallel in modern American history, with insurgents acting in the president’s name vandalizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, smashing windows, looting art and briefly taking control of the Senate chamber, where they took turns posing for photographs with fists up on the dais where Vice President Mike Pence had just been presiding."

WASHINGTON SCENE by Peter Baker: "So this is how it ends. The presidency of Donald John Trump, rooted from the beginning in anger, division and conspiracy-mongering, comes to a close with a violent mob storming the Capitol at the instigation of a defeated leader trying to hang onto power as if America were just another authoritarian nation."

Washington Post:

"As President Trump told a sprawling crowd outside the White House that they should never accept defeat, hundreds of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup that they hoped would overturn the election he lost. In the chaos, law enforcement officials said, one woman was shot and killed by police.

"The violent scene — much of it incited by the president’s incendiary language — was like no other in modern American history, bringing to a sudden halt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory."

--Calton | Talk 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's not mention that all of these "reliable sources" hate Donald Trump. Topcat777 (talk) 18:44, 8 Janurareee 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, since that would be, you know, false, and the (utterly rejected) go-to excuse for conservatives trying to suppress bad news. By all means, go to the reliable sources noticeboard and give that tactic a shot. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be so condescending. I'm not weasel-wording and I think it is inappropriate of you to suggest that I am trying to mislead. The change I suggested doesn't deny that any of the newspapers reached the conclusion that Trump incited the riot, it just allows the reader to realize that whether or not someone incited something is a matter of opinion. My statement is not deliberately misleading and in fact reaches mostly the same conclusion as the original statement, it just makes a clearer point that Trump didn't literally call for the violence, something I feel is important in gaining neutrality. I know that all of those papers reach the conclusion that he "incited" the rioters but I think maybe there is a better way of saying it.

Nothing wrong with me suggesting a dissenting opinion, especially when I'm not really disagreeing but rather trying to come up with a way of saying it that doesn't imply that Trump literally called for/deliberately incited violence, which he factually did not. He raised the temperature and parroted falsehoods/other divisive rhetoric, but saying he "incited" violence appears to me to be those newspapers taking a step past reporting the facts at face value and instead implying that Trump said something directly related to the protesters committing acts of violence when in fact he did the exact opposite and urged them to remain peaceful (a fact that as far as I can tell, all of those news sources and the sentence I am questioning fail to lend any credence to. This alone would immediately raise a red flag interns of their reliability if I were you)

Implying in the opening of the article that Trump incited the violence without mentioning that he literally told those at the march to "march peacefully" is misleading by exclusion of information IMO and thus would seem to violate the NPOV. But, I guess if the general consensus is that these headlines that exclude this fact are more worthy of inclusion (due to them being "reliable sources" in the eyes of Wikipedia) than what Trump actually said, so be it. --Brboyle (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be so condescending.

I'm being factual; learn the difference

I'm not weasel-wording and I think it is inappropriate of you to suggest that I am trying to mislead.

You're right, and I misspoke: "weasel-wording" is "...words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." You're attempting the precise opposite: in the face of OVERWHELMING and completely across-the-board characterization -- of the "sun rises in the East" and "the sky is blue" variety -- of what happened, you're attempting to cast doubt or fuzz up events. So yeah, that's you attempting to mislead, and it's irrelevant whether it's incidental or deliberate. If you don't want to be accused of trying to mislead, try this: don't try to mislead. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brboyle: I agree that the incivility from Calton is completely unwarranted and unproductive. I also agree that the current phrasing—"riots were incited by" Trump—is unacceptable, but for slightly different reasons:

• Despite many claims he "encouraged" or "urged on" a crowd that later turned violent, none of the cited sources state that Trump "incited riots". But more important is the likely reason for the omission of that phrase:
• To "incite a riot" is a Federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 2101, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment—and just in the last two days there are already numerous articles questioning whether Trump can or should be charged with or impeached on the basis of that and other crimes. Indeed, this is not the first time Trump has been accused of incitement—and it's worth reading about the dismissal of just such a claim in Kentucky.

That given, the WP:BLP guidance here is crystal-clear: regardless of what RS may say, we must take care to clearly state that potential criminal acts ascribed to living persons are merely alleged until they have been convicted of them. This is doubly important given that there are potential charges actively being discussed—and even cited in the instant article. While it's well and good to cite sources to support statements such as he "stoked the crowd" or "encouraged them to march to the Capitol", we must take great pains to avoid asserting that Donald Trump has committed any crime for which he has been neither charged nor convicted. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the arguments given and I agree with Elle Ekpyros and Brboyle. It would violate WP:BLP to say that Trump incited the riots. I agree with Brboyle's proposed wording because there likely is a connection between Trump's words and the actions of the rioters, just Wikipedia can't directly state that connection. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

the incivility from Calton

It's not "incivility", it's a straightforward explanation of what he's doing and why it's wrong. If he -- or you -- doesn't like being told he's wrong, he ought not to be wrong in the first place. It's not my job to pretend something isn't real, nor pay attention to what looks more a rhetorical tactic than a it does a genuine concern for "civility".

the WP:BLP guidance here is crystal-clear

Why yes, yes it is. Let's emphasize the part you left out:

For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

Note the words "public figure"? Or are you suggesting Donald Trump is NOT a "public figure"? --Calton | Talk 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It would seem you're confused as to what I wrote. I never suggested that accusations of a crime should be left out—indeed, I pointed out the part of this article in which they're discussed. What I very clearly stated was that to assert that anyone (public figure or no) committed a crime, absent such a legal finding, is obviously against the WP:BLP policy. You must have missed the sentence before the one you quoted above: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." When you couple that with the guidance from WP:WEASEL (which I've already pointed out to you after your repeated accusations that I was using "weasel words"): "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." This should all be quite obvious—it's why we don't write that "OJ Simpson killed his wife", but rather "Prosecutors charged OJ Simpson of mudering his wife, but he acquitted at a criminal trial." President Trump has been informally accused of inciting a riot, and officials appear to be considering charges, but he has not been arrested, indicted, charged, or convicted yet—so he is presumed innocent and it is a BLP violation to say he "incited rioting" without making it clear that the crime has merely been alleged (and who has alleged it). Hope that helps! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to a calm, polite request for civility with an accusation that it's a "rhetorical tactic" made in bad faith is a perfect example of your chronic incivility. Perhaps you're unaware of how unpleasant editing here is made by having one's contributions reverted with an arrogant, snide an entirely false accusation that one has used "weasel words". I maintain that such repeated accusations are uncivil—especially when it's been pointed out to you that they're false. After you first did this to me, I pointed out to you that I was doing the precise opposite, and you simply doubled down and did it again (although you appear to finally have understood my point, per your acknowledgement above). Your condescending and antagonistic tone is also uncivil. Telling people that they if they find you rude, they "ought not to be wrong" is another perfect example. Do you really believe that the legion fellow editors who have tried to point this out to you over a period of years are all wrong? That you are in fact respectful and polite—and just inexplicably misunderstood by so many? While I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don't understand this, I must assume good faith—and, assuming it's true, I sincerely hope you find someone who can help you to develop more productive socialize skills. Good luck! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As a final note, I'd point out that this purported "fact check" does a pretty decent job in laying out the facts: Trump did not explicitly advocate any sort of violence—indeed, he called for peace. And it makes clear that any claim he implicitly or subtextually encouraged illegality is a "subjective call"—and making subjective calls is something in which Wikipedia, it goes without saying, cannot engage. While it's right and good to point out that some (indeed, many) people have accused Trump of inciting or encouraging violence that day, there is to date no objective evidence that he did so. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proud boys

I have removed the following:

The Proud Boys posted messages boasting and taking credit for causing "absolute terror".

The source says:

… the Proud Boys openly supported the Capitol insurrection. "Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots."

Support for is not "taking credit for".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

The source specifically says "posted messages boasting and taking credit for the riot". This edit should be reversed.--YannickFran (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Restored. EEng 10:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that the Independent says that. The two social media items they cite don't support it however.

For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified

— Telegram

"Our collective strength" refers to the entirety of the protestors, the Proud Boys themselves being a small organisation.

Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots.

— Parler

While the Independent is generally a RS, we are not obliged to use them when their conclusions seem tenuous. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

If anyone can link to the Telegram message, it might be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Missing Trump quote?

Being in the UK, I don't plan to edit this article directly, but I'd like to raise a key omissions as I see it. It relates to Trump's clear encouragement of the rally-goers (rioters-to-be) to march on the Capitol buildings, and was in videos of his speech in the earlier rally that day. The key section, which evidences how they were incited to leave the rally and 'progress' to the government buildings, seems to be: "After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol,... and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.” Perhaps the second part isn't so essential, but the first part seems highly relevant to the background to the rioting. (and just commenting that Trump did not go with them, but returned to the White House, I believe, to watch events unfold on TV). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

C-SPAN broadcast of the chambers

Here are some events from the C-SPAN broadcast of the Joint Session for Counting of Electoral College Ballots on January 6.

1. The House goes into recess after protestors breach the chamber at 14:16 to 14:18

2. The House goes into recess again at 14:29

3. Protestors inside Statuary Hall at 14:30 to 14:34

4. The Senate goes into recess broadcast at 17:14 to 17:20

The third one would be nice to have but I don't think it's in the public domain since it's not from in the House or the Senate. The last one is public domain though so I uploaded it here. Can it be added to the article? Neckstells (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Neckstells, anything taken inside the House and Senate chambers is fair game and public domain according to WP:CSPAN, however if it involves anything outside of it, that's copyrighted and you'd need NFCC. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 11:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This text

After Pence left, Arizona's senior senator, Kyrsten Sinema, finished her defense before the Senate was recessed at 2:20 p.m., and the chamber was then locked down

in this version 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (this version) appears to be incorrect upon viewing the C-SPAN2 clips. Would the following better reflect events, as Senator Sinema had finished, and Senator Lankford was in the midst of remarks?

Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) was speaking on the challenge to the Arizona Electoral College vote when the Senate when into recess. Vice President Pence, then presiding over the Senate, was rushed out by the Secret Service. The Senate chamber and press gallery were put into lock-down.

Notes: VP Pence's evacuation is not shown on C-SPAN2. The C-SPAN2 clips show the lock-down of the Senate chamber along with replay of earlier remarks by Majority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky). These two CSPAN2 user clips show this:

* "User Clip: Final Minute in Senate | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

* "User Clip: Senate interrupted, recess, and lock-down 6 January 2021 | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

Lent (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lent: I was considering making a Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, where PRIMARY sources would be acceptable to give a timeline of events; what do the clips show: Sinema finishes, Lankford starts, Pence leaves, Lankford doesn't finish before Senate recessed? Given Trump was tweeting during these 10 minutes to incite, it seems relevant we know who was speaking. (OR:) Pence and Sinema (D-AZ) seem like obvious "targets" that people would want to disrupt during the debate at that point, so if it was Lankford that's something to note. Kingsif (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

@Kingsif:The article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (this version) now has this, which seems reasonable.

“ While debate over the Arizona electoral college votes continued, an armed police officer entered the Senate chamber, positioned facing the back entrance of the chamber. Pence handed the floor from Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema to Senator James Lankford. Moments later, Pence was escorted out by members of the Secret Service, and banging could be heard from outside as people attempted to breach the doors. As Lankford was speaking, the Senate was gaveled into recess at 2:13 p.m. ”

A detailed timeline might also note after Senator Sinema's remarks were concluded, Majority Leader McConnell yielded five minutes to Senator Lankford

A further detail: (presumably after Vice President Pence was removed to safety) president pro tempore Chuck Grassley gavelled the session into recess. (At clip 44 min 15 seconds, four gavel bangs are heard followed by Mr Grassley saying)

“ The Senate will stand in recess until the call of the chair. ”

Finally, the C-SPAN2 audio picks up someone (probably the person who had approached from Langford's left) saying at 44 min 2 seconds

“ It wasn't anything you said. ”

apparently to Langford.

Lent (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lent: That's great, but we can't just have a video referencing the actions that happen, so it might need to be written more simply or re-introduce the written sources that at least reference some of the facts. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Identification of rioters: Holocaust denier Nicholas/ Nick Fuentes

Please add some words about him:

• https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/white-supremacists-among-those-who-stormed-the-u-s-capitol-live-streamed-inside-1.9431649 → "Gionet and Fuentes both attended the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017."

• https://www.comicsands.com/white-nationalist-killing-state-legislators-2649769286.html → "encourages his viewers to kill legislators in his stream" ... "Fuentes' alarming comment was first flagged and tweeted by Megan Squire, who, as Daily Dot confirmed, is a professor at Elon University studying extremism."

• https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/sturm-auf-den-kongress-amtsenthebung-donald-trumps-moeglich-a-375d55ae-b459-40a1-ab3b-0da0f94cbe20

• https://www.belltower.news/usa-the-storm-stuermt-das-kapitol-109893/

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/far-right-agitators-roil-the-conservative-movement-on-college-campuses-in-battle-to-define-trumpism/2019/11/16/a757d88a-0723-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

• https://www.wired.com/story/dlive-livestreaming-site-extremist-haven → "Fuentes, who hosts the far-right podcast America First and received $44,000 in donations through DLive in the last two months of 2020, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

• https://www.mlive.com/politics/2021/01/far-right-activist-who-encouraged-us-capitol-occupation-also-organized-stop-the-steal-rally-in-michigan.html → "The Capitol Siege of 2021 is going to become America’s Tiananmen Square." + "Why, because we had no leverage, what are we going to do? What can you and I do to a state legislator, besides kill them?" "Although we should not do that. I am not advising that, but I mean, what else can you do, right?" --93.211.211.47 (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the fact that he’s a Holocaust denied matters that much, but I support the addition of this information if he was influential. —Bray (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump deliberately attempted a coup ...

See here:

"Multiple European security officials told Insider that President Donald Trump appeared to have tacit support among US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex in Wednesday's coup attempt."

Count Iblis (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The specific author, Mitch Prothero, seems legit, and has written for respected sources before, but Business Insider is a questionable source per WP:RSP, known to publish unvetted articles without distinguishing them from properly done journalism. I'd appreciate waiting for a more reliable source before including such information in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Second Jayron32's position to wait for a more reliable published source, as BI is questionable to use, especially in such a contentious article. Builder018 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In the spirit of encouraging bold editing, it wouldn't be terrible to put it in a section "Speculated Cooperation" with appropriate modifiers like "alleged", "suspect", and "stated", and explicitly name the persons making the statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose these additions. Those are very, very serious allegations to make, which could border on libel. I say we need to have confirmation from many reliable sources (which Business Insider is not) to add this allegation. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

False flag conspiracies

Please add:

"Despite the lack of evidence, Congressmen, Louie Gohmert and Mo Brooks spread false flag conspiracies on Twitter shortly after the storming. Both are Trump acolytes."

• Sources
• https://archive.is/Jg93Z
• https://archive.is/IjrUJ

• https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/gop-lawmaker-falsely-claims-to-have-evidence-that-antifa-orchestrated-trump-supporters-capitol-attack/
• https://mashable.com/article/antifa-conspiracies-trump-mob-january-6-capitol-debunk --93.211.217.55 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  First two sources are merely tweets and don't prove conspiracies; we're not fact-checkers here. I think the other two may be good, but note Jayron's concern. GeraldWL 13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The Law&Crime source looks legit, if it is indeed run by the same Dan Abrams that the Wikipedia article is about. That would only confirm the Mo Brooks information, though. Secondly, even with a source, we would still need consensus that the information is not WP:UNDUE and other considerations; being covered by a reliable source is necessary, but not sufficient, for including information in an article. It also needs to be determined by consensus that it is relevant. --Jayron32 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking up "Antifa capitol" shows many sources discussing and debunking the conspiracy theory. Matt Gaetz uttered it on the senate floor. I definitely support including it and saying it's false, because it has been shown to be false about 5 times over yet still spreads. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it still spreads. Rudy was selling gold/fear... again: WHAT REALLY REALLY REALLY HAPPENED On January 6th?, Rudy W. Giuliani Youtube Chanel, 8 January 2021, 335.950 Clicks 577.000 Follower. Rudy's video has been removed from YouTube just hours after it appeared. He was blaming the MAGA mob riot on the "fascist-deep-state ANTIFA/antifascists". With dramatic starring of Youtube-Holocaust-denier and Groyper Army leader Nick Fuentes! --93.211.218.107 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed enriched, new Infobox

Extended content

2021 storming of the United States Capitol Part of 2020–2021 United States election protests and attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Crowd.jpg Top to bottom, left to right: The crowd of far-right supporters of Donald Trump at the US capital city, Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to a crowd at the "Save America" rally, Protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza Date January 6, 2021 (2021-01-06) about 2 p.m. – 5:40 p.m. (EST) Location United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. 38°53′23.3″N 77°00′32.6″W Caused by Opposition to the Electoral College vote count of the 2020 United States presidential election Methods Rioting, vandalism, looting, attempted bombing Resulted in Damage to the United States Capitol property, including vandalism and looting of offices and chambers. The counting of the Electoral College votes temporarily delayed by several hours. Resignations Elaine Chao Betsy DeVos Matthew Pottinger Stephanie Grisham Anna Cristina Niceta Lloyd Steven Sund Michael C. Stenger Paul D. Irving Installation of new security fencing around Capitol Parties "Save America" Rally Republican Party (partially) US Goverment District of Columbia Virginia Maryland Democratic Party Republican Party (partially) Lead figures Donald Trump Rudy Giuliani Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump Mo Brooks Madison Cawthorn Josh Hawley Jake Angeli Mike Pence Nancy Pelosi Chuck Schumer Mitch McConnell Kevin McCarthy Units involved Pro-Trump protesters Alt-right militias Proud Boys America First (Groypers) Neo-confederates QAnon adherents White supremacists Neo-Nazis US Capitol Police FBI Department of Homeland Security United States Marshals Service District of Columbia National Guard Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Virginia National Guard Virginia State Troopers Casualties and losses 5 deaths Unknown injured 80+ arrested 1 death 61 injured officers (56 police, 5 non-police) References Notes

Discussion

• I Support this change, because it's enriched and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, largely for inclusion of icons for the groups involved, which I think adds a lot to readability. Only concern is that the two listings of the Republican party might be ambiguous and confusing (seems odd to have the same group listed on two parts of a conflict), but I can see why it was done as this was a Republican rally/riot that also targeted the RNC. Is there perhaps a way to disambiguate the two factions so the listings aren't identical? Other than that it all looks good to me. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I added Republican party at both sides because indeed the Republicans splited in two. This is clear at the leaders, while Trump and Pence are in opposite sides.

• Support. Love the angle of that first shot. I would note that the "Resignations" part is too specific as those politicians don't seem to be very popular among society; would rather just put it "Resignations of several politicians". But that's just me. GeraldWL 13:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support But can we change the wording of "Units involved" to "Parties involved" or "Groups involved"? Units implies military or law enforcement units with central organisation and clear command structure, while this seems to have been more of an ad hoc effort. Also, I think it is problematic to place US Government on one side when the President of the very same government is on the other side. Perhaps place Presidency of Donald Trump on protester's side and Vice Presidency and US Government on the other side? Melmann 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose because of the pictures. They don't really feature the main event: the storming, entering and raiding of the capitol building. Are there better pictures? Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Too broad. Please be specific in what changes you propose, and consider splitting your proposals out. I see there are changes to the parties involved, an addition of flag icons, changes to the images, changes to the number of deaths... that's a lot, and it gets a lot more complex once you start considering the number of edits in the main article (trying to diff this will quickly become impossible). Honestly I don't even know what we are discussing here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Pretty great. Seekallknowledge (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for the same reason as Elephanthunter the proposals must be split. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: those "parties", with the little flaggies, and the list of players, that should go, all of it. Having the Republican Party on both sides is already indicative of the uselessness of this, and I'm sure you can come up with more gradations than two--clearly Hawley's position isn't Loeffler's (most recent) position which isn't McConnell's position which isn't Sasse's position. What "sides" are we talking about anyway? And the list of main characters--at what point in time? Why is bison head guy not in there, and why is Eric Trump, whose role (as usual) is neglible? This is, essentially, the same discussion we had yesterday over at 2020–2021 United States election protests: ProcrastinatingReader, it is happening again. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Full of original research. Where did you source the 'lead figures' from? Domeditrix (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support. There are definitely two sides to this and it's important to note them. However, the infobox will need to have citations from reliable sources to support the placement of people/organizations on either side. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: this is a complex event and can't be adequately summed up in this way without significant risk of confusion, misunderstanding, decontextualisation and simple falsehood. I'm not just talking about the "parties" section either: the infobox should only cover the small number of facts about the event that can reasonably be covered in such a primitive way. Everything below "methods" needs to go. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This "civil conflict" addition to the infobox totally distorts what the event was. It was not a battle between two sides, Trump supporters on the one hand and Nancy Pelosi on the other hand. It was totally one-sided, a criminal riot, and that is how it is described by Reliable Sources. Treating this a civil war between warring sides is entirely Original Research, not supported by the facts or the reporting. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per WP:OR and Melanie. This infobox presents an original, POV-laden version of the events that we should not be stating anywhere in wikivoice, especially not in the most highly trafficked area of the page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. MelanieN and Drmies have it exactly right. This was a criminal act, not a "civil conflict" between "parties" and "units." Keep the infobox simple. Neutrality^talk 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Question - @Arms & Hearts:@MelanieN:@AleatoryPonderings:@Neutrality:@Domeditrix:@Drmies: Sorry for the ping. You all have expressed opposition to including the involved opposing parties of the riot because it wouldn't be clear or an accurate representation of what happened. I was wondering, would you be opposed to including a list of only the groups that reliable sources have confirmed were part of the rioters? For instance, many reliable sources confirmed that the Proud Boys attended. I was considering that instead of portraying it as a conflict between two sides like a civil war, we could just list the groups that were part of perpetrating the attack. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd still be opposed for several reasons. Using your example, let's say we list the Proud Boys in the infobox. This tells us that at least one person with at least a loose association with that group was in attendance. It doesn't tell us how many were there, what role they played, what their goals or intentions were and whether they were successful. (In the case of the Proud Boys this might be reasonably straightforward. In the case of the Capitol Police, members of which are now faced with criminal investigations for their complicity with the rioters, is obviously much more complex. Likewise the entire Republican Party, and indeed the entire federal government.) These matters are just as important, if not more, than the bare fact that a group played some role, and can only be covered in prose. Thankfully, this is an encyclopaedia written in prose, so there's no problem – the problem only arises if we try to cram extensive information about a complex event into the infobox, a format patently not designed for that purpose or capable of fulfilling that role. There's an additional problem of the impossibility of providing context. When writing prose we can say "the far-right group XYZ," "the neo-nazi organisation ABC" etc. Infoboxes don't allow (or at least certainly don't encourage) providing that sort of clarity. To some extent this is mitigated by providing a link when the organisation is notable, but notability is not necessarily a requirement for playing a major role in an event like this (the article mentions, for example, something called the Nationalist Social Club, but representatives of thousands more far-right groupuscules were surely present). I agree with Drmies' comment above, but I also see this as a deeper issue with infoboxes in articles like these per se; even if there were two clearly-defined sides, it would still be a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Arms & Hearts; still opposed. Would just add that once these matters are fully investigated by journalists, law enforcement, and scholars, it may well turn out that, e.g., Proud Boys were the masterminds behind (some of) the events. But making that assertion would require extensive, careful sourcing and expansion to the article's prose, not just a news report saying "there were Proud Boys there". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Arms & Hearts, I couldn't agree more: thank you. Herbfur you may have a point in that it seems obvious to list for instance the Proud Boys in an infobox list of perpetrators, but the complexities are just too much for an infobox. They may not be as "loosely" organized as BLM or Antifa, but there are important questions of representation here. We're not really dealing with official organizations with memberships and legal status and party platforms and official declarations of insurrection. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, those are good points. I looked through the article's prose and I found that the attending organizations were mentioned at the beginning of the section on the events of the riot, with not much detail. What do you think would be the best way to expand on this information? I think a subsection on the groups attending in the background section, with full information on the numbers and planning and investigations, would be appropriate. Thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Herbfur. I think that "participating groups" should certainly be in the article text, to the extent they are reliably confirmed. Not in the infobox. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Herbfur: I'm in full agreement with Arms & Hearts. I'd also add that there's no need to potentially jump the gun on this. Let's wait to see what reliable sources bring up regarding the role of certain groups before we even consider adding such fields to an infobox. To do otherwise would be to conduct original research. Domeditrix (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per MelanieN. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @CapeVerdeWave: Care to explain why you've implemented this proposal unilaterally when the discussion is clearly ongoing and no consensus has been reached? Domeditrix (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: The weight of the responses was tending toward Support, and reliable sources, on balance, support the proposal. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No they weren't, and no they don't. I have yet to see anyone produce a reference where a Reliable Source describes this as a civil conflict or lists the "sides". This is pure Original Research. And it should NOT be in the article until it has consensus, which it is a long way from right now. Thank you, User:GorillaWarfare, for removing it and adding an invisible comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a joke, yes? Vandalism by a "Unit" of the "America First (Groypers)", perhaps? What genius listed the "Republican Party" as, essentially, a belligerent in this pseudo-"battle" because some of its members were involved? Why not just toss "Men" and "White race" in there, too? What a shambolic disgrace. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as poorly-cited if not outright original research. I previously raised concerns about the completely unsupported assertion that Groypers/America First and Neo-Confederates were "parties" to this, and that's only one concern of mine with this new proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose This is not a well thought out proposal. Gammapearls (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose these battle infoboxes are often bad on actual battles, and are offensively horrific here. The leaders are arbitrary (why Madison Cawthorn and not Ted Cruz? how is Kevin McCarthy an opposition leader), the "Units involved" and "Casualties" sections are mockeries, and overall it's just painful to read. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose echoing sentiment from a lot of editors, this is deeply offensive. I wouldn't normally take issue with the tone of a suggestion, but to compare this to a battle requires a moment to note that this unacceptable. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose including all sub proposals below. Multiple editors above, including Drmies and Arms & Hearts sum up my views so I’ll be short. I am sure the change is in good faith, but it doesn’t consider the implications clearly and is factually and logically erroneous. We do not have multiple parties up against each other: Republicans vs Democrats is factually incorrect and ridiculous (Republicans distanced themselves from these events), and is perpetuating the same rhetoric that led to this stuff in the first place, and “Trump verses Pence + Pelosi” is equally silly. Further, these were a disparate group of criminals, nothing more, and there was only one “key figure” involved in the events. That alone doesn’t call for a sided presentation in the infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Austin Jaax: Care to explain why you've implemented this proposal unilaterally when the discussion is clearly ongoing and there is no consensus in favour of such changes? Domeditrix (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have removed it. There appears to be consensus against doing this so far. Added sides - no one has provided a valid reason as to why this shouldn't be included. Only arguments provided have been fogged by emotion and denial.[9] is not a very convincing argument to override consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per MelanieN simon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

Please add the proposals so that we can discuss them individually --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - It should be noted that at the time of the submission of this proposal, the extant infobox in the article included parties in the "sides" sections. Those have since been removed, for better or worse, from the live page. So it should be understood that this proposal wasn't suggesting to *add* those, but merely to update them. I personally still think they have merit. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

For better. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Using the "side1" and "side2" parameters of the infobox civil conflict

• Support It seems clear to me that there is a consensus among the reliable sources that this was an insurrection by Trump's supporters against U.S. government. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• NO. It is not that simple. And if you have "Trump supporters" on one side and "US government" on another you are simplifying things greatly, and your representation is a representation of nothing. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it's far too muddy for that. See previous discussions for examples. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Oppose per Drmies. It vastly oversimplifies the event, to the point where we would be misleading readers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sadly Oppose — I would like to support this, as the person who led the effort last night to boldly begin utilizing the infobox parameters to include more detail. However the proposal currently is not appropriate. It lacks proper citations and introduces gaudy flags which aren't appropriate. I might try to retool this and propose a different version. However, it currently doesn't help. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Gwennie, though I would like to support this, this proposal is not appropriate and should be tweaked. Nekomancerjade (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Using flag icons in the infobox

• Weak oppose I don't think it would help readability. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Fairly strong support I think it helps avoid wall of unornamented text syndrome, adds visual interest and a graphical hook. Also makes parties recognizable at a glance. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There were flags at the event. Reliable sources prominently feature people holding those flags. We should use their flags. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can't see a reason to put flags here, we should try and minimise flag usage (especially in infobox) per MOS:ICON/WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Lee Vilenski is correct. Elephanthunter, no. There was also a bison head at the event; we wouldn't want that in an infobox. If you want to go by what flags they wore, the "Trump" side would numerically be represented by an American flag, which takes the crazy to a whole nother level. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that the fac that Trump supporters want to believe that they are represented by the American flag. In reality they attacked at the building that represent democracy. The fact that they believed they are saving their country doesn't mean they could be right. They attacked their goverment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  You're missing the point: you should tell this to Elephanthunter. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support. It's clear and enriched. Flags represent each group and raised at the Capitol. So, I cannot find any reason not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the discussion above, we are not going to have any listing of "sides" in the infobox, so we would certainly not be using "flags". Most of the suggested "combatants" don't have a flag anyhow. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Per the discussion above, we are not going to have any listing of "sides" in the infobox There is no consensus on one side or the other at the moment so the question remains open. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. A tiny flag does not help readers identify flags in pictures, despite the argument above. They're visually disruptive, and we don't need to be doing these groups' branding for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Couldn't agree with GorillaWarfare more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• America vs America? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. It's neonazis Americans against America.

Using the "leadfigures1" and "leadfigures2" parameters of the infobox civil conflict

• Weak oppose Trump can arguably be designated a lead figure on the "side" of Trump's supporters, but who can be considered a lead figure on the "side" of the US Congress? Does the question even make sense? --RaphaelQS (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Among with the US Congress it is the Democratic Party and part of Republicans. And generally they are the key peoples of each side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Both leaders are rather clear-cut and lots of sourcing exists surrounding them. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

As I can see most of the people that oppose are about the flags. I personally support the flag use but I think we could find a solution that satisfy most of us. So I suggest to remove the flags from the units but keep them at the sides.

Support. Let's change it and replace the poor infobox of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (6)

In section "Trump administration resignations," request to add following sentence after "Julian Borger of The Guardian observed that the resignations were mostly among 'second-tier officials' and that there was 'no sign ... of a sweeping exodus or mutiny'."

"Mulvaney has indicated some officals are declining to resign 'because they’re worried the president might put someone worse in'."

citation: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-adviser-resigns-two-other-senior-officials-consider-quitting-matt-pottinger Dangerdan97 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is simply not true as of now, as Betsy Devos and Elaine Chao, both cabinet members, have resigned since the event as a direct result. Even had your request been accurate at the time of the publication of the article, it isn't anymore. Builder018 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're suggesting the initial statement by Borger is no longer true (a sentiment I would agree with), I would amend my request to simply have that line removed from the article as incorrect.

If it is to stand, then I have to ask for clarification on resistance to my addition. Has Mulvaney retracted his statement, or has every member of the cabinet resigned? Without one or both of those scenarios occurring there is no way of knowing the "truth" of his assertion, only that he has made it and a reliable source has reported it. Dangerdan97 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My assertion is indeed that the initial statement by Borger is no longer true, and should be removed. Builder018 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Builder018: If you look at the source, it's very clear Borger is writing after Chao and Devos resigned, and is explicitly describing them as "second-tier officials". You can disagree with his assessment, but the article's presentation of his statement, which I've now restored in full, is entirely accurate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, then Borger is incredibly incorrect; by no means is any cabinet member a "second-tier official", and even the most seemingly unimportant wield a massive amount of power and influence, though his assessment being incorrect rather than out of date makes for a much less strong opposition to the inclusion. Builder018 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Photographs of rioters

@EEng: No, certainly not joking. This is an article about an event; photographs of people in which everything but the face and upper body is cropped out – leaving no contextual information, no sense of where or when the photographs were taken, nor who these people are or what role they played – plainly tell the reader nothing useful. They're also a clear WP:BLPCRIME violation, explicitly linking low-profile living people who have not been convicted of crimes to criminal activity. It's such an obvious point that WP:NOT doesn't cover it, but Wikipedia is not for aiding the police in their investigations (even if it appears they could do with all the help they can get!). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Creating a section on iconography and slogans used by rioters

Hi all

One thing that feels missing to me from this article is an explanation of the very visible iconography used by rioters to help explain who they were, which groups they belong to and speak to their motivations. E.g blue lives matter flags, people dressed as vikings (white supremacists who want 'racial purity', a whites only America), the use of the 6MWE slogan (6 million wasn't enough, referring to the wish for a second holocaust) and QAnon signs.

Can anyone suggest a structure for a section like this or any iconography that should be included? Here are some references

Vikings

• https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2020/07/white-supremacists-are-misappropriating-norse-mythology-says-expert.html
• https://time.com/5569399/viking-history-white-nationalists/

6WME

• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/
• https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3z9aj/a-national-guard-twitch-streamer-said-6-million-wasnt-enough-on-stream
• https://www.tmz.com/2020/12/23/racist-proud-boys-t-shirt-says-6-million-wasnt-enough/

Blue Lives Matter

QAnon

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel this is particularly notable or due in relation to this specific article. Builder018 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this the appropriate article for the proposed section. Perhaps a section in the articles of those groups would be more appropriate. DCai169 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Does anyone agree that “2021 storming of the US Capitol” is quite a mouthful for a article title? I propose naming it to

“2021 US Capitol Siege”

thoughts? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruhmoney77, there was an extensive discussion on renaming above. please go through.ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capitol Insurrection. Straightforward, fits the dictionary definition better than any alternative, is supported by sources. Adding a date not required (for now). Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The choice of "storming" was a long and detailed discussion.

Note that “2021 US Capitol Storming” is as many words as “2021 US Capitol Siege”. It looks long only because of the "of the" and "United States" being spelled out. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Unacceptable removal of key facts from the first sentence

This edit[10] that removes several key facts and links to other related articles is completely unacceptable. Note that the material that was removed is uncontroversial, purely factual and not related to the above discussion on whether we should include something about Trump's "urging" or "incitement."

The rioters were supporting Trump's attempt to overturn the election (regardless of whether he urged them to do it), and the edit essentially removes any motivation or identity from the sentence, turning them into an anonymous group of "rioters" with no goal, purpose or identity, when in fact they had stated their goal – supporting Trump and overturning the election – very clearly. --Tataral (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the removal of this information is entirely inappropriate, and should be re-instated if there is no significant objection. Builder018 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to remark that I find the current phrasing awkward, as it seems to be trying to cram too much information into a single sentence. I preferred the earlier version which stated that the rioters were "supporting United States President Donald Trump". From a readability point of view it might make more sense to add the "attempts to overturn the election" part in the second paragraph which discusses Trump's comments leading up to the riots. AnonQuixote (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@AnonQuixote: "attempts to overturn the election" does not supply nearly enough information; many elections have taken place recently, and multiple have been challenged. The current section was sufficient context without overly crowding the article. Builder018 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question removed the phrase "supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election", describing the rioters. I agree that the information/wikilinks should not be removed, but I think trying to fit everything into the initial sentence results in awkward phrasing. AnonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not the exact wording that's the issue, but the inclusion of key facts and links to those related articles. We may have to discuss the exact wording further, but the sentence should be reinstated until we agree on a new wording. --Tataral (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Tataral, the sentence should probably be re-written by consensus, but should be re-instated and not removed until such consensus for a re-write can be obtained. Builder018 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note: The sentence was restored in this edit[11], which I support. --Tataral (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Elijahandskip has continued to attempt to edit-war out this sentence; I have restored it again and warned them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It is so funny that a discussion about this exact topic is above in the talk page. Extremely funny how you followed a discussion here and completely ignored the discussion above. There is no consensus as multiple people (In the discussion above) stated an oppose AND a support for it. I would consider this discussion irrelevant as it doesn’t involve anything from the one above. Please move the discussion to the topic above. I am undoing the part in question and I am rejecting the “warning” as this talk page section is actually how major problems arise. Please see above. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As explained above, it's an outright falsehood that there is a discussion above about this (I started the other discussion as well). There is no support for your edit-warring over this sentence and attempt to remove uncontroversial facts and links to other relevant articles. Please self-revert. --Tataral (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

See here: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence. This discussion needs to move to that discussion (Which was started yesterday). Elijahandskip (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion in question says nothing about this specific wording in the lede. The fact that a discussion is ongoing about some other wording does not imply that you may unilaterally declare that no edits may be made to other wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The other discussion is specifically about whether to include something about Trump's personal "urging" or "incitement" in the sentence, not about stating the uncontroversial fact that the protesters were supporters of Trump or including relevant links to other WP articles. --Tataral (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did not participate in the previous discussions on this matter but it is obvious to me that Elijahandskip's edit was inappropriate and against clear consensus existing here (which I myself support). I have restored [12] the wording to the lede. I am currently on wikibreak and will be mostly inactive on WP for a few weeks. However, I do want to note that this page is subject to WP:ACDS. If issues of significant and persistent misconduct arise here, they can be reported at WP:AE for appropriate action there. Nsk92 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  My edit was not called for. I understand what the consensus here is for and I respect it. I do want to note that in the future, this could get messy again (Unintentionally). Personally, I feel like the discussion above (If votes to remove it) could have an impact on the lead sentence that would go against this consensus. For now, we kick the can down the road. Hopefully it doesn’t get messy, but it could. Sorry for the problems I caused. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note #2: The sentence was restored again in this edit citing clear consensus for it.[13]. --Tataral (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is now correctly reflected on the page ("The riots were incited by comments made by Trump and his allies at an earlier rally"). Indeed, it is important that they were not just supporters of Trump (and Republican Party), but that they were incited by him. As sources say, "Seething with anger, mostly unmasked, Donald Trump’s supporters stormed and breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, stoked by his defiant speech claiming the election had been stolen from him." and especially this :“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump had told the crowd, urging them to head to the Capitol. That must be cited on this page. [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above pretty much has a decent consensus that the word "urge" shouldn't be used in the lead paragraph as Pres. Trump never said the exact phrase "Storm the capital". He might have alluded to it, but the word urge means a direct statement. See Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence for that discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of these words have legal implications. This is the kind of thing that will be decided in due course. Despite the timely nature of the event, Wikipedia is not a place to write about ongoing crimes. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed—please see my comments about ongoing BLP violation here. Using Wikivoice to assert that Donald Trump committed a serious crime is unacceptable, and guidance makes clear we must both use "alleged" or "accused" and identify the accusers. Also, this fact-check should be instructive. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Capitol Police

I propose that we revise the following line which implies a conclusion drawn on inadequate evidence (specifically the word "allowing" is an interpretation that has not been substantiated):

Footage emerged on social media of police allowing rioters through barricades into the Capitol, and one officer was filmed taking a "selfie" with a rioter inside the building.

Per nbcnews:

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said he wants to give police "the benefit of the doubt" and hopes they were attempting to de-escalate Wednesday's event when they appeared to let pro-Trump rioters inside the legislative building.

"Sometimes when you don't have enough personnel, you can't stand and fight a large crowd like that," he said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, noting that there were not enough law enforcement personnel on scene.

Furthermore, per Politifact:

We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim.

Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”

Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat. 8.45.132.4 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Murder in infobox

The "methods" section in the infobox lists murder, citing a New York Post article about the death of the policeman who was struck with a fire extinguisher. However, the article does not mention murder specifically, and the New York Post is considered to be an unreliable source per here. As such I believe murder should be removed from the infobox. Spengouli (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

After reading the source, I agree that murder should not be listed as a method. DCai169 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Second the removal, it seems incredibly improper for the circumstance. Builder018 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "Assault" would be a better parameter. Since the death was due to an assault with a fire hydrant. The rioter in question most likely had no intent to kill but that is speculation on my part.ExplosiveResults (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Implemented conversion of "murder" to "assault" ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A federal murder investigation is going to be launched, but at this point it has not been officially named murder. Assault is more accurate. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI photo of pipe bomb suspect

Are these images in the public domain? https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc Victor Grigas (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Public domain, these images were prepared by a US Government employee as part of their job or duties, and would be in the Public Domain. DCai169 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just adding a pointer to #Photos of suspects below. Regardless of the licensing, we should not be adding these images. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The poster might have been prepared by a government employee (i.e. the FBI), but the provenance of the photo itself is what matters. If the FBI got it from somewhere or someone else, then they can use it per fair use, but that wouldn't make it public domain as is explained in WP:PD#US government works. Not everything you find on a US government website or released by the US government 100% originates with the US government. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

George R.R. Martin

One of the citations comparing the event to the Beer Hall Putsch (citation 348) was a quote from author George R.R. Martin.

Is Martin an appropriate source for this topic? He is a fantasy writer who lacks expertise on both American politics and Nazi Germany.

(Painting17 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

No he is not, it can be used on his own page for his personal views, but not actually describing what happened here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm striving to be more proactive about removing content like this. I get the sense that a lot of edits are being made by people with elevated heart rates and a strong political opinions. It's not going to be easy, but we need to focus on what happened in the events and leave commentary for the appropriate sections. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN had "most watched day in history"

Worth adding?

• https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cnn-has-most-watched-day-ever-with-capitol-insurrection-coverage/467372/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2021/01/07/attack-on-capitol-pushes-cnn-to-its-most-watched-day-in-history/?sh=4695fe183121
• https://thehill.com/homenews/media/533239-cnn-says-it-had-its-most-watched-day-in-history-amid-capitol-riots
• https://deadline.com/2021/01/capitol-siege-ratings-cnn-highest-day-donald-trump-1234666894/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not against it but in my opinion it’s trivial and a fluke; also doesn’t take into account people (e.g. myself) who were in public and watched it on livestreams rather than television. Trillfendi (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this video real?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM6h9elyTY Charles Juvon (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, but it was filmed before Trump made his speech. [15] Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please remember wp:OR. Primary sources, such as the video linked, cannot be used to advance a point or position, unless it is to supplement a reliable secondary source. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A criminal investigation might tie up Capitol police or Congressional video for a long time, so we should use what we have at this time, and then replace it - as was done with the Nashville bombing (see article page history). Charles Juvon (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Photos of suspects

I've just removed a grid of "Persons sought by police and the FBI in connection with the attack" and a "Photo of the suspected pipe bomber" per WP:BLPCRIME. We absolutely should not be publishing these photos until the people have at least been charged with crimes, if not convicted. Does no one remember what happened with the Boston Marathon bombing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely the right decision. We're not an FBI wanted list board. — Czello 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with your decision. That was absolutely inappropriate to have in the article, it's probably also a legal liability. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

100% agree EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I enabled the editor who added the images with this response. I did not perceive the additional questions that I should have asked, and for that I am sorry. I'm still new to editing, and I hope that this can be a valuable lesson for me. DCai169 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree (and said as much earlier today). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged the photos for deletion as well under G10 - they could be by themselves a BLPCRIME and BLP Defamation problem. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick attacker

Have there been any reports that have given details about who it was that hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher? Like a description of the attacker? WakandaQT (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please keep in mind Wikipedia:BLPCRIME when editing. DCai169 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports about the fire extinguisher. I have not had time to do a chronology to see if this is the latest official statement, but the police statement about his death did not mention it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Trump is a very bad man but in an encyclopedia we have to be entirely factual. No court judgment have been made stating claims were false. Instead, they were sometimes deemed unsubstantiated and sometimes dismissed without judicial comment. A false claim would be if the judge heard a case then Trump was found guilty of perjury for stating a false claim.

Current version, lede, 2nd paragraph Following several months of false claims by Trump about voting fraud in the November 2020 election, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to protest the certified election results and demand

Suggested, encyclopedia version Following several months of unsubstantiated claims by Trump about voting fraud Vanny089 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - This request is incoherent as written. Unless it is rewritten clearly, there is nothing actionable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I second the above, and would like to further note that a legal judgment is not necessary for Wikipedia to say that certain claims are false. If it is documented in an appropriate source, it is included. RexSueciae (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rewritten: despite the current status, users have edited over one another. The consensus is that the rate of editing should be decreased (see comments about "waiting until the dust has settled") rather than increased. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP car crash

The section "Identification of rioters" has severe problems. I have already removed a reference to someone being there when the source said "someone resembling foo".

Other people in this section who are unlikely to have been in the building. And even people who were did not necessarily take part in the riot.

There are various options:

1. remove those who cannot currently be labelled as rioters.
2. create new sub-sections
3. change the section title - but to what?

Comments? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Remove them all for now, Rich. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just now removed the entire section and started a discussion about it a few sections down. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and the Identification of Rioters Section

I just removed the section on identification of rioters. In case the edit isn't reverted, the original text is here: [16]. I find that maintaining this information is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME because most of the people listed there are not public officials and have not yet been convicted of a crime. For now, this information should not be included, due to the risk of harm and legal liability. However, there were bits about public officials who attended, so I wouldn't be opposed to re-adding that per WP:BLPPUBLIC. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Herbfur, Agree that for now we should err on the side of caution and not disclose names. Earlier today, I reverted a number of additions to disambiguation pages that referred to the accused by their exact name and were clearly WP:BLPCRIME. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the people have publicly identified themselves, so as for those people, I don't see a BLP issue with inclusion (maybe a due weight question). Neutrality^talk 21:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation because the content was sourced to WaPo, Usatoday and other legitimate sources. Also, the person of interest is not someone who has been officially accused of any crime. I would restore this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:, it doesn't matter if RS identified them, the policy still provides that that information cannot be included. @Neutrality:, I'm still not convinced that that information can be included because of innocent until proven guilty. I'd say we can include that information if they identified themselves, but only after they've been convicted of a crime. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, WP:BLPCRIME advises extra caution, beyond just requiring a reliable source, before including material that accuses someone of a crime. I would also question the WP:WEIGHT that should be given to naming individuals when hundreds of people were involved, except for those whose involvement was particularly prominent. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely correct. I'd say we would need coverage from numerous reliable sources, particularly those covering national and not local events, to justify adding any self-identified people back to the article. I'm unequivocally opposed to adding individuals who didn't identify themselves, at least until a conviction is secured and the conviction is covered notably. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of names and Wikipedia isn't a trial court or investigatory service, and we can't risk that legal risk of inclusion. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• All people mentioned by name in this section are actually public figures. Please see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. For example, Jake Angeli and Baked Alaska (activist) are public figures as people seeking public attention. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE might provide that these figures, even if they're notable, might not be worth including. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest restoring most of the section -- particularly the info on alt-right celebrities and current or former state legislators. Possibly keep those who identified themselves to journalists and effectively made themselves public figures. All else, cite but don't necessarily name them in the article. RexSueciae (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the content on legislators has been restored to the bottom of the section on rioting in the Capitol. I don't find self-identification to be sufficient for restoration, however. The policy simply states that it's best not to mention any specific names. If there are multiple sources that indicate that these people are notable, attended, and identified themself, then yes, I would consider readding. Perhaps we can go through the old text to determine this. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Herbfur: The policy does not provides that any information about a crime "cannot be included." The policy actually says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." It's a directive to use caution and good judgment, not a total bar on anything touching on a pending criminal matter. If we use the best sources, word things accurately and carefully (i.e., avoiding any implication that any specific individual is actually guilty of a criminal act), and avoid unduly focusing on obscure individuals, that is consistent with BLP. (And we routinely do this: see Elizabeth Holmes for an example). Neutrality^talk 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's enough national coverage in reliable sources of people who identified themselves and attended the riot, I would not oppose inclusion of that content, even without a conviction, relating to your point and WP:undue. However, I still oppose inclusion of other individuals. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The text you deleted included this excerpt:

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots;

References

I'm assuming you're not contending that this can't be included on BLP or some other ground? Neutrality^talk 22:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that I deleted that excerpt of text. That should definitely be added back. There's a similar portion of text about Jones' involvement in the planning section. Jones is enough of a public figure to be included. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who restored the content about state legislators - I feel that, at least, should remain. They're public figures by virtue of their legislative positions, for one thing. And their actions are beginning to have repercussions in their respective state capitols.

Also, I agree that those who outed themselves can't really claim any expectation of privacy after this. On those who didn't, my feelings are somewhat more mixed-to-neutral. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I fully support the inclusion of the legislators, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Restore entire section and include the legislators, as some have started to receive charges. Wikipedia is not censored. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The removal of the section is due to a misunderstanding of WP:BLPCRIME, which lends credence to the section's restoration and (potential) expansion. Information from credible sources about Alex Jones and the Nationalist Social Club's involvements should be re-added to the article even if the the removed section isn't restored. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The legislators are already in the article. I also find my perceived comprehension of the policy irrelevant, I'd prefer that you explain your position based on your actual understanding of the policy. Alex Jones is already in the article. I can re-add the NSC to the article because they're an organization and not individuals. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean Wikipedia can include everything, also. We're still subject to the bounds of WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and other policies. Wikipedia should be very, very careful with including information on people who are accused of crimes, per WP:BLPCRIME. BLPCRIME specifies CONVICTION as the standard for including ordinary people, not charges. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed compromise - I propose that the content be readded to the article, but the people's names in objected sections be removed and replaced with generic language, like "a man was arrested for looting Nancy Pelosi's office". This way, important content remains and people can still find more pertinent information in the citations. @Fuzheado:, @Neutrality:, @My very best wishes:, @RL0919:, @RexSueciae:, @Mt.FijiBoiz:, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems (somewhat) fair. A complete removal of the information would do great harm to the article and the acts, since they occured during the riots, belong on this page. Not including the names of random participants seems to follow Wikipedia policy, however, the names of prominent people arrested or wanted for "domestic terrorism" (term used by the FBI) must be included. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I can support this: the only names I would include would be those of people who outed themselves. But it's no skin off my nose if those don't make it in. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This works for me also. I would limit names to people who admitted their participation and have particular prominence (such as politicians and organizational leaders). Generic descriptions for everyone else. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Herbfur, I think this is reasonable and the detailed list of considerations below was done in a logical way. Thanks to everyone for collaborating on a good solution. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think we must mentione all people who were prominently described in multiple RS and arguably qualify as public figures, especially if we have pages about these people. Should we mention them as proven perpetrators of crime? No, that could be against the policy. But to mention them as people who just took part in the events would be fine. Hiding facts which were published everywhere would be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The rationale I had in making this compromise is that, while I cannot in good conscience agree to add the names, the compromise would still make the actions known and readers can click the citations to find the actual names of the people who participated in the riot. If and when a conviction comes, the names absolutely should be included. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone notable (and especially a public figure) being present during an event X is just a fact and not a crime. Hence the BLPCRIME is irrelevant. No need to hide their names that appear everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Identification of rioters "The day after the storming of the Capitol, the FBI and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department requested the public for assistance to identify any of the rioters."  Content re-added to the criminal investigation section. "Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli, a QAnon conspiracy theorist; Tim "Baked Alaska" Gionet, a neo-Nazi social media personality; and Nick Ochs, founder of the Proud Boys Hawaii chapter."  Content removed, contested on grounds of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE "Bloomberg News journalists stated that far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots;"  Content added to the beginning of the rioting in the Capitol section "a Vice journalist reported that members of the Nationalist Social Club, a neo-Nazi street gang, were also present at the Capitol. CBS 2 Boise identified Josiah Colt, the man who hung from the Senate floor balcony ledge. Jenny Cudd, a former mayoral candidate of Midland, Texas, bragged on Facebook about her participation, with current Midland mayor Patrick Payton expressing disappointment in her actions."  Content removed, contested on grounds of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE "A picture of Richard "Bigo" Barnett of Gravette, Arkansas, a Trump-supporting self-identified white nationalist, at Pelosi's desk later went viral. Barnett was arrested on January 8, 2021. Josiah Colt, a native of Boise, Idaho, reportedly echoed themes associated with the boogaloo movement and managed to mount the vice president's seat in the Senate chamber."  Content removed, contested on grounds of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE "Supporters of the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers were also reportedly present or wore emblematic gear or symbols during the riots; Neo-Nazi apparel was also worn by some participants during the riots, including a shirt emblazoned with references to the Auschwitz–Birkenau concentration camp and its motto, Arbeit macht frei (German for "work makes you free"). Jon Schaffer of American metal band Iced Earth was identified as having participated in the riot."  Content included in Participating groups section "At least thirteen Republican state legislators—including Nevada State Assemblywoman Annie Black, Virginia State Senator Amanda Chase, Alaska State Representative David Eastman, West Virginia Delegate Derrick Evans, Missouri State Representative Justin Hill, Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem, Michigan State Representative Matt Maddock, Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, and Tennessee Representative Terri Lynn Weaver, as well as outgoing Arizona State Representative Anthony Kern, outgoing Georgia State Representative Vernon Jones, and former Pennsylvania State Representative Rick Saccone—were present at the event. Representative Weaver claimed to have been "in the thick of it," while Delegate Evans filmed himself entering the Capitol Building alongside rioters. All denied participating in acts of violence. Evans was later charged by federal authorities with entering a restricted area."  Content included at the bottom of the Rioting in the Capitol section References

Emerging COMMONNAME

I know there's a discussion here about whether to include coup/insurrection based on building our own title, but before we do come to another RM, I think it's worthy to note that at least CNN, per their news special, has settled on their name for it: The Trump Insurrection.

A variant on this phrasing, if not used as a name, is apparent in other sources:

• "pro-Trump insurrection" - Inquirer
• "politicians blame Trump for insurrection" - The Guardian (news not opinion)
• "pro-Trump insurrection" - MSNBC
• "the Trump insurrection" - New Yorker
• "pro-Trump attempted insurrection" - The Washington Post

It seems like that's the emerging COMMONNAME and something to keep an eye on to see if it sticks before we move the article again. We don't to cycle through lots of article moves for such a prominent topic. If it's still sticking by next week, it would be the best title, but let's watch it for now. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

These sources have all expressed anti-Trump sentiment before the event. It would be great to get sources from those who support him (however wrong they may be) to verify that the word is used by both. Common requires broad usage. This is coming from someone personally anti-Trump. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral media reporting on Trump doing sketchy things is just going to happen with neutral media. You do know that neutral media exists, right? These are WP-consensus agreed some of the most neutral sources. They have independent journalists, so if they've ever said something "anti-Trump" it's because, like with this event, Trump did something objectionable. I can see where you're coming from, but you're aiming for False balance. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If appropriate for Wikipedia, the term "Insurrection" will be used by official bodies in course proceedings whose job is to investigate actions with specific legal meanings like "Insurrection". Then we should add it to this article. Otherwise, it's like a news report about a murder. Maybe true, but it doesn't belong here. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

News reports about murders do belong here. We can't call it murder per Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, just like how at no point in this article is it called an insurrection. Builder018 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

This article was extended confirmed protected, but no longer has any protection. I think it should remain extended confirmed protected for the next two weeks at the very least, and at least semi-protected for the foreseeable future. --Tataral (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agree, this is still a hot and developing topic. When the ECP expired I took the opportunity to try and make some edits I was just about to request. But now I realize it's really hard to collaborate on this without a lot of experience in applying NPOV to biased sources. --Frogging101 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected until January 19; with diffs of new semi-confirmed disruption provided, I expect that a RFPP request will succeed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Comment from the protecting admin): There's currently 5 days of semi-protection and 10 days of move protection. Any admin is welcome to fiddle with these parameters as they see fit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Emotive Words

There have been lengthy discussions about the appropriate word choice for several things on this article. Most of the discussion centers on the least charged and most accurate definition.

This is not the purpose of this section. The purpose of this section is merely to assemble a list of words for quick and easy reference.

• Event:

• attack
• demonstration
• event
• mob
• protest
• rally
• riot
• storming
• invasion
• unrest
• violence

• Event as a possible coup/revolt:

• coup
• coup d'etat
• insurrection
• overthrow
• rebellion
• revolution
• revolt
• sedition
• uprising

• Participants:

• crowd
• mob
• rioters
• participants
• people
• protestors
• supporters

• Urged/incited:

• called
• encouraged
• incited
• instructed
• urged

Please add to the list but do not remove from it.

Relevant Discussion There is a discussion about the words "Urge" and "Incited" above. See:Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence Elijahandskip (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Added a section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When adding to this list, note that this is not just a list of synonyms. No one has called the participants "freedom fighters", nor should we. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion for the word "urge" determined it was not a good word for the lead. It might need to be questioned in the rest of the article as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Added a few, including the headwords themselves which are pretty neutral. Also alphabetized them, just because. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Does speculation by reliable sources equal fact?

Just because one (or more) reliable sources say that Trump's speech "inflamed" or "encouraged" the crowd of protestors, does that mean this should be stated as fact, in wikivoice? Trump's speech contained dog whistles both overt and subtle, but the emotional state of the crowd and its motivations in that moment is a matter of speculation. Given the methods used in the insurrection (as well as evidence of online organization beforehand), this was planned well in advance of Trump's speech.

I honestly hope I'm not nitpicking. I'm just confused about how we can treat what is almost certainly speculation as a fact just because a news article from a reliable source says so, even though the author of that article had no reasonable way of knowing. --Frogging101 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a specific accusation with legal implications and Wikipedia isn't about speculation. The job of assigning blame is a court. All current sources are sources that have expressed anti-Trump sentiment. We need more than that. Please post on the discussion above. We need more sane voices like yours. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Q746371: You mention this above: sources that have expressed anti-Trump sentiment, but many of these are the most reliable, neutral sources around. They just report when Trump does bad things - that isn't being anti-Trump media. It's honest. What we'll have is sources that have reported Trump doing illegal things - unobjectionable fact after last year's impeachment - and sources that won't report that, which are pro-Trump media. Simply put: you are trying to say that any media that has ever criticized Trump has inherent bias and can't be trusted, which is an inappropriate reading of WP policies to say the least. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's reliable in the facts it reports. It is correct to state what Trump said and cite the newspaper. It is not correct to use its same language and draw its same conclusions. Further, "inciting an insurrection" has legal implications. It is perfectly reasonable for a newspaper to accuse someone of a crime, but inappropriate for Wikipedia to state it without saying who accused them. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of Inciting in this article is not a legal matter, and we don't need to wait for a court of law to weigh in on it to see whether or not he incited the crowd. There's far more than enough consensus for this to be put into wikivoice with no issue. Builder018 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

One article may well be challenged, especially from a sketchy source. But dozens of articles, from dozens of reliable networks, represent a consensus that Wikipedia by its policies cannot ignore. Even if there is reason to suspect that the consensus is incorrect, unless that reason is published by another reliable source, Wikipedia cannot depend on it, as that falls under Original Research. Builder018 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be reliable in that they make a good faith effort to report truths rather than falsehoods and make best efforts to rectify any inaccurate reports. But that doesn't mean that everything they write is completely factual. They can still embellish or "fill in the blanks" with bits of speculation or interpretation that are not actually supported by empirical facts or even particularly effortful or informed analysis of facts. And I do not fault them for doing this (though I would prefer that they didn't). But it illustrates that what makes good news media isn't the same as what makes a good encyclopedia.--Frogging101 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Kingsif and Builder018. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

We're editing in the middle of event. Sentences like these don't belong in the article. Whether Trumped "incited" or "urged" will be stated by more authoritative sources later. This sentence will either read, "X agency indicted Trump for inciting...and found guilty" or will quote historians. There's no point in quoting newspapers making their own (possibly correct) interpretations. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed a sentence of this sort yesterday, but it seems to have found its way back in. Can we take this section as indicating a consensus it doesn't belong? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There's absolutely no such consensus here, in fact it's basically evenly divided. The argument that we need to wait for a court of law to state things like "instigated" or "falsely" for us to include them is based on an inherently flawed understanding of policy. Builder018 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends on what the preponderance of sources say. But it is also (to a degree) speculation. I lean towards yes we can say this, as simply put its to widely held a view for anything else to be a bit wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspension of President Trump's Twitter account as a result of the event

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684877634838528?s=20

I've added a minor section in the "aftermath" page but it should likely be expanded and possibly moved to a more appropriate location. Builder018 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#President Donald Trump. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you or someone else wants to either merge that section to mine, or merge my section to there, go ahead. Builder018 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New paragraph?

I tried to do this edit but I’m on a mobile device and the page is so long it just freaked out.

Can you move the section where the sentence about the bombs to a different paragraph than all the deaths?

It’s really a separate thought and it’s getting lost. I expect overtime that the bombs will expand. As an editor it bothers me to have the two things together and I was trying to fix it but I could not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the bombs are unrelated to the deaths. I have split it off several times but others keep reconnecting it, probably to reduce the number of lead paragraphs. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Baseless => False

Many words in this article have a clearer, simpler, exact synonym that isn't value-laden.

We need to maintain as neutral a tone as possible. When there are less loaded words with identical definitions, we should use them. When I read "baseless" in a Wikipedia article, I begin to question it.

"Baseless assertion" should be "false assertion".

"Unfounded claims" should be "false claims". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Baseless and unfounded are no more value-laden than false. Reliable Sources call it that, so we call it that. Also, please sign your posts, so people know who they're talking to. Builder018 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

They are certainly more value laden. Look at the recent entries in the OED under "baseless" and "unfounded". It's always about a dispute or disagreement, often political and always heated. "False" is simple, clear, and accurate. More to the point, "baseless" and "unfounded" add no semantic meaning. Also thank you for the signature reminder. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this. Whether something is "baseless" or "unfounded" depends on what basis or foundation one finds acceptable. What is false is, for our purposes at least, universally false. I would add that we do not need sources to specifically describe claims as false in order to describe them as such. If a source says "John Doe said antifa were responsible for the attack, which was actually carried out by Trump supporters" or "John Doe said the election was won by Trump, when in fact it was won by Biden" the source is identifying John Doe's claim as a false claim and there is no reason we shouldn't do the same, only more explicitly. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There appears to have been consensus among UK broadcast news media for a period of weeks to use phrases like "unsupported" and "without offering any evidence" - my feeling is that they are trying to put a more explicit disclaimer, a la social media, on these claims than usual. (Normal practice would be to report claims by major figures as "claims", and say who they were challenged by, so this has been a very noticeable change of style, which may come back to bite us.) This seems to me far preferable than saying "false", it's perfectly clear and encourages people who might believe the claims to think about whether the claims are in fact supported, rather than just dismiss the messenger as "MSM". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Navigation template

Improvements welcome to the newly created Template:2021 US Capitol Storming ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

...Is that really a very necessary template? Seems to me like it basically functions as a "List of significant figures in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" article, but in template form. Builder018 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The template is not necessary at this time. It should be quickly deleted. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not create and I don't feel strongly either way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected pipe bomber

here if anyone needs it: File:Pipe bomb suspect FBI Jan 2021.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs)

Per Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, this file shouldn't even be uploaded, let alone included in the article. Hard oppose to any possible inclusion. Builder018 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've disabled the image per WP:BLPCRIME. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This file shouldn't even be on our servers. Thank you and please don't hesitate to remove anything like this immediately. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to have that image - as the wanted poster - hosted on Wikipedia or on Commons. Since it's not actually identifying any known individual, it's not needed as a cropped image (but also fine to have until the figure does become identifiable) Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Incitement of violence - Permanent Twitter-suspension of Trump

Included in Twitter’s statement, explaining why it banned Trump: “Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.” → https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html --217.234.74.170 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is a US company with close personal connection to the event. Discussions about tech regulation and the role of social media companies are driven by events like this. Please find neutral sources.

As a side note, the US media has given significant attention to this event--more than the coronavirus deaths and unemployment. With few developments on the ground, outlets have begun to focus on unconfirmed and speculative reports. Keep on eye on how credible supposed threats like these are. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Why Twitter finally banned Trump, recode, January 8, 2021
• Twitter bans Trump, Social media platforms have finally blocked the president’s accounts. Previous cases show that deplatforming works — if the costs are high enough., MIT Technology Review, January 8, 2021 → Quote: "... mainstream news outlets are the largest amplifier of White House disinformation, since “journalists, all of whom are on Twitter, quickly work his statements into their broadcasts." ... "In the same message, he lied about having immediately deployed the National Guard, when in fact he initially resisted." --93.211.218.107 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Some PD images of troops coming to the capitol here

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6476120/airmen-head-washington-dc Victor Grigas (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

These would be relevant to Inauguration of Joe Biden, but there are limited mentions of the inauguration in this article, mainly a mini-paragraph related to Secret Service reviewing the overall plans for the inauguration. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead section too big and comfortable to read

Self-explanatory. Thoughts? Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the lede is too but if you think it is - try to rework the information into relevant sections of the article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree but I expect it will be easier to condense when things cool down. Right now a lot of editors want to get a point in. It's best to wait and then keep the best content. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Q746371/DenverCoder9. 7 paragraphs are too much (WP:MOSLEAD says a guideline of "no longer than four paragraphs" though I've seen up to 6 paragraphs be OK), but some of them are short paragraphs and once the dust settles we can reduce the lede then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Crimes Currently Under Investigation

I'm posting a reminder about WP:BLPCRIME.

As an example, please do not use the word "murder" for a possible crime currently under investigation. Unlike other edits, this is a very serious problem. This isn't just about this article: it's about Wikipedia and legal liability.

Similar words that have legal implications are sedition, assault, etc.

I know there are a lot of sections on this talk page but it's very important for the integrity of the encyclopedia so I'm posting here as a reminder to everyone. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We cannot say someone was murdered unless there are convictions and reliable sources stating such. A felony murder investigation is just that, an investigation. We cannot predict the results of the investigation. While it is very likely that Sicknick was murdered, we cannot say that on the article until it is backed up. As far as I can tell the line "and murdered a police officer" was added by Gouncbeatduke, which I removed. I also edited the page to remove a New York Post article that was being used as a source - we do not consider NYP to be a reliable source. Spengouli (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Mob of rioters" => "rioters"

There's been a lot of back-and-forth about crowd, mob, group, etc. "rioters" is still correct and shorter.

Let's add something when there's consensus about what to call it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Rioters" and "mob" are synonyms, so I don't think one can/should be preferred over the other. Crowd is used less often in the article, mostly in quotes or referring to the rally Trump had prior to the event. ChipotleHater (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Since they're synonyms, we don't need both. I think this is the point you're making but I'm not sure. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they're synonyms. Among other differences, "mob" has a pejorative, emotive quality that "rioter" doesn't really carry. One can speak positively of riots and rioters much more easily than of a mob. We should avoid using "mob" in Wikipedia's voice. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Riot is legally defined in federal law,[17] unlike 'mob' outlined here[18] Qexigator (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is redundant and prefer the shorter version --RL0919 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Crowd Size?

There is little information about the size of the January 6th crowds, even though Trump's crowd sizes are often claimed to be shattering attendance records. At a minimum the article should document the fact that the crowd of pro-Trump rioters inside the Capitol was the largest and most enthusiastic mob ever to vandalize the Capitol in the 2020s (and possibly any federal building ever throughout the 21st century.) Also, it needs to be mentioned that FoxNews's and OANN's ratings were sky-high on January 6th. Timothy Horrigan (talk)

Agreed, thank you. There's been a lot of discussion about wording and not enough good comments like this. Let's focus on the hard numbers. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it normal to describe news channels' ratings for specific news events? CNN also had a great day. Sudopudge (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

largest and most enthusiastic mob ever to vandalize the Capitol in the 2020s They also observed the velvet ropes, which was dissonant.

The lack of info on the crowd size is also interesting, I believe that those with bias (i.e. almost all US commentators, for a start) have conflicting reasons for wanting the crowd to be small and large. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Interestingly, this article lacks contextual information regarding events preceding the march on Congress. If placed in the context of being the third rally/protest, as organized by Women for America First, and labelled "Save America March", one can begin an accurate assessment (of both the event, and crowd size). Such rally/protest included a pre-rally at Freedom Plaza, the afternoon into evening of the 5 Jan 2020. The 6 Jan 2020 rally, with admission beginning at 0700 EST, centered on the Ellipse at the White House, with a crowd that eventually extended to the Washington monument, and flanking it to both sides. At a minimum, at least a Field Army (100,000-300,000) assembled. As those assembled then marched down Pennsylvania Ave to the U.S. Capitol, it is difficult to ascertain how many assembled outside to "have their voices heard (regarding election integrity)". As this article, rather biasedly, only includes information regarding the "storming", I personally would estimate 100s to less than 10,000 were actually allowed inside by Capitol Police. Photos will likely be forthcoming on the larger group that, like myself, though being on the Capitol footprint, remained outside, and easily was tens to a hundred thousand. 73.191.183.56 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

First deadliest riot in D.C. since 1968?

The recent riot has caused the deaths of five people. In 1968, 13 were killed in D.C. during rioting that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Would this be worth mentioning in the article? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Feels a bit too much like WP:SYNTH. Unless a reliable source has explicitly discussed this, we probably should leave it out for now. SpurriousCorrelation 04:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also we need to be careful about "first" claims like these. See "1814". DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

1814 wasn't a riot, it happened in wartime involving the British forces. I'm merely talking about riots here. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Causality is not yet clear in all cases. But no overwhelming objection in due course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

I'm uploading more of my on-scene photos of the storming to Wikimedia Commons under CC

If anyone for whatever article needs more photos, check out my page under this username at Wikimedia Commons and feel free to apply them wherever. I'm prioritizing getting the direct storming ones up first, then later will upload photos from Trump's speech on the Ellipse, some of which include people who later stormed the Capitol.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapTheForwardAssist

TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

TapTheForwardAssist wow, thank you for taking these and sharing! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You were there, TapTheForwardAssist? That raises some questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

eh, does it really? I would've gone if I was in the area to get some photos. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess this is how we got photos of lynchings in the 20th century. Just point your camera at the crime scene and click. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff. I think we should consider using File:DC Capitol Storming IMG 7965.jpg as the article main infobox image. SpurriousCorrelation 04:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Small note to reverse the image. You can see "Trump" is printed backward. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's just the flags that are backwards. The woman's phone screen in the lower left shows the recording screen not mirrored, as well as the man's "LL Bean" jacket in the lower right. DanRosenfeld (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Note I'm working on the last batch of specifically storming photos now, so more batches have been added since this post. Tomorrow or I have an extensive number of photos from earlier in the day at Trump's speech, events the prior day, armed protests in Georgia, etc. So just check my Contributions later tonight or the next few days as I start moving uploading all my photos. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@TapTheForwardAssist: These are great! Thanks for sharing them Bravetheif (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It would improve the article if the photos were grouped as a Category and then linked from the article.Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: I prioritized just getting the images up for now, but anyone feel free to tag or label or whatnot. All the actual storming photos I have now are up (I skipped some shots that were overall similar to the posted shots). Next I'm going to upload shots I took at the Trump speech prior to that, and maybe of the rallies from the prior day. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking This could be a good image to use: less distracting features, can see the Capitol rotunda, and no personality rights issues Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Under consideration"

Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Sentences like "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration" do not belong in this article because they will be removed soon, and replaced either with "The Department of Justice indicted..." or the DoJ won't.

There are many speculative sentences in this article that don't make sense in an encyclopedia. Before adding something, consider what it will look like in a few weeks DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Speculative sentences make sense, IF they're properly sourced to reliable sources, and there is no better information available to make the sentences non-speculative; however, your quoted example, "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration", is not speculative - it states exactly what is happening, that the DOJ has said they're considering charges. Builder018 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Capitol insurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Capitol insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Capitol insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming of the Capital equated with the Storming of the Bastille

So the consensus position for naming is to equate a putsch by white supremacists with the precipitating event of a pro-democratic, liberal revolution? How can I request another formal renaming discussion? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how the word "storming" casts any judgement on the morality or ideology of the event. I personally don't like these people, but a group did storm the Capitol. Disagreeing with their motives does not affect whether the word choice is appropriate or not. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I can think of many reasons why "storming" might be seen as puffery, this is not one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Inauguration security

I might just be unable to find it, but should security preparations for the upcoming inauguration directly caused by this event be included? For example:

Crews also erected on the Capitol grounds tall, black metal fences designed to be impossible to climb. Similar structures have previously been used around the White House and in other cities that faced prolonged demonstrations.

Roy Blunt, the Republican senator who chairs the congressional committee preparing for the inaugural ceremonies, has estimated that the number of participants who will be allowed into secure perimeter areas at the inauguration will be dramatically reduced to below 3,000, down from the 200,000 or so who are normally included.

Or should they be included in the inauguration article itself? Juxlos (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

As its about the inauguration it should be in the article about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Specific word/phrase discussions

These are discussions for words or phrases that are questioned.

When Trump "Urged" his supporters

In the "Save America March" section, we currently have the phrase "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol".

• Replace with incited as Pres. Trump didn't directly say "storm the capitol" or "march on the capitol" (In respect to a command). The word "Urge" means to "recommend or advocate (something) strongly" (Oxford dictionary). Since he never actually said a command to storm the capitol, saying it would be a lie and would be a slight bias on Wikipedia. Incited is a better word for what he did. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In a discussion earlier, the community had a consensus to remove the word "Urge" from the lead. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Circumstances of Mr. Greesons death

The actual articel writes "Greeson died of a heart attack linked to accidental electrocution, while Philips died of a stroke.[302]" The claimed source don't write something about the accidental electrocution. NYT announced that Greeson was outside the captiol having a phonecall while suffered an heard attack. Accourding to forbes: "The D.C. police department did not immediately respond to questions from Forbes about the circumstances surrounding these deaths, including a request for information on a rumor circulating social media that one of the two men who suffered a heart attack did so after accidentally tasering himself. " Proposal to change the Wikiarticel according to the NYT-article by Adam Goldman (he is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner) the NYT in: "Greeson died of a heart attack outside of the capitol [19], while Philips died of a stroke. Quaternus (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The other protesters who died

Besides Ashli Babbit, who was shot, it appears that the cause of death of two of the other three protesters (Benjamin Philips and Kevin Greeson) were stroke and heart attack, respectively, whereas the fourth (Rosanne Boyland) was trampled to death.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rosanne-boyland-woman-killed-in-dc-riots-was-trampled-by-crowd/ https://people.com/politics/family-member-of-woman-who-died-riots-capitol-blames-trump/ https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/washington-protest-trump-capitol-pennsylvania-ben-philips-20210107.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-supporters-who-died-during-capitol-riot-left-online-presence-n1253400

--2001:B07:646C:244E:312A:D83F:5151:E835 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought one protester died after falling 50 feet from the scaffolding? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead getting too long again

Perhaps the italicized text below should be moved to other sections:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they damaged, ransacked,[17] and occupied parts of the building for several hours.[18]

The storming led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol building, and it disrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes and formalize Joe Biden's election victory. The rioters gathered in support of President Trump's persistent and false claims that the 2020 election had been "stolen" from him, which were part of his months-long effort to overturn his electoral defeat. Summoned by Trump,[19] thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and 6 to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory.[20][21][22]

On the morning of January 6, protesters assembled on the Ellipse for a "Save America" rally.[23][24] in which Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and several members of Congress addressed the crowd.[25] Trump encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and to march towards the Capitol,[26][27] while Giuliani called for "trial by combat",[28] and Trump Jr. threatened Trump's opponents that "we're coming for you."[29] As the rioters entered the Capitol by breaking through windows and doors, Capitol security evacuated the Senate and House of Representatives chambers. Several buildings in the Capitol complex were evacuated, and all of them were locked down.[30] Rioters broke past security to occupy the evacuated Senate chamber while federal law enforcement officers drew handguns to prevent entry to the evacuated House floor.[31][32][33] The evacuated office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was occupied.[34] Improvised explosive devices were found on the Capitol grounds during the riots; explosives were also found at offices for both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, and in a nearby vehicle.

Five people have been confirmed dead from the events and others were seriously injured. One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died.[35][36][37] Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.[3][12][38] Federal authorities launched a murder investigation to examine Sicknick's killing.[39] Three protesters suffered fatal medical emergencies during the event.

Trump reacted slowly to the storming, first resisting sending the National Guard to quell the mob,[40] and eventually praising the rioters as "great patriots" and telling them to "go home in peace" while reiterating false claims of election fraud.[41][42] The crowd was dispersed out of the U.S. Capitol later that evening. The process to certify Electoral College results resumed that evening and continued to its conclusion the following morning, with Pence declaring Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the victors and affirming that they will assume office on January 20. Under pressure from his administration, including many resignations, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a statement.[43][44][45]

The events prompted widespread condemnation by political leaders and organizations in the United States and abroad. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for Trump to be removed from office, either through the 25th Amendment or by impeachment.[46] Facebook responded by locking Trump's accounts and removing posts related to the incident, and Twitter responded initially by locking his account for 12 hours, then permanently suspending his account on January 8, 2021.[47][48] The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as treason,[49] insurrection, sedition, domestic terrorism,[50] and an attempted coup d'état[51][52] or self-coup[53] by Trump.

This would leave the intro like this:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they damaged, ransacked,[17] and occupied parts of the building for several hours.[18]

The storming led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol building, and it disrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes and formalize Joe Biden's election victory. Summoned by Trump,[19] thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and 6 to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory.[20][21][22] On the morning of January 6, protesters assembled on the Ellipse. Trump encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and to march towards the Capitol,[26][27]

Five people have been confirmed dead from the events and others were seriously injured. One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died.[35][36][37] Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.[3][12][38]

Trump reacted slowly to the storming, first resisting sending the National Guard to quell the mob,[40] and eventually praising the rioters as "great patriots" and telling them to "go home in peace" while reiterating false claims of election fraud.[41][42] Under pressure from his administration, including many resignations, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a statement.[43][44][45] The events prompted widespread condemnation by political leaders and organizations in the United States and abroad.

I'm not saying that this is anything like what the intro should wind up with when you get done with your editing. It's merely an idea of what could be done to shorten the lead. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capitol art

Currently, the article says art was "looted" per this source. Details about individual artworks are probably too specific for this page, but editors can add information to the newly created United States Capitol art page, or share sources on the talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The evacuated office of the Speaker was occupied.

The office of the second most powerful person in America was breached and occupied. This is absolutely astonishing and it should not be surprising that some might seek to whitewash it away. Imagine what might have happened had she been there, as “PELOSI IS SATAN” was written on a police car and a gallows was placed on the grounds. The edit should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&diff=999359229&oldid=999359132

soibangla (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Who proposed that the occupation of Pelosi's offices be removed? It's currently mentioned in the lede ("he evacuated office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was occupied.") with a reliable source. The statement should stay. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay I see now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 removed related content, saying "Pelosi's office was one of several offices occupied. Stop singling this out". I think that Pelosi being singled out is the most important reason why this information should stay, just as the information about Mike Pence being singled out for harm by rioters should stay. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As the epitome of "Mob" Richard 'Bigo' Barnett, not only entered Pelosi's office, he also boasted that he 'wrote her a nasty note, put my feet up on her desk and scratched my balls'. --87.170.192.221 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fatal medical emergency for crushed to death?

I know the media was using the phrase “fatal medical emergency” but that implies, “something that would have happened anyway, and was fatal because the person couldn’t get to medical help” I.e. stroke,Aneurysm , Heart attack, anaphylaxis... being crushed to death by the mass of people is certainly *not* in this category. Can someone fix this misleading text? It appears multiple times, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone fix the paragraph below to talk about the people in the same order?

Three other protesters also died, identified as Rosanne Boyland, 34, of Kennesaw, Georgia; Kevin Greeson, 55, from Athens, Alabama; and Benjamin Philips, 50, of Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.[197][198][199] Greeson died of a heart attack while Philips died of a stroke.[200] Boyland's cause of death was disputed; one account said she was crushed to death, while another said she collapsed while standing at the side in the Capitol rotunda.[201][202][203] The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that there was "no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol."[204] Phillips started the social media site Trumparoo, intended for Trump supporters.[205] Greeson's family said he was "not there to participate in violence or rioting, nor did he condone such actions."[206] Boyland's sister also said she "had no intention of committing violence when she traveled to Washington" and simply wanted to show her support.[203]

If it’s going to go Boyland. Greeson, Phillips, then all the stuff about B., then all the stuff about G, then all the stuff about P. As it’s written, I feel like I need a score card to keep track of what happened to who.

I don’t want to edit myself on a sensitive page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Flags, signs and other items left behind in Capitol riot to be preserved as historical artifacts

Not sure where to mention this, any ideas? Also seems important to include what the signs say, which may speak to which groups people belonged to eg QAnon

• https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533475-flags-signs-and-other-items-left-behind-in-capitol-riot-to-be-preserved-as

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Modi flags but no Gadsen flag?

It seems like the entire paragraph devoted to India/Modi/Trump based on one flag seen in a photo does not maybe make notability?

Wether it does or not, the Gadsen “don’t tread on me” flag was carried a lot, and seems like a glaring omission. Perhaps there should be a section on the signs and banners and symbolism being invoked? From a cultural and historical perspective that seems I,portent, as there are news stories that the Smithsonian and others have actually collected some of the things left behind of historical preservation.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Excerpted words from Trump speech in lead missing context and arranged with POV and inaccuracy

Currently, the few cherry-picked words from Trump's address are arranged in such a way that they push a POV and give the false impression that he explicitly advocated for a violent attack on the Capitol.

• It's falsely stated (or at least implied) that he exhorted his followers to "take back the country" (he wanted them to "cheer on" legislators to do so).
• The "fight like hell" was in the context of "election security", not referring to any walk to the Capitol.
• And the cited sources are far from ideal—both are from the minutes and hours after the riot, one from a UK "live blog" that is no longer at the link, the other from a tiny Globe article that offers no real context and was published during the rioting and before law enforcement had even reestablished control of the buildings.

Happily for us, fact-checkers have since used more nuance in describing his words in context—and as Snopes points out here, Trump told them to "peacefully and patriotically" march to the Capitol to "cheer on" legislators to "take back the country". Snopes links to a transcript of the full remarks. Accordingly, I suggest keeping the current phrases, but editing the sentence to read:

"After saying "we need to fight like hell" to protect the country from alleged voter fraud, Trump encouraged his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" to the Capitol and to support "weak" Republicans with "the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

That seems to me a far more neutral and accurate encapsulation of what he said in the context of encouraging his supporters going to the Capitol. And I understand there are concerns about length; if that's the case, a briefer but still more-accurate sentence is possible. But it's essential that the lead in this encyclopedia article not give a distorted or biased view of the President's words. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Whilst Trump didn’t, as you say, explicitly advocate the storming if your suggested emphasis was adopted it wouldn’t reflect the balance of reliable sources. These clearly emphasise that the overall impact of what he said was to incite the mob to storm the Capitol. NPOV requires that that should be the emphasis therefore. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Change "s" to "S" in the article title RELEASEtheRHYS (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No, does not comply with Wikipedia's manual of style. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:TITLEFORMAT. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2021

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → The Trump insurrection – This was not a "storming", or a "protest" or even a "riot", but an armed insurrection. Several news outlets are now referring to this incident as "The Trump insurrection". I think it's a more descriptive and historical title to the event, for historys sake. This is particularly true given that the participants erected a gallows outside the capital with clear intent to lynch someone. Several of the participants carried zip cuffs with clear intent to take hostages, possibly with the intent to lynch someone outside the building. The proposed title is more accurate of the event and is more concise and historical of this event Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A Field trip through Time :3

I have discovered a time warping maneuver with my Vehicle. While going through a Car wash, it was malfunctioning. The Scrubber got stuck for a brief moment, then it continued. Once the water cleared up, we were someonewhere else in the future. The Compartment we were in was gone. It took me awhile to find civilization, but when I did I explained to a local and he understood completely and showed me how to return back, only after explaining Alcubierre drive which is understood well in the year 3004. Therefore I can return to the future at any time with a bit of time and luck.

I propose making a whole section dedicated to the future society's perception and opinions of the 2021 storming of the United States Capotol and so I am hosting a field trip through time to the year 3004 as I believe it was fate that brought me to that specific time.

If you think a field trip would be a good idea or would like to be apart of it, let me know in this thread. A specific date has not been set yet, but I will send a pm to all who have decided to go in due time.

Peace Warlightyahoo (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A Field trip through Time :3

I have discovered a time warping maneuver with my Vehicle. While going through a Car wash, it was malfunctioning. The Scrubber got stuck for a brief moment, then it continued. Once the water cleared up, we were someonewhere else in the future. The Compartment we were in was gone. It took me awhile to find civilization, but when I did I explained to a local and he understood completely and showed me how to return back, only after explaining Alcubierre drive which is understood well in the year 3004. Therefore I can return to the Future at any time with a bit of time and luck.

I propose making a whole section dedicated to the future society's perception and opinions of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and so I am hosting a Field trip through time to the year 3004 as I believe it was fate that brought me to that specific time.

If you think a Field trip would be a good idea or would like to be apart of it, let me know in this thread. A specific date has not been set yet, but I will send a pm to all who have decided to go in due time.

Peace Warlightyahoo (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)