Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

To be solved

In this article I found a lot of punctuation marks inside quotation marks. The rule is that if the sentence is a quotation, the punctuation marks must be enclosed in quotation marks (e.g.: "I'm thinking it will be literal war on that day. Where we'll storm offices and physically remove and even kill all the D.C. traitors and reclaim the country."), while otherwise they must be after (e.g.: after the attack, Walter described the order as "unusual",). JackkBrown (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

First Time Confederate Flag

This article PolitiFact | When did it become a crime to cross the U.S.-Mexico border? says that senator Cole L. Blease flew a confederate flag in his office, which the primary source 08 May 1930, Page 2 - The Belleville Telescope at Newspapers.com says is the Senate Office Building, (presumably now the Russell building). If that is the case then it is not technically in the Capital, but I wanted to check with others. Maybe include it with the note on MS flag? 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey 3Kingdoms, on reading the Belleville Telescope, I tend to agree with you that it is not technically in the Capitol--it specifies his office and it was presented in the Senate Office Building. As you note, only Russell existed at that time. I am not quite sure what to do with the information, but I would need something more definite to see it as a contradiction to an otherwise reliable source. So, essentially, that's a lot of words to say simply that I agree! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is it “biased context” (whatever that means) to include a real quote among other real quotes.

I edited this page to add a quote from the same source that all the other quotes from Donald Trump’s speech are from, in which Donald Trump states “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” How exactly is this “biased”? It is what he said. The user, @Zaathras, stated his edit “Undid revision 1190845204 by HutchDoesStuff [me] what it adds is a biased "context", attempting to explain away the incitement to violence”

It is not objectively a call to violence, fight has often been used in a metaphorical sense (eg. fight for what you believe in). This quote actually makes the article LESS biased by offering more context to what he is actually saying. Zaathras is also very clearly a strong liberal (look through his profile talk page) and I don’t think it’s the goal of Wikipedia to have a major event like this be dictated by one side and deleting any objective thing that goes against what they believe is true. HutchDoesStuff (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

When taken in the context of all of the many things that Trump said and tweeted and did on January 6 and in the days and weeks leading up to January 6, that single sentence is a cherry-picked outlier in his rhetoric. Focusing on that sentence amounts to undue weight, which is contrary to policy. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your assessment of my beliefs are not only inaccurate but also irrelevant. Be better. It was reverted for cherry-picking and undue weight, that is all. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Parties, again

I seriously think we need to rethink the parties section again.

The Three Percenters cannot be a party. The organization literally dissolved after the attack, because of it. It's a slippery slope. We might as well add any group or movement associated with the attack. There are so many, look at this: https://www.start.umd.edu/january-6th-capitol-extremists-network

We should only put groups directly responsible for the attack. Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Last Sons of Liberty, DC Brigade, and NSC-131 are the only groups who were directly involved. Qanon cannot be a party. It is a movement. Same goes for everything else. The Republican Party? Tea Party? Traditionalist Workers Party?

Any movement can inspire someone to do things. Any person doing things can be associated with a movement.

Infoboxes are supposed to be informative, yet they leave you thinking that the Three Percenters was fully on board with this, and that a thousand different party remnants of movements from decades ago inspired the rioters.

If anyone disagrees, go add on the 30+ groups and movements onto the infobox while you're at it. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at the other side. Only police and National Guard groups directly involved. Should I put the ideologies and groups and movements associated with any cop there? Personisinsterest (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Qanon cannot be a party... It is a movement. It's understood that we're referring to followers of the movement. No one assumes every single member of a group was a participate -- not every Qanon follower was there, just not like every member of the DOJ was there. Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Qanon is not a centralized organization that told people to go. It is a movement that people are inspired by. It's very odd to put Qanon at the same level as the Proud Boys, which is an organized paramilitary with leaders conspiring to invade the capitol. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added some whitespace to try to distance the planned attackers tied to sedition from the rest. Does that help? Feoffer (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the Groyper Army is responsible: the leader encouraged the attack and other members went in, even placing a groyper flag Personisinsterest (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.mlive.com/politics/2021/01/far-right-activist-who-encouraged-us-capitol-occupation-also-organized-stop-the-steal-rally-in-michigan.html, https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/secor-christian#:~:text=Arraigned%20and%20pleaded%20not%20guilty,of%20supervised%20release%2C%20%242%2C000%20restitution Personisinsterest (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The Groypers are in the current list of parties. Feoffer (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I just wanted to add it to my current list Personisinsterest (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the list is too big and vague in some areas. Christian Right for example should be removed. Also, I think focus should be on groups whose leaders were there and charged like the Proud Boys and Oath-Keepers.3Kingdoms (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent infobox changes

Two questions regarding the new infobox changes.

Were the Three Percenters directly involved? The DC Brigade of the group was directly involved, and so were two other attackers. However, the national group itself strongly denounces it to the point of dissolution. It is misleading to suggest that the Three Percenters was a party to the attack.

Is the Boogaloo Boys an organization? In my opinion, no. It's a movement of different factions of militant groups. I think it's unreasonable to keep it in the "Groups" section.

I'm leaving a footnote on both until we reach an agreement. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"January 6, 2021" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect January 6, 2021 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 29 § January 6, 2021 until a consensus is reached. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Undesirable redundancy between infobox images and sidebar images

At present, two images each appear twice in the lede. Both first appear in the infobox, only to immediately reappear in the sidebar that's transcluded directly after the infobox.

As we select new non-duplicate images for the infobox/sidebar, we should take care to distinguish between true "attackers" like the Proud Boys and the genuinely-peaceful protesters outside. To pick on just one of the three images: The mock gallows is an evocative image, but it's a protest image; to include it twice in the lede implies, presumably falsely, that it was created by someone to aid in the attack on the capitol -- this is especially likely to confuse readers who are unfamiliar with just how far the US's freedom of speech goes: creating a non-functional gallows to mock-threaten your leaders is fully legal and even consider a well-worn patriotic tradition as long as meant metaphorically. The other images have similar issues -- they depict largely non-violent protesters milling about outside. Feoffer (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the gallows image is just a protest image, however the protest outside the capitol is the most recognizable image; I couldn't see this page with anything else. And there were unaffiliated attackers in the protest crowd. I don't think we need to differentiate, everyone there broke through the fences or trespassed, they are attackers. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's okay to use the gallows image once in the body -- but using it TWICE in the lede is too much. The lede images probably should be of attackers, not protester-trespassers. Feoffer (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4 and Giovanosky: could you both take a look at the navigation box right below the infobox? Navigation boxes aren't visible in the mobile theme, so if you're on a phone or tablet, you'll have to use the desktop theme. To do so, scroll all the way down and click the "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page; to switch back to mobile scroll down to the bottom and click "Mobile view".

Right now 2 images are repeated in the lead for desktop and laptop users. They should be either removed from the infobox or removed from the navbox. When choosing the top image for the navbox keep in mind that it will be the thumbnail image used by Wikipedia for articles containing the navbox at the top of the page like International reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Sedition Caucus.

Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The images for this article should be selected independently based on what makes this article best, not based on a separate nav box that may or may not even be visible to all users. For concerns about image repetition, I would take the discussion to the talk page for the nav box. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: I've posted a notice about this discussion at Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar. Have you been able to see how the article looks on desktop? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed a BLP violation where we characterize the gallows as having been "erected by a rioter" -- we have no knowledge that the creator was a rioter or attacker. Per NPOV, I also replaced the "tear gas deployed against rioters" image with a "bear spray deployed against police" image -- the focus of the article is not non-violent people carrying signs, it's the attackers who came prepared for violence. Feoffer (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Second bomb location suggestion

The second bomb placed on January 5 was certainly near the RNC headquarters, but its exact location was at the Capitol Hill Club, a private Republican club across an alley from the RNC. This might be worth mentioning. Here’s a map from the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/map-of-jan-5-pipe-bomb-route-090821.mp4/view. Atubofsilverware (talk) And a mention in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/january-6-capitol-hill-pipe-bomb/621178/ 12:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please update criminal charges and how many found guilty

The "Aftermath" section contains this outdated paragraph:

• A large-scale criminal investigation was undertaken, with the FBI opening more than 400 case files. Federal law enforcement undertook a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators, with arrests and indictments following within days. More than 615 people have been charged with federal crimes.

Can someone please update it with the info from Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack? Something like this, perhaps.

• A large-scale criminal investigation was undertaken, with the FBI opening more than 1,200 case files. Federal law enforcement undertook a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators, with arrests and indictments following within days. Over 890 people had been found guilty of federal crimes.

♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion! Feoffer (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ashli Babbitt killing subheader

The subheader for the killing of Ashli Babbitt, "QAnon follower killed by police while attempting to breach Speaker's Lobby," seems very anti-NPOV. Wouldn't something less derisive/controversial, like replacing "QAnon follower" with "Rioter" be more appropriate? Loltardo (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)