Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

• Subpage: Ongoing analysis of naming trends

Ongoing analysis of naming trends

Research of naming choices

Exhibit A

Prevalence of headlines by name (Jan. 30 2021)

Descriptor NOTE: the actual count is on the last page of search results	Results Selected RS (since Jan. 6)	Results Google News (since Jan. 20)	Search method (two part search to differentiate verb from noun, not needed for "insurrection" and "incident" which are only nouns)
riot (RM)	350 . . . [1]	208 . . . [2]	"capitol riot" / "riot at" capitol
attack	261 . . . [3]	149 . . . [4]	"capitol attack" / "attack on" capitol
insurrection (RM)	214 . . . [5] or 291 . . . [6]	183 . . . [7] or 239 . . . [8]	insurrection capitol -"insurr. act" -incite/d/ing/ment or same as above, sans capitol, (this includes titles using just "the insurrection" to name to the event, and some others such as "Insurrection Day")
siege	192 . . . [9]	122 . . . [10]	"capitol siege" / "siege of" capitol
breach	112 . . . [11]	70 . . . [12]	"capitol breach" / "breach of" capitol
storming (RM)	84 . . . [13]	36 . . . [14]	"capitol storming" / "storming of" capitol
assault	55 . . . [15]	44 . . . [16]	"capitol assault" / "assault on" capitol
rampage	21 . . . [17]	~4 . . . [18]	rampage capitol
invasion	9 . . . [19]	26 . . . [20]	invasion capitol
raid	~10 . . . [21]	~7 . . . [22]	raid capitol
protest	~5 . . . [23]	~11 . . . [24]	"capitol protest" / "protest at" / "protests at" capitol -state (most results refer to state Capitol protests or "protest" is used with a qualifier or it's from Jan. 6 before Capitol was breached)
occupation	~4 . . . [25]	~1 . . . [26]	occupation capitol
incident	~1 . . . [27]	~6 . . . [28]	incident capitol
coup attempt	~0 . . . [29]	~10 . . . [30]	coup capitol (real results mixed w. opinion and articles on how it was not a coup; reputable news orgs don't use "coup")
Selected RS: Associated Press, BBC , The Guardian, NYT, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC News, USA Today, L.A. Times, CS Monitor, WSJ, Financial Times, Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, CNBC, Bloomberg News, Chicago Tribune, US News, Politico, UPI

Exhibit B

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

Media outlet	Preferred word(s)	Last date of evidence	Evidence and references
Associated Press	mob, riot, insurrection; siege*	14 January 2021; present*	According to John Daniszewski, AP vice president and editor at large for standards.[31] *"Capitol Siege" category.[32]
NPR	insurrection	present	Use "Capitol Insurrection" as a news section name[33] (changed from "Insurrection at the Capitol" on or around 27 Jan)[34][35]
CBS News	assault	19 January 2021	"U.S. Capitol Assault" as section name highlighted on cbsnews.com main page[36]
Politico	insurrection	present	"Insurrection Fallout" as a category, within the "Congress" section[37]
PBS	attack, insurrection	present	"U.S. Capitol Attack" and "Insurrection" as categories of PBS NewsHour[38][39][40] content
NBC News	riot; insurrection*	12 January 2021	"Capitol Riot" as a category on main page of nbcnews.com[41] *The event is consistently referred to as "Capitol Insurection" on-air, incl. in MTP (flagship program)[42]00:00:50
The Guardian	breach	present	"US Capitol breach" as a category (topic) of US news[43]
BBC	riot	present	"US Capitol riots" as a category (topic) in the US & Canada section[44]
Business Insider	insurrection	present	"US Capitol insurrection" as a category (topic) in the politics section[45]

Exhibit C

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

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Organizer Word used Event date Event title and references Chicago Council on Global Affairs insurrection 8 January 2021 World Review: Global Reaction to US Capitol Insurrection[46] Josef Korbel School of International Studies insurrection 8 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[47][48] Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters assault 8 January 2021 Assault on the Capitol: What Just Happened?[49] Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University chaos 11 January 2021 On Freedom: Capitol Chaos and Its Impact on Democracy[50] Johns Hopkins University SNF Agora Institute insurrection 13 January 2021 Public discussion of capital insurrection[51] UC Davis School of Law insurrection 13 January 2021 Insurrection and the Rule of Law.[52] Hammer Museum insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s next[53] Carr Center for Human Rights Policy insurrection 14 January 2021 (postponed) Democracy at Risk: Reckoning with the Capitol Insurrection[54] George Washington University Law School insurrection 14 January 2021 The Insurrection at the Capitol: A Discussion by Legal Scholars[55] First Amendment Coalition riot 14 January 2021 Erwin Chemerinsky On The First Amendment And The Capitol Riot[56] Northern Illinois University insurrection 14 January 2021 Ask an Expert: The January 6 Insurrection, Constitutional Processes, and the Peaceful Transition of Power[57] Central Michigan University chaos 14 January 2021 Unpacking the Chaos at the Capitol[58] North Carolina State University insurrection 14 January 2021 Responding to Insurrection: How Do We Talk With Students?[59] Interfaith Alliance insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection and Religious Extremism: How Did We Get Here and Where Do We Go?[60] University of Massachusetts Amherst siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Siege: Making Sense of What Happened[61] University of Connecticut siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Under Siege: Community Reflections on the Lawless and Violent Attack on Democracy[] Elon University insurrection 15 January 2021 Reacting to the Insurrection at the Capitol[62] University of Pittsburgh siege 18 January 2021 What Just Happened? Race, Justice and Politics after the Capitol Siege[63] Alma College insurrection 18 January 2021 Lunch & Learn: Community Conversation on the Capitol Insurrection[64] The National Press Club insurrection 19 January 2021 Getting it right: Breaking news, the Inauguration, and the Capitol insurrection[65] International Institute for Strategic Studies storming 19 January 2021 Crisis in America: the storming of the Capitol and Biden’s challenge[66] University of Washington attack 19 January 2021 Attack on the Capitol--What Does It Mean for Democracy?[67] Brookings Institution insurrection 19 January 2021 Truth and accountability post-insurrection: Where does the country go from here?[68] Oregon State University’s School of History, Philosophy and Religion  sedition 21 January 2021 Divided States of America: Sedition, the Inauguration, and the Unfolding Crisis in American Democracy[69] Schenectady, Albany and Troy chapters of the NAACP insurrection 21 January 2021 Aftermath of the Insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.[70] George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs riot 21 January 2021 The Capitol Riots, QAnon, and the Internet[] University of Missouri–St. Louis riot 21 January 2021 What Just Happened? Putting the Presidential Election and the Riot in the Capitol in Context[71] William & Mary Law School insurrection 22 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[72] Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies storming 22 January 2021 The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Free Speech Online[73][74] Fordham University School of Law attack 25 January 2021 The Attack on the Capitol: an on the Ground Report and What's Next[75] Washington University in St. Louis insurrection 25 January 2021 U.S. Presidential Transition & Insurrection at the Capitol[76] Munk School of Global Affairs insurrection 25 January 2021 Insurrection and Accountability in the United States: What Just Happened? And What Happens Next?[77] DeSales University insurrection 27 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: A Special DeSales University Panel Discussion[78] United States Capitol Historical Society insurrection 27 January 2021 How Do We Move Forward? Contextualizing the January 6th Capitol Insurrection[79] Harvard Institute of Politics insurrection 28 January 2021 What Just Happened? Insurrection, Impeachment, and Inauguration [80] Johns Hopkins University insurrection 28 January 2021 U.S. Democracy Post-Insurrection: What’s Next? (Part I)[81] Carleton College chaos, insurrection 28 January 2021 Carleton Talks: Capitol Chaos: Reflections on the Insurrection[82] American Academy of Religion insurrection 29 January 2021 Insurrection, White Supremacy, and Religion[83] Department of Communication and Theatre Arts, Old Dominion University insurrection 1 February 2021 Insurrection: The Critical Reflection Forums[84] Ponars Eurasia, George Washington University storming 4 February 2021 The Storming of the US Capitol: Views from Eurasia[85] The Utica College Center for Historical Research insurrection 11 February 2021 The Impact of the Capitol Insurrection on the Modern Presidency & U.S. Elections [86] Texas A&M University School of Law insurrection 11 February 2021 [87] Arizona State University insurrection 11 February 2021 Roundtable: The Rise in Anti-Democratic Violence in the U.S.: Perspectives on the Capitol Insurrection[88]

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

Exhibit D

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

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

Type	Term used	Evidence and references
scholar, fmr. ambassador	insurrection	an armed insurrection against the Capitol inspired by the president of the United States[89]
jurist (judge)	insurrection	an active participant in a violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the United States government[90]
generals (JCS)	insurrection, sedition	... do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection.[91]
scholars (APSA)	insurrection	Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol[92]

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Roget's Thesaurus[93] gives 'storming' (noun) as a synonym for 'assault' and 'attack', also for 'bravado/ boastfulness'. A print copy of The Oxford Handy Dictionary (ed. Fowler) gives 'as in "take by storm" - direct assault on (and capture of) defended place by troops etc.'[94] Whether or not 'storming' was chosen initially with that in mind, it is good reason for it to be retained. See also Storming the City, U.S. Military Performance in Urban Warfare from World War II to Vietnam (2016).[95] Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'insurrection' is far from neutral. Given that the Democratic Party leadership has deliberately used it to frame the politically motivated impeachment article that the House has delivered to the Senate, it is perhaps the most controversial word of all, and intended to be so - in common parlance the word has been 'weaponized' (as in this article from Aug 2016[96] and this from April 2020[97]) If 'insurrection' is used in the name it should be in quote marks, and the lead should begin by referencing the said impeachment. The article could then mention that before the impeachment, the word was already being used in public statements, both the commercially published and official, and this could be supported by citing a variety of frequency word counts identifying the criteria for each of those counts. If within the current period, say from 6 Jan to 6 Feb, notable Republican party leaders or supporters have used it, that, too should be mentioned. A better alternative would be to use the generic "protest" in the title, then at the start of the article say that it was variously described at the time as.... etc. That would probably be the better way for an encyclopedia. Redirects can be used for other words, just as the index of a print encyclopedia such as Britannica has redirects. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Insurrection is problematic because it is defined as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." (Merriam-Webster)[98] Whether or not the actions amounted to that is something that is yet to be proved. Bear in mind that per People accused of crime, we cannot accuse living or recently deceased people of serious crimes until they are convicted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List not Analysis

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

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

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

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

From the point of view of decision-making for editing, distinct from personal opinion, and allowing for guidance about secondary sources etc., it can be argued[99] (but not in this comment) that the Memorandum in Support of the impeachment,[100] which is intentionally framing the charge as Incitement of Insurrection, is the best evidence we have in support of retaining 'storming' though that word appears only once in the text, in section 'E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol' (p.23) and in two references: 1. Associated Press, Trump Doesn’t Ask Backers to Disperse after Storming Capitol, PBS (Jan. 6, 2021) (p.21) and 2. Raphael Satter, Laptop Stolen from Pelosi’s Office during Storming of U.S. Capitol, Says Aide, Reuters (Jan. 8, 2021).(p.40).

(For 'Answer to Article 1 Incitement of insurrection' addresed to the members of the Senate see[101])

The Tables on this page offered as analysis are in fact no more than lists of number counts, unaccompanied by a critical appraisal of the external sources, in respect of criteria for click bait, headline grabbing, editorial policy and control, imitative, repetitive, inciting or following a twitterstorm[102]. -Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Restoration of Section

This section has been restored due to a few events that led it to be archived when it should not have. When the RM was closed, the section after it was closed as well despite not being a sub-section at the time. Then, a different editor made it a sub-section while moving an unrelated discussion. It was then pointed out that there seemed to be an error when closed and that they were different sections. Separately, a user made a modification to raise the auto-archive from one to three days. The closing of the RM was modified to un-close this section. This should have been enough to now restore this section to a normal section, but Lowercase sigmabot III archived it as it only looks at User:MiszaBot/config and not a combination of it and Template:auto archiving notice. (Which should be considered a bug, but alas.) That was adjusted and this section restored from the archive after a brief discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In order to ensure that users know it has been restored I am pinging the following editors for making at least one signed comment in the above discussion: Z22, Alalch Emis, Jayron32, Qexigator, Casprings, Symmachus Auxiliarus, BlackholeWA, The Four Deuces, Jared.h.wood --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Thanks. We've been working on the same thing apparently. I've created a subpage with the same purpose as this restored section cca 2 hrs ago. Please tell me what you think is the best way to proceed. Ongoing analysis of naming trends — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your rationale for the restoration is extremely valid, but ProcrastinatingReader's rationale not to restore, but to create a subpage (or copy the content into a new section) is also very valid. Basically it's a just a matter of what creates the most utility, not what is the most appropriate. At this point I don't know what creates the most utility, and I'd like to leave that decision to you. If you tell me to delete the subpage I'll do it immediately. If you think a subpage is better, you can replace all of the content in the subpage with the content in this section. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I don't have any pings from you in my notices, so I wonder how I didn't get this message. If the subpage is a better location, then that is fine, though this would need to be re-archived as it would otherwise be lost. The subpage might be better as it would mean that it would not be archived automatically, though it might not see as much discussion. Then again, the only comments here are about this section being restored. (Also, I think ProcrastinatingReader believe there was only one section based on their reply to Z22.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the subpage would be less noticed, if only pointed to by a small bit of link text. I didn't actually get my ping for some reason, and certainly would not have noticed the subpage; I only saw this message because I saw it had been restored as I checked through this talk. Personally I don't think there's much need to separate this discussion out somewhere where it will get less discussion, and considering that it might not have much longevity beyond the ongoing naming dispute (which would bring the rationale for its special treatment into question). BlackholeWA (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: @Alalch Emis: pointed out to me that per WP:CANVASS it is permitted and may be beneficial to inform editors who participated in the previous RM of this new one. As such, I am sending a ping to those who contributed in that previous discussion, based on an extracted list Emis provided me. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC) @LordPeterII, Lukan27, MaGioZal, Malcolm L. Mitchell, MelanieN, Most Humble and Obedient Servant, Ohconfucius, Plumber, Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, Psychloppos, Qexigator, QuercusOak, Ramaksoud2000, Red Slash, Ribbet32, Robertiki, Scope creep, Seven Pandas, Shearonink, Slatersteven, Soibangla, Somedifferentstuff, StAnselm, Super Dromaeosaurus, Swordman97, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Tataral, The Fiddly Leprechaun, The Four Deuces, Trillfendi, Tsavage, Vowvo, VQuakr, Wingedserif, Wollers14, WWGB, XOR'easter, Yallahalla, and Z22:

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

Edit 2: @웬디러비, 5440orSleep, 777burger, A'kwell, Amakuru, Anachronist, Antonio Basto, Bear6811Wiki, Beland, Ben8142, Berchanhimez, Bodney, BusterD, Calthinus, Casprings, Chrisahn, Coin, Crouch, Swale, Czello, Darryl Kerrigan, Des Vallee, Dlthewave, DolyaIskrina, Dswitz10734, Dylanvt, EDG 543, Ekpyros, El C, Elijahandskip, EnPassant, Featous, Gam3, Goszei, Gouncbeatduke, GreenMeansGo, Guy Macon, Haha169, Hansen Sebastian, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, IHateAccounts, IP75, Jared.h.wood, Jayron32, Jmill1806, K.e.coffman, Kizor, Kyyl0, LegendoftheGoldenAges85, and Liz: Repinging some users as one of the previous ping requests may have been malformed. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (requested move 4 February 2021)

• Support proposed title has previously garnered consensus in previous RM discussions. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's natural that there is consensus to move away from "storming". A number of people so far have given arguments in defense of this provisional name ("stopgap measure" in the words of the closing admin back then), including "that's what happened", and "it's the most neutral title" which have not proven resistant to critique. An interesting detail: even the starter of the RM to "storming" advocated for another subsequent proposal. It was proven that "storming" as a descriptor (noun, gerund) has relatively little support in reliable sources. "Attack" is an adequate descriptor because it is essentially accurate and captures the scope of the subject of the article. "Attack" is unspecific but it not terribly imprecise as it's hard to put the events in the Capitol, outside the Capitol and the planting of pipe bombs under one umbrella, while also including the goals of the insurrectionists. The proposed title is well supported by reliable sources, and there is no indication that it would be considered controversial. I have so far advocated for "insurrection", and I still do; the proposed title is the only other good option. Changing the name of the article will make this article better, and will improve coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is the best alternative, as it accurately and objectively describes the actions that took place. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Storming, a type of attack, is a more precise description of what occurred. In addition to its broad dictionary definition, attack has a strong modern connotation of a tightly coordinated and targeted offensive, usually with the goal of murdering as many people as possible in an indiscriminate way. See [103] for a group of Wikipedia's "lists of attacks." The events of January 6th wouldn't fit neatly into any of these lists, as far as I can tell. January 6th was a specific sort of attack in the dictionary sense: a storming or a breach. This article describes the full events of the afternoon that followed Trump's speech, and the semi-inchoate intentions of many of the law-breakers. Wikipedia is about precision, and storming seems to me a more precise and accurate word than attack. I would certainly reconsider if a clear common name develops in the media and through public usage, but that hasn't happened yet, and thus I don't see the need to change the title to "attack" at this time. If we do change to attack, then 2021 attack on the United States Capitol seems to me a more accurate phrasing than the proposed title. The proposed RM title, as phrased, sounds more like a singular, internal attack, such as a bomb going off. Moncrief (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let me redirect you to the previous RM discussion, specifically to a table that Goszei contributed. While a title mentioning "attack" has a fair amount of search results and title matches in WP:RS, a title mentioning "riot" is much more common. With that said, I don't think a title mentioning "attack" would be considered a WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Love of Corey (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • Note: If the argument being made is that the name would not be consistent as this event was not terrorism, a RfC at the head of this page found that this attack *should* be characterized as terrorism. With regards to the specifics of the event, bombs were of course found on premises, although they were not detonated. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• While BlackholeWA was correct about the RfC at the time of their comment, the RfC was re-opened due to issues with the closing of the RfC and a restriction was imposed on the talk page to prevent improper closing (as there has been more than one discussion reopened on the talk page). The RfC was closed for a second time as no consensus and stated that the RfC question was flawed due to not being clear as to what changes it wanted to make. There is also a difference in international terrorism and domestic terrorism that was not addressed. I believe that the articles listed above are different than the events of January 6th, especially given that the goal in each case of the listed articles was to murder as many civilians or soldiers as possible. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest a 6 month moratorium on RMs here. This title is neutral and accurate so there's no pressing need to change it, and the next discussiuon is likely to be based on the consensus on yet-to-be-published books and scholarly journals, which should be easier to discern. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A riot is what RS call it a riot is what it was, lets not white wash what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm fairly in agreement with Guy here. I think we should hold off for at least 6 months to a year, until some decent academic research has been published. It is worth pointing out it was not a riot. It if was a riot, they would have stood out in the square, went mad and smashed all the building in every direction, cars, lampposts, signs, windows, everything. I've been in a riot and it wasn't that. For the 2nd time, this was a directed coordinated attack and word storming is an accurate reflection of what happened. Please leave it for the moment, until the experts do their work. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close, 1-year moratorium This is getting out of hand. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose speedy close. This is an important thing to consider and merits attention. The 1 year moratorium proposal especially is excessive and stifling. No, no way.--Calthinus (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Moncrief. Storming is a type of attack. It's used in a number of articles, such as the iconic Storming of the Bastille. It implies an action by a large number of angry citizens. Attack on its own could include an action by a small number of terrorists such as the September 11 attacks, which incidentally included the Capitol as an intended target. TFD (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. A long RM just concluded, and the current title is the best one. WP:DROPTHESTICK already.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Storming is an appropriate description and there is no convincing argument to change it. Polyamorph (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME status of this article is any more clear than the last RM. I think there's WP:NORUSH with this name change, and it would be better to wait for higher quality sources to arrive and for public consensus to also settle. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose again? How is "attack" better than "storming" in not sounding like a loaded term? I still don't know what is exactly wrong with the word "storming". It seems the most accurate and neutral term possible to me. Support 6-months/1-year moratorium and speedy close. Super Ψ Dro 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - 2021 attack on the United States Capitol would be better phrasing; "Capitol attack" makes it unclear if the Capitol is doing the attacking or being attacked. I agree that there are multiple common names including both "storming" and "attack". I think the statistics which determine which common name is the most common are somewhat unreliable, and not the best way to pick a title. I prefer storming because it is more precise while remaining accurate. I don't see any political loading in the definition of the word, which is describing a physical military tactic. Perhaps the bias people perceive in the use of neutral terminology is bleeding over from the severe bias present in the political goals of the participants, which tends to produce polarizing reactions and paranoia that other people are trying to minimize or maximize some aspect of the event. -- Beland (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm equally at home with the current title and the "attack" title. I'd also be fine with a moratorium after the conclusion of this discussion. It is beginning to feel like the death of 1000 cuts with all of the debates over this. I'd object to terms like "riot" or "insurrection" which, from my perspective, carry too much baggage. --Jayron32 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Attack sounds like the best summary of events to me, as it encapsulates the notion of a planned, forced entry that happened. Riot suggests a general uncoordinated tumult, while storming suggests a coincidental result without prior planning. Insurrection on the other hand suggests a large-scale engagement bordering on a full-scale revolution, which isn't warranted as the event was quite localized in scope.

However, I understand the concerns that these discussions are too many in a row - I would not mind if we'd postpone the final decision by a few months, until the dust has settled, the prosecution ended and reliable sources might have decided on a more definite term. That does not mean I think the current title is best - no discussion has decided that, and there is no consensus on "storming". It was simply the better alternative to "protests" at the time. Eventually, we will need a proper discussion of the title; but maybe not right now. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support but I prefer 2021 attacks on the United States Capitol. These seem to be a series of attacks, most notably the placing of the pipe bombs the night before and then culminating with the riots and storming of the Capitol.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I also Oppose any moratorium. The title should be allowed to gradually change/improve. There was no overwhelming support for storming when the article was originally renamed (just consensus that it was better than "protests"). In the last move discussion there was more support for "attack" or "riot" than "storming". We shouldn't freeze the title in place when there was never any consensus for it in the first place.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as an imperfect option, but the best alternative to the current title. Strongly oppose any moratorium due to the numerous problems with "storming" indicated in multiple move requests. I would like to remind editors of the closing comments in the initial RM: "This is a stopgap measure, and is not meant to be a permanent solution." StAnselm (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement as decribed by the nominator. I will continue to support improved titles in upcoming RMs per WP:PERFECTION. To those frustrated with contiguous formal Move Requests, please relax and join the discussion instead of complaining. Refining the title through non-consensus producing attempts gives the same result as waiting another week. If this RM does not produce consensus, let it be known that my favorite title is United States Capitol riot and attack on Congress. See you in a week or so. JaredHWood💬 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that should split the ! vote. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. Hours after a closed move are we starting again ? Trying to push a choice per exhaustion of the opposers ? Administrators, please act. --Robertiki (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Huh? WP:AGF please. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged to this RM and tired, anyway, I withdraw and I apologize for the sentence. --Robertiki (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Robertiki Kindly refrain from WP:FILIBUSTER. Only contribute productive discussion. JaredHWood💬 19:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Briefly stepping in direct attention to some of the interesting press that (uniquely!) this series of RMs has generated in third-party media, that was pointed out below. I wanted to include an explicit link to this article, which actually collates some interesting rationale as to why the term "storming" may not be ideal. Not that 3rd party news sources would dictate the course of this discussion, nor is this an appeal to authority, but I figure that the arguments made are just as relevant and valid as those being presented by other editors here. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I don't agree with the line of reasoning (to quote the article you linked) that "...storming had other problems: '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.” We don't make our decisions based on how other people might interpret our choices. We make decisions based on our own guidelines and what's most accurate and precise for the information we convey. I would no more insist that someone remove the word "niggardly" from an article solely because of its coincidental similarity to an offensive word than I would insist that this article be named so that some deluded QAnoners won't possibly relish that the word "storm" appears within the title, if you take out the -ing. Words have multiple meanings, and this sense of the noun storming is not the same as the sense of the word storm as a weather phenomenon, interpreted metaphorically. In the quest to find the best and most precise title, we don't need to bow to any kind of external pressure, real or imagined. Words not only have multiple meanings, but they are co-opted and re-imagined by various fringe groups. That is not within the scope of Wikipedia to monitor or control. Moncrief (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree we need not let this influence the discussion - but I am quite fascinated that this "behind the scenes stuff" has resulted in a news story. An interesting read, thanks BlackholeWA! --LordPeterII (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose -Attack is not a good word to use in the same way storming - this is not a military attack or something similar by a coordinated force. Also oppose close - the calls for closing this is unfounded and clearly this is a controversial topic, shutting down discussion of this is not a good idea. At least wait until there is some kind of consensus here.
• Oppose - Generally in favor of improving the title, but 'attack' is a step in the wrong direction. I find the above-mentioned opposition to 'riot' confusing as it almost sounds like we're trying to imply it was more coordinated than it was. Would support a close, with the recommendation that we maybe give it some time so that a common name can arrise more organically, when tempers have better settled. Thadeuss (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any move. This matter has been discussed several times recently. I don't agree there's a particular problem with storming. When I listen to NPR or watch PBS, they seem to use "storming" in the lead or when asking questions of interviewees. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support ---- [104] [105] ---- and storming will never stick which is why we keep having these naming discussions. There are 2 reasons for this; the term storming is generally understood in reference to a successful outcome, such as the Storming of the Bastille. The other usage refers to military, such as the Normandy landings which have been described as a storming [106] ---- What took place at the U.S. Capitol was neither successful nor did it involve the military. Also, I don't see the point of trying to shut down discussion; posting on this talk page is one way of forming consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: In the WaPo article you've linked, storming is in the first sentence. Never mind either way; we can all find media evidence for our favored terms. As for this storming necessarily being "successful," this event qualifies as a completed storming, even if the stormers didn't get the final political result they wanted. Similar to the Storming of Kempton Park World Trade Centre, with which January 6th has many similarities, the storming itself (the mass invasion into, and breach of, the building) was completed, even if the desired political outcome of the stormers was not achieved. In the more recent Storming of the Legislative Council Complex, the stormers did achieve their short-term political goal, but their long-term goal has not been achieved. I hope these examples show that stormings can qualify as "successful" (in the sense of a complete storming) due to the simple fact of the breach itself. Moncrief (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The storming wasn't completed because only one of two chambers were breached, and in the Senate chamber there weren't many people, and they didn't do anything noteworthy (browsing through papers, taking selfies, talking to the police...). Calling it a storming makes the attempt seem much more energetic and efficient than it was. Storming of the Legislative Council Complex was an incredibly energetic effort, and things of great consequence happened in the chamber which was filled with hundreds of activists. And then - what about the attempted bombing and other things which fall outside of "storming"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The primary intent of the incident was not to attack (damage) the Capitol, but to storm the building in an attempt to thwart the Electoral College vote count. For this reason, I prefer "storm" over "attack". WWGB (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. What we focus here is Trump supporters who "invade" Capitol Hall while Senator "counts the result of US election". Attack cannot cover exactly what people did there on January 2021. -- Wendylove (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I truly think that the name of the article has stuck and doesn't need to be changed. It's clear, it works and it describes the incident correctly as a storming. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storm" is more precise in describing what happened. However, I'm telling you, "breach" is the way to go. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:NPV. This was not a Storming of the Bastille and we shouldn't use a term that QAnon might see a connection to. Also, clearly used more then storming.Casprings (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose any moratorium. "Attack" is descriptive without being too specific and is prominent in reliable sources. Editors might not be fully aware, but "storm" is a term used by QAnon adherents to describe a final battle against the "satanic deep state cabal". Intelligencer mentioned this back in 2017 and The New Yorker has an explanation of why it's wise to avoid using it in the context of Jan. 6. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose any moratorium because storm should not be used for the reasons stated by others. Laguna CA (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose After re-reading the 23 Jan RM, I was impressed by the remark at 23:54, 23 January that 'the current title is more descriptive of what is the most well-known facet of the attack'. The event described began with the breach of the barriers around the Capitol perimeter (mentioned on p.22 of the impeachment)[107] at about 1 p.m. on 6 January - followed a little later by forcible entry into the building and continued with some hundreds of the trespassers acting in a riotously violent and threatening manner inside, while others were clambering up the walls - and ended when all had left or been ejected from the building and order was restored for the Congressional business of the day to resume at about 8 p.m. and finish at about 3.30 a.m.next day.

To encapsulate that event, nothing better than 'storming' has been forthcoming. The article also describes the Background leading to the event, attempts to ascertain the extent of pre-planning, and includes something about the aftermath. The closer of the RM of 6 January 2021 (referenced and linked at the top of this page) said 'We say what sources say, and for the moment they seem to say "storming". This is a stopgap measure, and is not meant to be a permanent solution.' The closer of the RM of 23 January said 'There is not exactly broad satisfaction with "storming" per se, as it is not a particularly common word, but no other alternative received broad support in this discussion.' Those were and continue to be good reasons for leaving the article name unchanged, and not using instead 'riot' or 'attack'. In the RM of 23 January, I indicated that in my view the remarks at 18:33, 2 February[108] were persuasive, weighty and convincing. Further, given that sometimes there is an undue preoccupation with number counting and listing, it is noticeable that 'attack' - unlike the more specific 'storming' (noun) - is widely used for any kind of non-violent attack such as 'every single court to consider the President’s attacks on the outcome of the election rejected them.'[109] (p.2), 'President Trump’s attacks on Raffensperger ...were so concerning that Gabriel Sterling,,. publicly warned...' (p.9), 'Following President Trump’s attacks on Michigan’s election process...' (p.15), 'after President Trump’s attacks on the election in Arizona' (p.15), 'Pelosi attacks Trump after acquittal',[110] 'The attacks on Pelosi are particularly ironic' (6 Sept 2018),[111] 'in an unannounced attack on the UK, US Democrat Nancy Pelosi launched an attack on UK drug standards'[112], and countless other instances in many different contexts occur in public and private discourse all the time.

Moreover, I rely on my remarks in the section 'Wording in trial documents' (now archived)[113], particularly '...the main point for the purposes of a decision about retaining 'storming' in the name storming of the United States Capitol is that it shows that when a word is needed for expressing the concept of the entire event that happened at the Capitol that day, then, even in the context of that document, the word chosen is 'storming' p.23 (stormed p.1, p.23, p.47, to storm p.16, p.47), The other words fail in that respect, no matter how many times they are repeated and counted.' We may assume that congressional lawmakers - many of whom are not only experienced politicians but also legally qualified, and some of whom have practised as prosecuting attorneys - are shrewd enough to know what words will be serviceable for the occasion. Some may even seriously and sincerely believe Trump was inciting insurrection, without producing any evidence to that effect. But, for other reasons (12:10, 1 February, three protests at Capitol),[114] I would support 'protest' instead of 'storming', and would support an article that was named 'Protests at the US Capital, January 2021' which is less likely than a snowstorm in a tropical forest fire, but sooner or later that may be the theme and title of a scholarly aricle or book. (prove me wrong). fwiw Qexigator (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC) revised 00:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

More fwiw. While the "Trial Memorandum" lodged by HoR in the impeachment proceedings[115] cannot be used as a secondary RS, its contents (including sources in its footnotes) can to some extent be used in fact checking the sequence of events and some details. Qexigator (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It was a riot, not an attack as many claim it to be. Please stick to WP:NPOV! Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support "Storming" is an editorial characterization, colorful and vague. "Attack" is the most common term, neutral and unambiguous. It is factual that the Capitol Building was attacked: a hostile crowd massed around it, advanced towards it, forcefully overcame law enforcement resistance, and illegally entered it. Was it "stormed"? That's a matter of opinion. Part of that attack involved an approach to the building that could be characterized as storming, but it doesn't represent the whole event. Also, oppose a call for a moratorium on title change -- if discussion reaches a consensus decision, that decision should be promptly implemented, that's the process. --Tsavage (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The Capitol Building event comprised an attack on police, an attack on the physical building, and an attack on the federal government, Congressional proceedings and the rule of law. "Storming" doesn't cover it. Why storming and not "occupation (of the Capitol Building)" -- that also dramatically captures the event? Until sources support a particular popular name, we should use a neutral, easily understood, and comprehensive descriptor, such as "attack". --Tsavage (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It was a riot that resulted in the storming of a government building, let's not try to whitewash what happened and let's stick to WP:NPOV, ok? Calling it an "attack" over a "storming" makes it MORE vague and can be misleading to a global audience of readers, considering the building was, well, stormed by a mob, not attacked by a missile. "Attack" implies overrunning the police line was more coordinated and less spontaneous than it really was. RopeTricks (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose less descriptive and more confusing. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 03:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Attack" is not descriptive of the incident. Storming is a more accurate depiction. YallAHallatalk 07:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Every storming is an attack (subset/superset). From the definitions I read, storming is an "attack on a defended location (or position)". Which I consider the US Capitol to be. Thus, both terms fit the subject (unlike riot or protest), storming being more precise than attack. Which favors the former. Bert Macklin (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. “Attack” is a NPOV word and “storming” is not. “Storming” is a word used to romanticize the fight of good over evil, like “storming the beaches of Normandy” or "Storming the walls! Assassin's Creed Valhalla". “Storming” is the word most used on Q-anon web sites and Fox News, “Attack” is the word used by NPOV news sources. As Wikipedia is almost always editor voted spin from Fox News, and almost never NPOV, I doubt you can get it changed.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The newsworthy event was the breach, not the bombs or other behavior of the crowd. The breach stopped the count, the goal. The push forward began when news reached the crowd that Vice President Pence had not unilaterally rejected electors. Some pockets of coordination, but attack implies coordination among all participants, usually a small number, as shown by User:Super Goku V. Storming captures the nature of the assault, precisely pre-planned and coordinated by some, but impossible to execute those plans without simultaneous mob action, and both must be represented in the title. We must also be consistent. A RfM for this should not move forward without also examining 2017 storming of Macedonian Parliament. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply noting that I personally agree with this argument by Ramaksoud2000 the most thus far. This sums up my views on this issue pretty well. RopeTricks (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Attack is the most appropriate and NPOV word to describe the facts, has been all along. As others have said, storming is a word used to romanticize, consciously or not, what happened. I see the events as similar to what happened in 2017 in Venezuela - and we don't try to use euphemisms like storming to describe similar events when they happened in non-demcratic countries. Beisbol (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose any moratorium - While less specific (And I believe less accurate) than previously suggested terms, characterizing it as an Attack is at least more accurate than Storming, and does not break NPOV given that the perpetrators heavily identify with "The Storm." Would support renaming this as an Attack while further consensus is reached. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• I was a strong oppose to the last RM and I'm a strong oppose to this one, for the same reasons--which I'll not cut and paste here, just include by reference. I thought "storm" was the single best word, and I still do. I will add, though, as I read over many of the comments, there is a sincere divide between those who feel the word "storming" is in some sense heroic and those who feel it is completely neutrally descriptive with no positive overtone. I'm in the latter camp. I don't feel like storming is heroic; I do feel like storming correctly captures the overflowing emotional aspect. I get that there was *some* planning to the event, but it seems to me to have been planned by only a few and spontanously joined in by many more, almost in some sort of hybrid event. A lot of the people involved in the storming describe getting carried away in the moment. In addition to "storming" being more specifically accurate than the generic "attack," I think attack connotes a higher degree of planning and does not connote the emotional tenor of the event the way that "storming" does. But as I say, I acknowledge that this is a sincere difference among folks about the connotation rather than denotation of the words involved. I suppose since we're all marshalling authorities, I'll add that my Apple Dictionary defines the verb "storming" as "[with object] suddenly attack and capture (a building or other place) by means of force." With direct speech, the verb means "shout (something) angrily; rage." Obviously, the first of these accurately describes what happened, and I cite the second for the sake of highlighting a connotation with rage, which was certainly obvious during the event itself as well as the preceding rallies and riots. Engelhardt (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal is not very descriptive and worse than the current. Not sure what the problem with "storming" is. People keep saying it is "romantic", but I am not sure where they're getting that impression from. "Storming" could be interchangeable with "assault", but not with "attack". Walrasiad (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support. Storming is fine, I think it does not need to change, but attack is also sufficient. Comment, to address what Walrasiad said: I think the romanticizing narrative comes from other events like the storming of the Bastille, and that people feel 'storming' gives the event an air of significance they feel it does not deserve. There is validity to that point, in that perhaps five years from now, labeling it as a storming may continue to embolden those people who still describe their actions as patriotic. Recall that supporters described this day as a crossing of the Rubicon far before the events of 1/6, ostensibly to support democracy, without noting that the crossing of the Rubicon symbolizes the end of the Roman Republic and democracy itself. Likewise the storming of the Bastille may have been a short victory of anger against elites, but it also set in motion the Reign of Terror. Regardless of that perspective, though, we must be as neutral as possible in this name decision, and also to note the parallels being made. There was a proposal in the last RM that we set a one-month moratorium on further discussions of this one, I think that was a good idea too -- IMHO this is too hot and fresh for cooler heads to prevail and the conversation will languish for time to come. 2603:8000:D900:87C7:40C0:3016:1687:A784 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - it doesn't seem like there's a clear direction either way from reliable sources, which use both words. I feel "storming" is far closer to describing the events of that day than "attack". Benicio2020 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with what others have said, storming is fine but attack is a more accurate description of what happened and more widely reported. It seems as though we are heading for another proposal that is no going to have any consensus and I would caution against immediately opening another proposal regarding a name change. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support - First, I would like to state that the previous RM was disrupted by the addition of several sections of tables, charts and off-topic discussions about them.This distracted from the actual discussion of titles and resulted in a compromised RM. I was also not happy about the initiation of the previous RM, and the initiation of this RM which immediately followed the closure. This is not beneficial to the article or WP and editors, including myself, are tired of the constant move discussions. That stated, here we are, and it is obvious that the !votes and discussion here reflect the fatigue. I have taken several days away from this topic and now feel it is time to address this RM.
• 1. 'Attack' and 'Riot' are the two most commonly used names to describe the events of January 6, a requirement of WP:Common Name. (Note: 'Insurrection' and 'Storming' are a distant third and fourth.)
• 2. The closer of the 'storming' RM stated that they felt 'storming' was a temporary title that was a needed move from 'protest' as the events unfolded.
• The closer of the last 'riot' RM noted that 'Attack' was frequently suggested as a title. It was shown to have the most support and the least opposition. Many editors opposed 'riot' because they did not feel that it conveyed the planning/incitement of the attack. Other editors felt that a stronger name, 'insurrection', was appropriate. I posted an AP article in the 'insurretion' RM that stated that journalists were struggling with the term and it was one of the most frequently searched words on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. (WP editors were also searching the definition) It will continue to be used in regards to Trump's impeachment because it is a legal and political term from the Insurrection act of 1807. The best way to whitewash this event is to use a word that is not commonly recognizable to the average reader. 'Attack' is a compromise that I hope will achieve consensus.
• 3. I recently increased the importance level of two related articles stating, "The attack on the Capitol was an unprecedented historical event. The executive branch planning and inciting an attack on the legislative branch with the intent of preventing the electoral certification of the president-elect." I'm tired, but not so tired that I will settle for a title that does not accurately represent the events of January 6. Attack is the only term that meets all the elements of WP:Article Titles: common name, recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Best, IP75 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I personally do not prefer "attack" to "riot", as I'll go into below, but it's a weak oppose for "attack", support "riot", and oppose the current title of "storming" as it has too many connotations (both possibly positive and negative) to be NPOV, but it's still better than attack I guess. I'll go into my reasoning. WP:COMMONNAME, while not binding to any pure numerical count, suggests that if a common name can be found in English language RS, it should be chosen. There has been a clear trend towards RS calling it by the term "riot", but to help, as of today, searching "january 6" on Google News, the following sources appear: CNN speech transcript, NPR timeline from 3 weeks ago ("attack" once, then primarily "riot"), PBS interview, USA today (only "riot"), Independent (UK) ("riot" and "violence" once each), The Atlantic ("riot" once, "violence" once), and more that tend this same way. I didn't include counts for the PBS interview due to the fact it is an interview, making the word count in it not useful to this debate. My point is that if reliable sources are consulted, then "riot" is clearly the common name. I am even more convinced of this after the last RM and the analysis that was presented by multiple editors. "Riot" is clearly the common name and is likely to remain so as it is still trending towards greater usage, not the other way around. I also support any closure of this as no consensus with a moratorium on future moves - it is clear that there are still too many personal opinions being used to justify opposition for certain titles in this RM - with one even accusing the people supporting "attack" to be "whitewashing" the title. Perhaps a 3-6 month moratorium on even discussing moves, even if it's not at the "perfect" title, will assist in not having these RMs that are way too complex to close as anything other than no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Riot is more common than Storming .But Storming is better and "Attack" is not descriptive of the incident.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Attack/riot are too vague. The advantage of storming is that it clearly differentiates this article from pages about attacks and riots, reflecting that this event was, in fact, of a different kind. Gershonmk (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Cumulatively

Numbers cumulatively to date - 09:22, 5 February - for Oppose v. Support the proposal in this section that

2021 storming of the United States Capitol be renamed and moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack.

• Oppose...23 v. Support...12

UPDATE

• Oppose...28 v. Support...12 ::12:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE

• Oppose...32 v. Support...18 ::12:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This RM remains open for discussion. No attempt here is made to assess the reasons, which is the job of a closer. Meantime the article is currently being revised.

Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Will you be updating these tallies daily? If not, the numbers could be construed incorrectly. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of updating on as-and-when basis say, every two or three days or sooner if there is a significant change in preponderance, rather like re-stocking shelves in a grocery store or larder. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Moratorium, 6 months or 1 year: Oppose...3 v. Support...14

Qexigator (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Uhhh, this is a very problematic way to present data. I think 3 people support a 1-year moratorium, but since you just bundled and tallied no one can tell what the actual numbers are or relate to. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not too much of a problem, perhaps. The moratorium count was an afterthought, and it would simplify the count and updating to leave out here, and I am striking now. Any one interested at this point in unbundling 6 and 12 can count for themselves. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Consensus is not a majority vote, and I think these attempts to break down a nuanced discussion into an up-down vote like the tables are as unbeneficial here as they were in the last RM. Consensus can be gleaned from the discussion itself.. 2603:8000:D900:87C7:40C0:3016:1687:A784 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read above "No attempt here is made to assess the reasons, which is the job of a closer" Specifically, this is no more than a cumulative count, not an up-down vote. Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! 2600:1012:B0EB:7426:CC4B:45BC:DEF:A6E2 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

More splitting/shortening of the article?

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

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

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

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

Bondegezou I refactored that section (diff [116]), you can see how compact it is now. It doesn't actually contain any real detail (not now or before my edit) — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to detail here the minor events in states like Tennessee and Kansas? We could just list the major confrontations and say, "Minor demonstrations also occurred in...", pointing readers to the full article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that section needs some shortening. I also feel like we could spin off the background section into an article like Planning of the Save America Rally or something along those lines; that section is getting pretty lengthy in of itself. Love of Corey (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Remain or stay, events outside D.C. are peripheral not integral. Qexigator (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

They're all a part of the nationwide insurrection; there were even some nasty incidents at those demonstrations. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You're going off topic, this article is about the event at the Capitol not insurrection in USA. The present editing exercise is to trim the article for its core topic, not to expand the scope of the topic. Qexigator (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC) 11:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As we now have it, applying the contents numbering, THE EVENT (2021 storming of the United States Capitol) is described in sections 2.3 to 3.2.2, while BEFORE THE EVENT is described in sections 1 to 2.2.1 and AFTER THE EVENT in sections 4, 5 and 6, leaving the article to finish with section 7 for Events outside Washington, D.C. I have added the time span to the location in the heading 2- Events in Washington, D.C. January 5,6,7, but may be that should be January 5-7. Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As others have indicated, the State capitols and cities section should be condensed to one or two sentences. Basically a link to 2021 United States inauguration week protests and a short description. Copying the details here is unnecessary and, as Qexigator said, off-topic. But of course, that won't make this article significantly shorter. Maybe we could remove some details from the Background section that are already explained in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? But that would only trim a paragraph or less. At the moment I don't see a good way to split any major part into another separate article. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It will be good to trim what little we can, to allow some space for what may be disclosed as further information about the event in connection with prosecutions of malefactors and the impeachment proceedings. Qexigator (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Three dead, not five.

This currently says "Five people died from the event, while dozens more were injured." But even the cited article acknowledges two of the five died from unrelated causes at unknown times:

"Greeson died of an apparent heart attack at an unknown point during the events"

"Phillips ... had a stroke and died, although authorities have not confirmed at what point during the attack" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.145.116.109 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed to say "Five people died during the event", so as to remove the concerns raised here. Love of Corey (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick did not die "during" the event, he died the next day. WWGB (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I manually reverted it to "from". In general RS tend to phrase it as a causal relationship. It's customary to use the "but for" logic in dangerous events such as this one (had the event not happened at all, would the same people still have died?). When we say "from the event" it just means this, it's very minimal. It's less emphasis on causality than when Politico says: "Five people died as a result of the riots".[117] — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

US law defines two types of causation: factual causation (“but-for”) and legal causation (“proximate cause”). You need to show both, but here you can't show either.

Factual causation asks but-for an act (storming of the capitol) would the harm have occurred (Greeson’s death). The answer is easy since, as Terjen points out below, Greeson was declared dead shortly before the breach. Likewise, there is nothing to indicate that Phillips would have avoided a stroke “but-for” the event.

Proximate causation asks whether an event is sufficiently related to an injury that it can be deemed a cause. It’s designed to catch situations where there is but-for cause, but no reasonable person would actually deem it a true cause. For example, if someone dies in a car accident on the way to get a Covid vaccine, Covid might qualify as a “but-for” cause of the death but it is obviously not “sufficiently related.”

Whenever you have an event with a large crowd of people, some of those people are likely to die from natural causes like heart attacks and strokes. That’s why you often see ambulances parked outside of large sporting events. It’s incredibly misleading to say, without context, that “five people died from the event” in the first paragraph.

“Three people died from the event, while dozens more were injured.” The other two deaths are entirely irrelevant and shouldn’t even be considered notable Marcus Wing (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very interesting, but irrelevant, because it's not for Wikipedians to "show" what a reliable source says. If reliable sources say these deaths were related to the events, then for our purposes, they are. Your personal disagreement with those sources, no matter how logical you think it is, is original research and synthesis, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't original research or personal disagreement. The causes of death are stated clearly in the cited article. If you have a reliable source explaining how either of these deaths was caused by the storming of the capitol, please add it. At the very least, the statement should read "five died at the event, two from natural causes." It's extremely misleading as currently written. Marcus Wing (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither "from" nor "during" are quite right. As 192.145.116.109 pointed out, some of the deaths may not have been caused by the riot, and as WWGB said, Sicknick died "from", but not "during" the event. Anyway, isn't "died from the event" a bit unidiomatic? We say someone died from cancer or another illness. But "died from" isn't commonly used for events, is it? I'm not quite sure – I'm not a native speaker. But I just looked at several sources, and none of them say that anyone died from the event. We should find a better expression. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, all of the people who died did so by participating in the event in some way, whether in support or in opposition to the forced entry of the Capitol. Maybe something like "Five people died in relation to the event" or something similar? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Rw "Five people died in relation to the event" sounds good to me. It's much better than "from" or "during". If there are no further objections, I think you should go ahead and edit it into the lead. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Forgot about that. Love of Corey (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Greeson was declared dead at 2:05 shortly before the breach, after suffering a heart attack outdoors on the Capitol grounds. Phillips separated from his group around 10:30 in the morning to park, then suffered a stroke plausible shortly afterwards, as he failed to rejoin the group he had organized.Terjen (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Phillips reportedly died at George Washington University Hospital.Terjen (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why aren't the suicides of Capitol Police and DC Police officers being mentioned? They have been reported in relation to the event, as, according to Politico, "Acting Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee told House appropriators during a closed-door session on Tuesday that Jeffrey Smith, a D.C. Police officer, and Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood both 'took their own lives in the aftermath of that battle'.” Liebengood died two days later, and Smith after that.<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/second-officer-suicide-following-capitol-riot-463123> Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Parkwells, see this prior discussion which brought up the BLP issue of making an attempt to connect their deaths to the events here. Furthermore, even if it wasn't a direct BLP issue, such a claim would require multiple high quality sources - not one comment that is hearsay from a closed-door session. The news can report what they will - but Wikipedia is not just a site designed to parrot the news. The information that is permissible is already included in the article as part of the prose - but attempting to add them to any "tally" of deaths is inappropriate until such time if/when reliable sources overwhelmingly state that the event was the reason for their deaths. Simply occurring after the event doesn't mean the event caused their death - and attempting to suggest so without exceedingly well sourcing is a BLP violation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do understand the reasoning. Their deaths, along with the others, have haunted me.Parkwells (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Storming

I'm seeing some reactions to the word storming that it somehow it lacks colour, is vague and perhaps not suitable in this instance, or is attached to a specific meaning, which is writing. Examaning Storming is in the dictionary. From the etymology dictionary, it states "attack (a place) by scaling walls and forcing gates and has been in general use, since 1640. It is a perfectly suitable adjective to describe the situation here. I don't see a problem with it. It has been in use, in one form or another, since 1400, and has been in existence in its current form, at least 270 years before qanon came along. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In my considered opinion, the above argument -- like all similar "it has an older meaning" arguments -- is invalid. The Swastika was in use by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains thousands of years before Hitler was born[118][119] but if you put it on an armband and go to a protest march you won't be sending a message of benign good luck. Likewise "stormer" and "storming" no longer stands for what they used to stand for. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not just its older meaning, it's what it has always meant and means today. The most iconic usage is in the Storming of the Bastille, when an angry anti-government mob overran a government building. It was pretty violent too as several government officials were murdered and their heads placed on spikes. Can you find any example of the use of the term where it means anything else? TFD (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There's always The Daily Stormer and its idealogical ancestor Der Stürmer... Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Shearonink, I think the Fa would prefer to think of it as the storming of the Bastille, but you're closer. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The founder of the Der Stürmer said, "Since the paper will storm the red fortress, it shall be called the Stuermer."[120] TFD (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

An example from 1789 does not support the claim "it's what it has always meant and means today". Readers are expected to differentiate between someone using a Swastika in 1000 AD from someone using a Swastika in 2000 AD. They are expected to realize that a WWI reference to a "fag" is not the same as a 2021 reference to a "fag". And they are expected to realize that the use of "Stormer" and "Storming" by neo-nazis started after WWII and didn't become popular in the US until the 21st century. ("Stormtrooper", of course, goes back to the first Star Wars movie (smile)...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, in the UK, "fag" is slang for cigarette. Yes, there has been confusion. No, it was not my fault. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a stretch to me to compare the co-opting of one meaning of a word by a few fringe groups to the appropriation of the swastika as a national symbol by a genocidal regime that killed millions. A more accurate comparison might be the appropriation of Pepe the Frog by alt-right groups, except that Pepe the Frog is probably more widely recognizable by the general public than the name Stormfront or QAnon's "the storm." Still, we don't let the sinister co-opting of Pepe the Frog have any effect on the naming of the Wikipedia articles on frogs or the admirable Frogmen.

Storm is one of those semi-rare English words of Germanic origin that has changed very little across all Germanic languages. It goes back a long, long way, to the proto-Germanic *sturmaz. Of course storming branched from the original meaning of storm as a violent weather phenomenon. It's a ripe word for metaphor-making, and the sense of a sudden burst of violence, whether a severe thunderstorm or a mob's uprising, all come from the original Germanic word. The sense of storming used in this article's title goes back in English at least to the 17th century. It's also true that the Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer and the far-right, violence-loving Stormfront ultimately trace the meaning of their names to metaphors made from comparisons of human violence to the violent natural phenomena of lightning and thunder.

And? Lots of words have branched off to have multiple meanings, have been appropriated and stigmatized by various groups, and so on. Why must that prevent us from using the most accurate word we can, even though forms of the word have more than one meaning to more than one group? It's probably worth noting that the German Wikipedia article on this topic starts with Sturm. If editors in the Sprachraum most acutely aware of the danger of far-right symbols and words can trust their readers to know that by using Sturm they are not giving credence or relevance or having anything at all to do with, say, Der Stürmer, then why can't we trust our readers to make the same types of distinctions? Some people will always read unrelated meaning or symbolism into everything (see also QAnon). We can't run around anticipating possible reactions to what we do. We can only decide on what's most accurate, NPOV, and precise for Wikipedia, and storming fits the bill. The word describes best what happened.

One more note: If editors here believe that we can't use storming because of its similarity to alt-right/QAnon imagery, I wish they would own that and be upfront about that being their rationale (some editors have done so, I acknowledge). I'd rather have a conversation about that if that's the real reason, than conversations about attack being the more accurate word or other distractions from what this is really about for them. Moncrief (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The opening words of the article immediately state that the storming was a riot and violent attack against the US Congress at the US Capitol. Those words directly, factually and succinctly inform the reader that the event named in the article's title as 'storming' involved rioting and was a violent attack against the Congress. No one so far has proposed a more serviceable wording. But every one of those words, like most in the English language, have a variety of meanings and usages, both at any one time and as changing, expanding or contracting over time. Today, one cannot count on it that most of the young people accepted for higher educational studies or as contributors to or editors of publications will have heard of such events as the Fall of the Bastille, but they should be adept with cell-phones or other digital devices to find out in a few seconds, even if they lack the extent of common knowledge which was not long ago widespread. For example here is an extract from an article in a back number of Virginia Law Review(p.535): 'Often some distinction between the forms of action is maintained, such as one between tort and contract; but where the forms of action have been most retained, there is some modification of the common law, particularly the abolition of the distinction between trespass and trespass on the case. [footnote 65: This is true even in Illinois, whose pleading and practice are not only derived from the common law system, but they are in fact that system, modified, however, by some legislation, which still leaves them the nearest approach to the English law of procedure, as it existed before the passage of the Judicature Acts, now remaining anywhere in the world. Some states provide merely for the joining of counts in trespass and case. The Illinois statute has been construed to permit simply of a choice between trespass and case; the chosen form must be followed]'[121] (See also Outline of the Law of Common Law Pleading, Marquett Law Review, 1920.[122]) Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, agree, it seems like probably the most appropriate word for what happened. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't like "storming" specifically because the racist meaning is the meaning used used by those who did the "storming". I don't like "attack" because I don't think it is accurate . "Takeover" is slightly better, but did they really take over the entire building?

I also have an issue with "Capitol"; the word also refers to a city. In my opinion, our article United States Capitol should be United States Capitol Building.

After due consideration, my opinion is that this article should be called "2021 breach of the United States Capitol Building" or "2021 United States Capitol Building breach". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"the word also refers to a city" – No, the word for the city is slightly different. The United States Capitol is in the United States Capital. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I also like breach, and prefer the first wording you mention, except I think "Building" is superfluous. The Capitol is not the capital. Moncrief (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If a mob/group of citizens/traitors/patriots/whatever attack a building, it is a storming. TFD (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to put this here randomly, because I'm not up for the main section on it, and I'm not totally sure how I feel yet about it. But what about assault: 2021 assault on the United States Capitol, or even NOYEARing it. Let's see how the 4 Feb RM plays out. It just strikes me that assault could be a compromise word and that it fits well, better IMO than "attack." It's not a top-three most used word in the media for the event, but I think it's been established that at this point, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't dictate that it must be. Moncrief (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As soon as the most recent RM is closed, another one will pop up within 24 hours I bet. Honestly, the only way to proceed might be a discussion to determine if the article name is acceptable or not. If consensus is to change, then the only way to force a change might need to be with an RfC with more than one choice, barring storming as a choice. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I still personally think insurrection is the most accurate term SRD625 (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Breach isn't accurate. In this context, it is a military term and this wasn't a military action. If it was a military action, it would be ideal, "into the breach" but it is a civilian, entirely civilian action, so doesn't apply. When I was a child, I thought it meant into the breech of the cannon, of course in military terms, it means into the hole in the fortifications. In reality, it effectively means men into the breech, as you were likely shot full in the body with a cannon when you were charging, up a hill. So there is no effective difference. I don't think applies here. I don't think I have seen it mentioned anywhere in sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

scope_creep It's mentioned somewhat. Breach is the fifth most used descriptor after riot, insurrection, attack and siege. Breach is used more than storming :) /edit: a sampling of headlines/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems more American newspapers than anything else are using the term. The top news outlet, AP News is using the term as well. Siege is used as well. I'm surprised at that. I suppose in a way it was a siege. I think the term, Storming must be more orientated towards European newspaper coverage. More and more I think we should wait until it dies down and a common term is accepted. scope_creep^Talk 17:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Siege is super-awful. For accuracy investiture of the would be best, or investing of the, but "invest" is not a common term. Breach is a good attempt, but really only covers the forced entry to the building, not the occupation. Much the same is the only real issue with "storming", but the term seems to me to more easily stretch to cover more of the events. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

• I contend that Storming is the best, most neutral-yet-accurate encyclopedic term available and we should stick with it. "Attack" is technically correct but not specific enough, "riot" is accurate but not specific enough, "Insurrection" is overly political, assumes too much, and likely recentism, "siege" is semi-accurate but too dramatic and has its own historical implications, "breach" or "breaching of the capital" is the most specific, but doesn't capture the scale of the event. "Storming" is accurate, succinct, and leaves enough room to convey the scale of the event, but a vocal minority of people seem to find fault with the connotation associated with it. RopeTricks (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced refs

§Capitol breach starts:

Just after 2:00 p.m., windows were broken through, and the mob breached the building and entered ...

References

I expected the refs to support the timeline, but instead they are links to 18 U.S.C. § 1752 and 40 U.S.C § 5104 (typoed as "1504"). Those are the statutes criminalizing the behavior mentioned, but the article's text there is not addressing the legal issues. Is that an appropriate use of refs? (Refs were added by User:Ancheta Wis on 2021-01-19: Special:Diff/1001151743 & Special:Diff/1001202177.) Should they be removed, or if we want mention of the statutes there, should they be converted to footnotes? -- ToE 14:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The refs might better be off as notes. The event of breaching the Capitol is an overt breach of the law. The time of the breach can be verified by videocamera time stamps. But the citations defend a statement that there was overt breaking of the laws cited, with statutory consequences for the perpetrators, including those who climb through windows, those who walk through doors which were previously locked by the Capitol police, and those who are carrying flags and picketing. These remain unlawful activities by those carrying tools or flags, including flags or fire extinguishers used as weapons. To state the obvious, carrying these tools is an indication of intent which was previously proscribed by the laws cited. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

... the citations defend a statement that there was overt breaking of the laws cited ...

What stuck me as incongruous was that the references were not proximate to such a statement.

I suppose a statement of illegality could be added parenthetically, but I thought that would break the flow, hence the suggestion of footnotes.

Also, some folks might object on WP:OR grounds to simply linking the statutes vs. also linking an article describing their applicability to the events. -- ToE 20:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic issue taken up by Qexigator in separate section below

It appears that citizen Trump's answer to the charge of 'incitement' is denial that when holding office as POTUS he incited any of the perpetrators to any such violation of the law. That is a credible defense to the article of impeachment - as well as 'void ab initio'[123] - until held to be proven at trial. If the Wikipedia article is implying otherwise - it reads as if it is based on that supposition - and given that it is not WP to preempt a finding of guilty as charged on the basis of opinion repeated in RS, then it may need to be revised. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC) @Qexigator: Just to ask, how does that apply to the sentence, "Just after 2:00 p.m., windows were broken through, and the mob breached the building[1][2] and entered ..." and in what manner? Your comment appears to be off-topic, which is technically a violation of policy. If it does not relate to the sentence, did you mean to post this somewhere else? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Not sure I have understood why you mention the article's Capitol breach section. Breaking in etc is a fact widely seen on TV, Youtube et. al. But my point is lack of evidence that POTUS Trump, as he then was, incited the malefactors, and, while incitementt has been vehemently asserted against him in the impeachment, it has been denied and is as yet unproven. For that reason, the statute is a caution to us not to let the article wording imply in Wikivoice that he is guilty as charged. The second sentence of the lead reads 'Called to action by Trump..' and the rest of the paragraph mentions a series of facts acceptably supported. But 'Called to action by Trump' following on immediately after the first paragraph reads as if he had incited them to the action there descrbed, that is, to take the Capitol by storm and riot and engage in violent attack against the Congress on January 6. That tends to govern the way in which the whole article is to be read and understood. It is not a good look to see Wikipedia written like a hatchet job against him. Qexigator (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC) SGV mentioned that section of the article because it is the exclusive subject of this particular talk page section. -- ToE 13:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is an article that mentions the statutes, then I think we can then source the statutes themselves without issue. As it is now, it might not be acceptable as a reliable source should be cited there to state that the group forcefully entered the Capitol. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The main, largest picture in the infobox, is problematic

The main picture carries the most weight. Currently it's some guy in a flag jumpsuit holding a flag. Yes, it was part of what took place that day, but certainly doesn't capture the most noteworthy aspects of what took place. For example, at September 11 attacks, the main picture shows the smoking buildings. Are there no pictures in commons showing rioters breaking windows? trying to force their way into the Capitol and attacking cops?[124] scaling the wall? The jumpsuit guy should not be leading the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, I agree that the largest picture is not actually of the storming, and does not illustrate the topic at hand. Soething like File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol 2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09265-2 (50821579347).jpg might be more appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for your reply, but that picture doesn't capture the violence. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, feel free to suggest a free image that does. That was the most obvious from my brief review on Commons. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: I agree that it would be better if the main picture captured the violence and the incursion (because without them the event would have been far less notable). When you raised the issue before, I looked through commons:Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol and some of its sub-categories, but I didn't find any better image. The thing is: The current main photo clearly shows a volatile crowd of people at the Capitol. All photos I found that better capture the violent nature of the event don't really show that it happened at the Capitol. So while I agree the main photo isn't perfect, I think it's the best we've got. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's not archive sections on this talk page too quickly

This talk page was extremely active right after January 6. To keep it manageable and readable, discussions had to be archived quite quickly. But a month has passed now and things have slowed down. We're sometimes discussing editorial changes that need more time. Recently, two sections were archived but restored soon after because they were still ongoing: the RfC about "terrorism" and shortening the article. (Two more were archived although I'm not sure they had run their course: discussing problems with the lead and image size. Maybe they should be restored as well?)

I think we should keep discussions open a bit longer than we used to. I went ahead and increased the age for automatic archiving from one day to three. (Maybe it should be even longer?)

I think manual archiving isn't necessary anymore and should be avoided. (It's OK to archive obvious cases like this one, but even that isn't really necessary anymore – there's not much danger of this talk page becoming cluttered with lots of sections.) — Chrisahn (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The bot saw the template below that one and archived things again, so I fixed it. Sadly, this means that Ongoing analysis of naming trends likely cannot be restored. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Thanks! I didn't know there were multiple bot configurations and fixed only one of them. :-( Of course, we can still restore anything we want, but it has to be done manually and is a bit tedious: Find the wikitext on the archive page, copy it, insert it back into this page (preferrably in the correct position), delete it from the archive page. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it also will need a revert to the original text as well since it an edit was made to it after it was closed, but I can do my best to unwind the edit and bring back the section. I just thought it might be a bit too much, but will give it a go.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I have created a subpage for the ongoing analysis of naming trends, following the advice of ProcrastinatingReader.[125] Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Ongoing_analysis_of_naming_trends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: I didn't get this ping either, but in this case you didn't sign your post, so the ping wasn't sent. I made a reply above, but if you feel like keeping the subpage, then maybe we can just directly archive the section so that we do not have to wait three days. Whatever allows for more discussion should be the best. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

'Called to action by Trump'

The above words stem from the edit of 11 January 2021 (Changed 'Summoned' to 'Called to action'). But events have been moving on and the article has been catching up. The same words, now standing as the opening words of the lead's second paragraph, are unacceptably tendentious.

The sentence begins 'Called to action by Trump..' and the rest of the paragraph mentions a series of facts acceptably supported. But 'Called to action by Trump' follows on immediately after the first paragraph so as to read as if he had incited the malafectors to the action mentioned there and expanded in the 'Capitol breach' section, that is, to take the Capitol by storm and riot and engage in violent attack against the Congress on January 6. Standing there in the lead the words tend to govern the way in which the whole article is to be read and understood.

We can now see that there is a lack of hard evidence that POTUS Trump, as he then was, incited the malefactors, in that, while incitement has been vehemently asserted against him in the impeachment, it has been denied and is as yet unproven. Meantime, while some may see the second impeachment, like the first, as a necessary tactic to realize a grander strategy, and others as a clumsy manoeuvre that will boomerang on its proponents, we may suppose that many are watching aghast from the sidelines.

For that reason, we should be cautious not to let the article wording imply in Wikivoice that he is guilty as charged. Leaving the article to read like a hatchet job against him is not a good look for Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is plenty of evidence he asked them to turn up and protest, that is a call to action.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That is beside the point I have presented in my comment above. Responses to that will be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The point being made is not whether he asked them to come and protest, which is not in dispute. It is whether he asked them specifically to storm the Capitol, which at this point, is not supported by the evidence. There is an argument to be made in suggesting that his rhetoric was inflammatory enough to engender such a desperate act, but no conclusive causality to insinuate that his words and his words alone were sufficient to trigger the event.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the whole paragraph:

Called to action by Trump, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 in support of the stolen election conspiracy theory, Trump's false claims that the 2020 election had been "stolen" from him, and to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Joe Biden's victory. On the morning of January 6, at a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, Trump repeated false claims of election irregularities and spoke of a need to "fight", saying "if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore". At the president's encouragement, thousands of the protesters then walked to the Capitol, where a joint session of Congress was beginning the Electoral College vote count to formalize Biden's victory.

It's not quite clear what the word "action" refers to. If it's just the rally, "called to action" wouldn't be incorrect (Trump repeatedly told his supporters to come), but the wording would be rather unusual (a rally isn't much of an "action"). The word "action" might also mean everything that follows in this paragraph (the rally and the walk to the Capitol), but for the latter we already have a similar construct: "At the president's encouragement".

In conclusion: I think we should simply revert to "summoned". The Wiktionary entry for "summon" says: "To call people together; to convene" and "To ask someone to come; to send for". That fits Trump's calls for his followers to come to the rally, without additional, potentially loaded connotations. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is as stated above, not so much the words that follow in the second paragraph, but the words that have gone before in the first paragraph, so as to make the second paragraph read as if he had incited the malefactors to take the Capitol by storm and riot and engage in violent attack against the Congress on January 6. In the lead the words there tend to govern the way in which the whole article is to be understood. Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the name of this linguistic construct, but I'm pretty sure a sentence prefix like "Called to action by Trump, ..." applies to what follows, not to what came before. (We have the same construct a bit further down: "Pressured by his administration, ...") But I agree that it may feel like "called to action" in some way also refers to the previous paragraph. I think this could be fixed by replacing "called to action" by "summoned", because the latter has a narrower meaning and thus can't refer to the broad overview given in the first paragraph. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Before this section disappears to Archives, I guess the linguistic construction may be due to ellipsis and the influence of Latin Grammar's Ablative Absolute[126][127], given the casual way English literature has developed from the time of Shakespeare, Milton, Samuel Johnson, Burke, and the 19c. novelists, poets and other writers, nearly all of whose schooldays would have been according to the traditional grammar school curriculum in preparation for entry to a latinized university, where they would enjoy termly residence in statu pupillari and under the jurisdiction of university proctors. The sentence in question could be understood as modelled on the construction: '(Having been) summoned by Donaldus the crowd rallied at the meeting place before proceeding with their flag waving protest march and demo.... Q.E.D. fwiw. Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: Regarding the more general question whether Trump "incited" the storming of the Capitol: We may never have "hard evidence" that he did. What would constitute "hard evidence"? A successful impeachment? Probably not – it's largely politically motivated. A ruling of a court of law? Very unlikely to happen. So we'll probably never have "hard evidence" that he "incited" the storming in a legal sense. But I'm not sure we need that. In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to call Trump's speech at the rally ("if you don’t fight like hell" etc.) "incitement". Wiktionary about "incite": "To stir up or excite; to rouse or goad into action". Of course, my opinion doesn't matter. But I also think we have an almost unanimous consensus among WP:RS that Trump "incited" the storming. Even some Fox News commentators say so.[128][129] I think it would be OK to use something like "incite" in Wikivoice. (It just wouldn't make sense in the spot we're talking about here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

'Hard evidence' woiuld be the sort of evidence upon which prosecutors rely when presenting an indictment, and that is not rejected by the judge before the jury retires to consider its verdict. But the impeachment of a president or past-president is admittedly an exceptional political event. In this case we do not yet know for certain what evidence is being presented, nor what ruling the Senate, sitting as the tribunal of judgment, will make on the admissibility of such evidence as will be presented. Meantime there is only soft evidence of forensically unexamined hearsay, and anything Trump admits or is proved to have uttered before the event, and perhaps later. The impeachment is being defended, and the onus is on the impeachers to submit supporting evidence in the course of the process. Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're setting the bar much higher than what's required by our policies (even by WP:BLP, which might apply here to some extent). If Wikipedia could only say what has been proven in a court of law, our pages would be pretty empty. :-) Maybe Trump is not guilty of "incitement" in a legal sense, but I think it's OK for us to use words similar to "incite" (we're already using "encouragement") as long as it's reasonably clear it's not meant as a legal term. (But I guess we should focus on "called to action" here and leave this more general question for another discussion.) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In this particular case, the issue is too grave and too sensitive to let the emotive laxity of the moment determine the tone of the article. Again, let caution be the Wikipedia watchword until the ups and downs of the present political tantrums and media excitement have had a little more time to settle. Qexigator (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a note: Very similar questions have been discussed before, e.g. in this discussion which was closed as Word "urge" is not to be used in lead, but the proposal was rather vague (Did it only affect the the first sentence? Or the whole lead? What about words similar to "urge"?), and I actually don't see much of a consensus in the discussion... Just like most discussions on this talk page. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, given all the previous and continuing to-ing and fro-ing to bring the article this far, perhaps it's better for a while to attend to retaining 'storming' in the name to cover the event itself, in respect of which Trump is a peripheral figure, although not surprisingly he looms so strongly in the feelings of his fellow citizens that he may be having undue attention in this article, when at the same time there are actually a good many other articles which are about him in one aspect or another. But in this article, there is also a need to ensure that the sequence of events is clear enough to be followed, unemotively, especially when activity is happening in different places at the same time. I'm pretty sure that there will be need for a re-think as the impeachment documents, rulings and decisions become available, that may affect some parts of this article. My own view is that there are few people who take an interest in this who have not already made their own minds up too firmly to let their understanding be swayed. All in all, perhaps in the current version, the distinction between 'called to action' and 'summoned' is more a point of literary style than key significance in this context. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I would find it hard to imply that he is a marginal person in the event, given that there is a pretty clear connection between his rally that day and his supporters overrunning the Capitol later on. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In a comment above I mention that in reality the issue is too grave and too sensitive to be treated lightly. But the custom is to balance the impact of a tragedy with the light relief of comedy. So here is the outline of a make believe Blame Game called 'Who is to blame for what and why? ('Whist' for short).

A crowd of 100 people attend a barbecue in a park near a mansion, the residence of a popular celeb who holds the title Top of the Game. She stops by and makes a speech encouraging the crowd to go to a Punch and Judy show a mile away, and then returns to the mansion, The crowd moves off to the show, and by the time they get there disorder has broken out and damage is done. Some of the crowd join in the disorder.

1. Members of the crowd at the barbecue would not have been at the disorderly event if the celeb had not encouraged them to go there. 2. The barbecue had been held to celebrate the celeb's claim to be the winner of a popular vote for the annual Top of the Game award (TOGA) which went this year to a rival. 3. The celeb claimed that the award should be hers and demanded a recount of the vote. 4. The Punch and Judy show was a traditional event to celebrate the winning of the award, on this occasion for the rival. 5. The celeb at the barbecue was not at the award ceremony and did not take part in the disorder. She was not part of the disorderly event, but she was not displeased that her supporters went to make a protest. She had not encouraged them to engage in unlawful behaviour. 6. The disorder was quelled and the award was presented to the rival who will therefore be entitled to occupy the mansion in place of the celeb who was last year's winner, and whose title had been bitterly and actively disputed by this year's winner and her supporters.

The Game is designed to let the players take sides, and each side to construct an argument to blame one of the two rivals and exonerate the other. The game can be played using either Rule A or Rule B. Rule A is that the current occupant of the mansion by the park is not to blame for the disorder and damage at the Punch and Judy show award event. Rule B is that the current occupant is to blame for the damage. To decide the winner, the Game has a system of point scoring. Qexigator (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite and join the silliness. Here's a comedy that's closer to the tragedy we witnessed:

A popular celeb who recently lost the title Top of the Game organizes a barbecue in a park near her mansion and invites a crowd of 100,000 people to attend. She makes a speech encouraging the crowd to go to a Punch and Judy show a mile away, using the word "fight" twenty times and saying "if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a Game anymore". The celeb then returns to the mansion, but the crowd moves off to the show, and when they get there, they smash in doors and windows, break into the building, try to attack the performers (who manage to hide just in time), and ransack the stage and dressing rooms.

[...] 5. The celeb may not have explicitly encouraged her fans to engage in unlawful behaviour, but even some of her colleagues and friends think that her words at the barbecue ("fight" etc.) certainly stirred up the crowd and encouraged the violent acts. 6. When the celeb won the title last time, many others were disappointed, but her opponent conceded right away and did NOT "bitterly and actively dispute" the election.

In conclusion: Some major aspects of your comedic analogy are quite misleading. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and your alternative version is a way to play the first under Rule B. Prospective players should also be notified of the Hi Ya! version that includes prime crime challenges (for either side) RS, OR and SYN and a stack of Polly cards for parroted phrases such as 'No there there', 'Stop thief' and 'Whadya mean it was stolen'. In the second phase of that version, a player can retire by calling 'I'll eat my hat' or 'I'll take my coat'. [130] Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku V: I hope you will have understood that the purpose of my attempt at outlining a Blame Game comedy above in response to you was to make a serious point about editing the article's content. While much has been asserted about then President Trump being impeachably responsible for the storming event, what he undeniably said to the crowd at the Ellipse rally, and what is public knowledge about what he said later, is at most equivocal and remains open to a finding of not guilty of incitng any malefactors who may seek for themselves some degree of exoneration or penalty relief by blaming him. Most law-abiding people (not only those having citizen status) dread the threat to life, limb, family, property and livelihood that usually mob rule entails. But a feature of what has been happening in connection with that day's storming, and more widely and generally for some time, has been using various ways of inciting mob-like attacks on individuals and groups, attempting to destroy their reputations and damage them and often their families. One of the things that Wikipedia needs is self-restraint to avoid becoming an accomplice as a result of undue reliance on deemed RS. Qexigator (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: It all honestly, I didn't really feel like it was a serious comment and why I refrained from commenting. I have a bit of a hard time making light of anything that happened on January 6th, so that might be a roadblock for understanding your reply to me. I will say that I find it hard to believe someone can make a statement that is both undeniable and vague. Regardless, while some of the participants are blaming him, they are not reliable sources. It is what reliable sources say that matters.

Going back to your initial comment that trigger this discussion, you said that using "Call to action" was unacceptably tendentious. I want to point you in the direction of the FAQ created to deal with repeated issues at the 2020 US election talk page:

Q1: Why does the article call President Trump's statements about the integrity and legitimacy of the election "false"?

A1: Because reliable sources call his statements false. Though Trump often classifies these sources as "fake news", the consensus of other reliable non-news sources and Wikipedia editors is that they are reliable. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reflects these sources, which may not align with any one individual's statements on the matter. (See also WP:TRUTH)

I personally see the situation the same here as then. If reliable sources call his statements as a "Call to action" then we should do the same. If sources use another word or term, then we should use that instead. This discussion should be as simple as that. (At the very least, hopefully this gets us back on track.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. Given that the dreadful January 6 event happened as part of one day in a continuum stretching back for seven years and earlier[131] with an outlook from here that is none too bright, I can well understand that in the real world many feel its gravity and sensitivity to be more than allows for looking at an exercise in reasoning that my make believe Blame Game is designed to offer by way of caution about sources and article content. But in the real world, what are from time to time deemed RS as a criterion for factual information are not necessarily reliable in point of comment or interpretation. Nevertheless, the WP guidance operates as a useful inhibition on edits that rely on 'OR' and 'SYN'. The present case is one of those that may seem paradoxical. What has not yet happened will be a strong influence on accounting for what has happened. As I see it, this is one of an ongoing series of events that cannot be regarded as complete until the impeachment has concluded and some time is allowed for careful consideration, undeterred by whatever noise or clamour surrounds it, just as congressional security services and staff kept valiantly cool in the midst of it all. Given the standing of the U.S. in world affairs, this is not exclusively a concern for domestic politics. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC) link added 10:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

In view of above comments, and after looking for other wording that will make the least disturbance of the text following the first paragraph, I agree that reverting to 'summoned' would be acceptable, but only if 'had' is inserted giving the meaning that the rally on 5 January and the rally that he addressed at the Ellipse on 6 January, and the march to the Capitol, were of a piece with his summoning the crowd to Washington, but not the storming and violence that happened at the Capitol. So let the opening of paragraph 2 be reworded to read:

Summoned by Trump, thousands of his supporters had gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6...

Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, RS say it, he did say fight, he meant not have meant actual fighting, that does not matter. What matters is how RS characterize it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposed rewording is consistent with your comment and covered by the article content. Qexigator (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per detailed discussion above. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Almost all WP:RS's have clearly stated that Trump incited the violence. There is sufficient evidence that the attack on the Capitol was planned. This is in addition to his extensive remarks at the rally. Further, he was impeached for his incitement of the attack. Please note that the article contains additional evidence. Two editors are not enough to change or establish a consensus. I will revert the edit and invite other editors to contribute to this discussion. Best, IP75 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted, but your comment is actually beside the point, as can be seen in the above discussion. The edit you have reverted is consistent with your comment and covered by the article content. Qexigator (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the unilateral edit. This is a highly contentious subject area. Two !votes does not a consensus make. WaltCip-(talk) 12:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your protest noted, but how does it make any sense given that, as can be seen in the above discussion, the reverted edit is consistent with the article's existing content, but improves its readability in fewer words, and will do even if the impeachers produce conclusive evidence in support of the impeachment and the Senate holds ex=president Trump guilty as charged? Qexigator (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Here is what he actually said [132]:

We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore... And we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them... So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

The crowd repeatedly chanted “Fight for Trump!” - “Thank you,” Trump said. And the people did storm the Capitol to get rid of them. So obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is typical Trump double talk. He either outright lies or does his "I didn't really say that routine." Gandydancer (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support Trump summoned his supporters via the rally, and he used the term "fight like hell" in the middle of his rally speech. He undoubtedly riled up the crowd with that verbiage. But whether it was a generic, metaphorical "fight" for their cause via voting and civil protesting, or was he deliberately, intentionally telling the rally goers to specifically disobey police and invade the capital building to stop the congressional procedure with the "get rid of them...let's march..." comments will continue to be debated well after the impeachment trial, regardless of apparent RS consensus. RopeTricks (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement with RopeTricks (see my latest reply to (Super Goku V above). This proposal is now obsolescent, but open to further comment, if any. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not obsolescent. You don't have and never had a consensus. You must revert your edit.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What is your problem? I am not claiming consensus. I am not seeking to block any others adding support or oppose here, but I am entitled to be persuaded against the proposal by discussion here or what is happening in the real world. I am accepting that my proposal, to revert from 'Called to action' to 'Summoned', is, to my mind, no longer worth putting into effect, because it is becoming overtaken by the impeachment proceedings now being heard by the Senate. If the proposal were that 'Summoned', should replace 'Called to action' I might be neutral, depending on reasons others might give for the change Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Were there actually bombs near the Capitol grounds?

The lead currently says: Improvised explosive devices were found near the Capitol grounds, as well as at offices of the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, and in a nearby vehicle. The problem is: the latter three incidents are well documented, but the first one isn't.

The more detailed section Planting of pipe bombs doesn't mention any bombs on or near the Capitol grounds. (The RNC and DNC are roughly one or two blocks away from the Capitol.) The sources for the claim in the lead are these CNBC and NYT reports. Only CNBC mentions "on the grounds of the Capitol". The NYT only mentions the bombs at the RNC and DNC.

I did a rather thorough search but didn't find any confirmation that there actually were bombs on or near the grounds of the Capitol. Details:

• CNBC (Published Wed, Jan 6 20214:30 PM EST / Updated Wed, Jan 6 20216:27 PM EST): "The FBI said it had dispatched with two suspicious devices that were uncovered in Washington after reports of improvised explosives on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol during Wednesday’s rioting."
• NBC News (Jan. 6, 2021, 7:07 PM CET / Updated Jan. 7, 2021, 3:42 PM CET): "...at least one improvised explosive device was found on the grounds, law enforcement officials said. [...] Improvised explosive devices were found on the Capitol grounds, several law enforcement officials said. Officers were in the process of destroying the devices, and it was not clear whether they were functional. At least one was made of a small section of galvanized pipe."
• Metro (6 Jan 2021 9:09 pm; Note: not a reliable source per WP:RSP#Metro): "One pipe bomb was found at the Beltway headquarters of the Republican National Committee and another in the Capitol complex, both of which were safely detonated. A suspicious package was also discovered at the Democratic National Committee headquarters although it was not immediately thought to be an explosive."

Many later reports confirm the bombs at the RNC and DNC as well as the Molotov cocktails in the pickup truck, but none mention bombs on or near the Capitol grounds. Examples:

• NBC News (Jan. 7, 2021, 4:52 PM CET / Updated Jan. 7, 2021, 6:32 PM CET): "Two devices were found after police received reports of a pipe bomb. Chief Sund said that the devices were determined to be "hazardous" and were disabled and turned over to the FBI. A suspicious vehicle was also found and its driver was arrested."
• ABC Denver / AP (Posted at 4:29 PM, Jan 06, 2021 and last updated 6:38 AM, Jan 07, 2021): "The Washington, D.C., police chief says pipe bombs and a cooler with Molotov cocktails were recovered [...] Chief Contee said during a press conference Wednesday that officers found two pipe bombs, one outside the Democratic National Committee and one outside the Republican National Committee. [...] ...a vehicle that had a long gun and Molotov cocktails on Capitol grounds."
• AP (January 12, 2021): "...two pipe bombs found just blocks away at the offices of the Republican and Democratic national committees. [...] ...were called to the Republican National Committee’s office after a pipe bomb was found outside. About 30 minutes later, as the agents and bomb technicians were still investigating at the RNC, another call came in for a second, similar explosive device found at the Democratic National Committee headquarters nearby." And about the pickup truck: "near the Capitol ... 11 Molotov cocktails".

It looks like during the chaotic afternoon of January 6, some law enforcement officials and/or journalists heard that bombs had been found on or near the Capitol grounds, but the pipe bombs had actually been found one or two blocks away, and the Molotov cocktails (usually not called "bombs") were in a truck on Capitol grounds. Unless we find later sources confirming that there were bombs on or near Capitol grounds, we shouldn't make that claim. I'll go ahead and remove it. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yodabyte, I reverted your change to the infobox, certainly made in good faith based on the above (100% valid) post by Chrisahn. The point here is not to consider the planting of bombs as not a constituent part of the event anymore. This is just about clarifying the location in the lead (mix-up between pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails; Molotov cocktails were found on Capitol grounds but they are not bombs, even though some people lump them together with bombs). Bombing wasn't added to the infobox based on a belief that bombs were planted on the Capitol grounds in the first place. Please remember that even the protests and incidents in other cities on Jan. 6 are still considered a constituent part of this event. Update: @Yodabyte: I see you reverted back to bombing removal – please respond to the rationale I've given. Think about this: bombing was in the infobox in one form or another for a month before you removed it completely. And it wasn't controversial (only some disagreement on how to phrase it). Based on what did you remove it? — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

— Alalch Emis it was actually removed from the infobox on Jan 19th so it was only incorrectly included for about 12 days. Regarding your question please read my edit summary for why it does not belong in the infobox. Yodabyte (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yodabyte I already replied to your previous edit summary prior to your subsequent manual revert both in my edit summary, and in the post right here, above yours. Could you now reply to the reasons I've given? Update: (attempted) bombing was added on Jan. 8 (diff); it was removed briefly at one point but was almost immediately readded. All in all my statement that it stood in the article for a month is true. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Yodabyte (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

We aren't making progress here so an RfC has been started — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Don’t include what I’m about to say without finding a reliable source, but I do vaguely remember hearing about bombs at other buildings in D.C. Don’t put this in the article without a reliable source though. So depends on what you consider to be near capitol grounds. 4D4850 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Beer Gut Putsch" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beer Gut Putsch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Beer Gut Putsch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Us insurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Us insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Us insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Draft:Mike Lindell Day" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Mike Lindell Day. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Draft:Mike Lindell Day until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

American decline

Should this page have links to American decline per sources like [133], [134] and [135]?--Mhhossein ^talk 06:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Global Times is a propaganda outlet, and the Bloomberg article analyzes the propagandist discourse. Reliable sources that deal with this topic in a matter-fact-way are needed. On the other hand, Democratic backsliding is a 'see also' in the broader 2020–21 United States election protests article; by translation, it could be added here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No. America isn't in decline. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Support In American decline, the article is clear that American decline is an idea, not a concrete fact. The Capitol attack is a reason to believe America might be in decline, so it should link. Twiinarmeggedon2 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Storming again

• Here is an Independent article, [136]. It seems that storming was used as a call to action by the seditionists and will be used in evidence against trump. Here is the Guardian [137]. There are several more sources in that vain, they're will probably be more as the evidence is presented. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted that the Guardian article rehashes the interpretation of an academic study published in The Atlantic (Feb 2 2021), that was discussed on this page on that day in a section headed 'New study' (Archive 12). A comment of 17:58, 2 February pointed out that other experts might see their interpretation as circular reasoning, given that, if the storming is seen as a protest that got out of control, then that explains why people not prone to political violence were involved. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

+This leaves open an uncomfortable question which may also be undergoing investigation: if any of the malefactors were pre-meditating seditious or subversive action, and this was known to the security services, why was the Capitol not adequately secured against attack? Perhaps more about this will be disclosed while the impeachment trial proceeds.This could affect the content of sections i-Background and 6.2-State capitols and cities. Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Undoing "bombing" removal from infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per WP:SNOW. No need to expend any further volunteer resources on this dispute resolution request. El_C 00:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the recent manual revert that entirely removed "bombing" from the infobox be undone - either by adding "bombing" or a similar word/s (please say what specifically) back to the methods line?

('Yes' means it should be undone: planting of bombs represented in the infobox / 'No' means it shouldn't be undone: planting of bombs not represented in the infobox) — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the edit and summary whereby it was removed by Yodabyte diff. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the manual revert (right side; first revert) that was manually reverted (above diff; revert of revert) in above edit - diff — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's enough of that. Drop the WP:STICK everyone. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please mind WP:OWN now that you're unblocked and posting so much here again. Moncrief (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC) It's inappropriate to make such insertions into an RfC. You're both poisoning the well and targeting me personally — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC @Moncrief: Would you kindly remove that post so that the RfC can proceed neutrally and without such distractions? You may remove these two replies of mine in the same go — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC) What Moncrief wrote was reasonable, useful and appropriate. It should stay. Alalch Emis, you don't WP:OWN this article or this talk page. If you keep acting like you do, you'll probably be blocked again. Pipe down. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Chrisahn Would you also remove your post at the top of this RfC that in no way contributes to the course of the RfC but deals with unrelated matter (me). Also please don't think it's possible to threaten me, I am impervious to such mild forms of psychological pressure.— Alalch Emis (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC) I don't know what you mean. I didn't post anything "at the top of this RfC". I won't remove anything. I'm not threatening you, just stating the fact that you might get blocked again. See e.g. this warning that you deleted from your talk page yesterday. And if you don't want this current sub-thread to become a distraction, just stop commenting on it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Alalch Emis has escalated the above to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ganging up on RfC starter because of previous block. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Chrisahn, if that was a solution I'd have wholeheartedly embraced it, but it's been a distraction since the first post targeting me in relation to something unrelated to the RfC. If it was about neutrality, CoI, anything of such nature I'd respond positively, but it's just something alien to the purpose and working of an RfC. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC) @Alalch Emis:@Chrisahn: While I can understand worrying about Alalch Emis commiting WP:OWN violations, I’m thinking that he doesn’t seem to be trying to own the article or talk page, although his post towards Chrisahn was a bit blunt, and it does seem like he misunderstood Moncriefs intention. Overall, everyone in this conversation is being a bit blunt with their interactions regarding Moncrief warning Alalch Emis about WP:OWN.4D4850 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• No - The explosive devices were found at other locations (blocks away), not at the Capitol. No sources show any explosive devices found on or in the Capitol during the event. It appears unrelated (except as a possible distraction?) to the storming event itself. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• If this article is titled "riot", "protests", or something more general that can expand past the Capitol Building then sure. If the article is titled "storming" or "attack" etc, then no, because the bombs planted were not part of the attack on/storming of the Capitol, but instead being a part of separate events during the same day (i.e. the protests/riots in general). For those arguing for a "precise" title of "attack" or "storming", this should be kept in mind that once the other events of the day are considered, it is no longer precise to call it that - and this is one example of such. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, per Adolphus79. Moncrief (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. There was no bombing. There were attempted bombings at the RNC and DNC, but they weren't part of the storming. Note: There are several other claims in the infobox that are unsourced, incorrect and/or misleading, e.g. "alleged: hostage-taking and lynching". They should be removed as well. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, per Adolphus79 and Chrisahn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, a "bombing" is a bomb going off, which did not happen. The unsuccessful placement of the bombs (whether not exploding or not drawing police away from the Capitol in relevant numbers) does not merit mention in the infobox although it should of course be covered in the (or a suitable) article. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No At this point no direct connection has been established between the planting of pipe bombs and the invasion of the Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, per Adolphus79, Chrisahn, and Mirokado. No bombs went off so there's no "bombing", the explosive devices were found blocks away from the capitol at both the DNC and RNC buildings, and it's debatable whether Trump's rally was really even a deciding factor for the perpetrator. Leaving it in the infobox implies the bombs were directly involved and related to the storming (i.e. rioters had bombs), which it does not currently appear to be so. It's a tangential detail at best. RopeTricks (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No Anything about bombing or finding explosive material is outsidre the scope of the article, that is, the very ugly single event of malefactors storming the capitol on 6 January. I had given this little attention before the RfC, but the response must be No for the reasons given above. Qexigator (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, but not for quite the same reasons listed in the other !votes above. Multiple reliable sources have connected the placed bombs with the capital riots, even though they were not placed on the capitol grounds. So they are clearly relevant to the scope this article, regardless of its title, and warrant mention in the body. That does not mean they need to be mentioned in the infobox, though: as noted here, the infobox's purpose is to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. Also, not everything needs to be an RFC; hopefully someone uninvolved will snow close this soon. VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Commons

I wonder if anyone feels like reaching out for more footage and photographs to be donated to Commons? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

Remove "hostage taking" and "lynching" from infobox

While we are talking about the “Methods” section of the infobox, I think we should remove "(alleged: potential hostage-taking)[12]" which is currently in the box. From Chrisahn’s comment above I gather that it earlier said "alleged: hostage-taking and lynching". There was no hostage taking. There was no lynching. There were threats, but no harm actually came to the targets, so it was not a “method”. At best we could add “threats” to the methods used, but we already say “intimidation” which covers it. So I think we should remove that line. BTW this does not require an RfC; a quick informal discussion is enough if it produces consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Those terms should be removed, and of course it doesn't require an RfC. Moncrief (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think "potential hostage-taking" is appropriate, plenty of video evidence that the participants were in fact looking for specific members of congress, and planned to take hostages (or worse)... possibly just moved to the "Goals" section of the infobox instead... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree No hostages were taken, and no one was lynched, so placing it under "methods" is flat-out misleading and factually, objectively incorrect; the word "method" insinuates to a global audience of readers that a lynching/hostage-taking was undertaken or had some degree of success. Certain individuals within the riotous mob may have appeared to favor that (verbal suggestions of intent, at least 1 guy was seen carrying zip ties, etc.), no lynching or hostage situation occurred during the Storming of the Capitol, so it should be removed from that section. RopeTricks (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comments/Additional thoughts: Also, leaving it under "methods" implies to an uninformed reader that lynching and taking hostages were unambiguous, primary goals of the entirety of the mob, a messy implication considering the relative spontaneity of the storming and sheer crowd size. It would make more sense if a majority of the mob made it clear lynching and taking hostages was what they wanted, or if there was a clear "leader" specifically demanding that. None of that occurred because the storming was done via a riotous mob of hundreds, a mixed crowd with a plurality of intentions. Because that's how leaderless mobs with no clear, understood objectives beyond "let's get inside!" works. And I don't recall seeing video of any of the indivuals that used megaphones demanding any lynchings or hostages.RopeTricks (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have to disagree in part given the calls to "Hang Mike Pence" which numerous participants did say during the 6th. While no one was killed, there were calls for officials to be killed. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed attempted assassination, the source only supports "threat of assassination" which was likely made after the whole event was over, since it referred to the officer who shot Babbitt. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
  
• Nobody got lynched, although the rioters had the means (gallows) and stated intent (chanting "hang Mike Pence"). Should lynching be listed as a goal rather than a method? Terjen (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm dubious about ascribing "goals" at all, since this was such a mixed crowd, and since goals may constitute crimes which have not been charge, let alone prosecuted yet, for example "attempted <foo>" or "conspiracy to commit foo". We risk egregious BLP violations down this path. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
    
• Disagree. This is longstanding infobox content that is based on what mainstream media were saying about the zip-tie guy, the calls to hang pence, the gallows, the attacker sho was specifically going after AOC, and then these informal allegations have become supported by formal allegations of prosecutors. This should also be an RfC — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why should it be an RfC? Moncrief (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's why it isn't: Per WP:RFC, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• These characterizations should be removed from the infobox, which more generally needs to be drastically shortened. The attack and the goals of the individuals involved were diverse, and to communicate this neutrally we need to use prose in the body of the article. Not everything merits a one-word summary in a bloated infobox. Re "This should also be an RfC", can you explain why in the context of WP:BURO? ETA: this is an article about an event that happened just over a month ago. There is zero long standing content in it. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• The goals of the riot can be most easily surmised as the following: disrupt the Electoral vote count; Overturn results of 2020 election. Anything else is simply one or a few people there - that is not the goal of the event overall. The methods should also not include ideas of a small group of those present - especially when those ideas are held by a small group of people there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Support removal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal. Nobody got lynched and there was no attempt to take any hostages .Slogans like Lock her up do not mean unless it is followed by action Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal Given what reliable sources have said, I do believe some mention is needed. There were participants on the 6th who were chanting "Hang Mike Pence" along with the issue that "Within the mob were radicals plotting to kill or kidnap the vice president and members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The rioters came within moments of catching up to Vice President Mike Pence." In addition, there is a list of threats from The New Yorker:

• “Shoot the politicians!” somebody yelled.
• Their cries resonated through colonnaded rooms: “Where’s the traitors?” “Bring them out!” “Get these fucking cocksucking Commies out!”
• I followed a group that broke off to advance on five policemen guarding a side corridor. “Stand down,” a man in a maga hat commanded. “You’re outnumbered. There’s a fucking million of us out there, and we are listening to Trump—your boss.” “We can take you out,” a man beside him warned.
• The America Firsters and other invaders fanned out in search of lawmakers, breaking into offices and revelling in their own astounding impunity. “Nancy, I’m ho-ome!” a man taunted, mimicking Jack Nicholson’s character in “The Shining.” Someone else yelled, “1776—it’s now or never.”
• When Babbitt was shot, I was on the opposite side of the Capitol, where people were growing frustrated by the empty halls and offices. “Where the fuck are they?” “Where the fuck is Nancy?”
• “We have guns, too, motherfuckers!” one man yelled. “With a lot bigger rounds!” Another man, wearing a do-rag that said “fuck your feelings,” told his friend, “If we have to tool up, it’s gonna be over. It’s gonna come to that. Next week, Trump’s gonna say, ‘Come to D.C.’ And we’re coming heavy.”
• Later, I listened to a woman talking on her cell phone. “We need to come back with guns,” she said. “One time with guns, and then we’ll never have to do this again.”
• Another man, in a black leather jacket and wraparound sunglasses, suggested that journalists should be killed: “Start makin’ a list! Put all those names down, and we start huntin’ them down, one by one!” “Traitors to the guillotine!” “They won’t be able to walk down the streets!”
• At the heap of wrecked camera gear outside the Capitol, the man in the leather jacket and sunglasses declared to the crowd, “We are at war. . . . Mobilize in your own cities, your own counties. Storm your own capitol buildings. And take down every one of these corrupt motherfuckers.”

Personally, this is beyond "intimidation" and I feel that the line should not be removed without it being replaced given the calls and searches for officials on the 6th to harm them. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per editor Goku above. I would agree with moving to 'Goals'. Bert Macklin (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of hostage taking. 'Attempted' should be noted. Plastic and regular handcuffs were carried by some. They could not complete their goal, but the attempt is still valid and documented on video. Best, IP75 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

People charged/USA Today ref

There's an issue with this web page. From the UK https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/ redirects to https://eu.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/ - this, when I loaded it about half an hour ago, only listed 87 arrests, not the 195 that others are seeing. Now on trying again it only lists 61. Presumably it is cached on more than one server, and out of date on the two I have accessed. It would be useful to have an Internet Archive link added to this ref. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

Here is a suitable archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210208225452/https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

As of 8 hours ago, CBS and NBC are reporting that 211 people have been charged by federal prosecutors.

"Last month, acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said, "The scope and scale of this investigation in these cases are really unprecedented, not only in FBI history but probably DOJ history."

So far, federal prosecutors say they've charged at least 211 people for their alleged roles in the riot and opened over 400 investigations into possible criminals." [[138]] I have updated the infobox to 211 people charged. Best, IP75 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the web page fails to provide Cache-Control causing it to not timely expire in caches. Terjen (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021

Remove opinions Bengiamino1 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Please explain specifically what parts of this article you believe are unsourced opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is vague on the arms used by the mob

I find it really in poor taste that such a detailed article nearly totally leaves out the level of arms used by the crowd. More than once the article refers to the mob as "armed" but no mention of details. Did the rioters carry guns? Did any of them point a pistol at an officer? "Armed" is a vague term, it could be used in reference to someone holding a stick or someone holding an AR-15. I think we (the public) deserve to know the full extent of how "armed" the crowd was and what type of weapons they were using. Normally, when I think of the term "insurrrection" guns come to mind. Surely there was at least someone in that violent mob with an AR-15? Please let us know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:880:B670:A9F0:EA8C:5E40:EE6B (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)