Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Please adding tag (Use American English) and (Use mdy dates) in the article. 36.76.232.198 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the request. — Bilorv (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Save America March with January 2021 Donald Trump rally

Resolved

They both seem to be about the same event, but I'm not sure what the article's title should be. Ahmadtalk 19:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahmad252, I've redirected to this article. @Nirvanaoreilly: Feel free to start a move discussion if you think Save America March or Save America rally is a more appropriate title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ahmad252, I believe we should keep the title as Save America March because that was what it was officially titled as, but the content of the January 2021 Donald Trump rally article is of higher quality. Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Nirvanaoreilly, I suggest we wait a day or two to see how sources describe this event. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I second that, User:Another Believer. Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I will mark this merge discussion as resolved, with no opposition to creation of a separate move/title discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Curfew

Resolved

MSNBC says the mayor has issued a curfew. Waiting for source to update article... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone else has added. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Vice President Pence has just called an end for the violence. This should be added in Reactions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-us-2020-55558355 LudovicWright (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

in the opening sentence, please change "supporters of Donald Trump" to "armed, White Supremacist supporters of Donald Trump" for accuracy. We don't whitewash facts, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Citation needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I mean, Trump supporters (like Hitler supporters) are more or less white supremacists by definition, but I shall get you your sources.

Adding a "goal" to the Info-box

Resolved

I suggest a "goal" section be added to the info box, with text something like "To prevent incumbent president Joe Biden from ascending to power". This isn't an exact text but something like that would be good.

Done ✅ RobotGoggles (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Change the word "protests" in the title to "Riots". TROPICALCYCLONEALERT (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
There is already an on-going discussion to rename the article above. lovkal (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a coup

Please name this "2021 United States Coup D'Etat"76.103.229.154 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021 (2)

Please change link Gab to point to Gab (social network). Ponzammo (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Zoozaz1 talk 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Title: "Save America" rally

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the correct title, and I think if we don't place it as the article title, at the very least, we should put it in the opener. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense to mention the official name of the protest in the lead, but this is definitely not going to be known as the Save America rally in the future, and reliable sources aren't referring to it by name very often.Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Tear gas

Now reports of tear gas being used inside the Capitol building... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well. I do enjoy me a comedy... TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

... now reports of an armed standoff outside the House floor... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

This was not a protest - it was an insurrection. 136.25.52.190 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done First gain consensus for the changes you wish to be made, and then make a specific request in the form "Change X to Y". — Bilorv (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Add under Reactions -> Members of Congress:

Representative Cori Bush tweeted her intent to introduce a resolution calling for the expulsion of "Republican members of Congress who have incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election".[1]

Or something alike. Henninng (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Benchaabane, Nassim (2021-01-06). "Rep. Cori Bush calls for expulsion of House Republicans who sought to overturn election". STLtoday.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
 Done Seagull123 Φ 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021 (2)

Proposal for the page to be renamed to 2021 United States Capitol domestic terrorist attack 2607:FA49:4E3E:9A00:55DB:D546:7938:5C6C (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:COMMONNAME, no reliable source is calling it that. FlalfTalk 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)  Not done Edit requests are to be made after consensus has been gathered. See the above discussion on potential renaming of the page. — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Insurrection is not strong enough. Coup d'Etat Attempt: coup d'etat - "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." 136.25.52.190 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. However, there are plenty of discussions about this already above, so we should just wait to see their outcomes. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Title Recommendation

The title should be altered to consummately describe the scale and nature of the event. The title should be changed from "2021 United States Capitol protests" to "2021 United States Capitol Coup" or "2021 United States Capitol Insurrection." GabrielTeitelbaum (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

See the requested moves above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia Sebastian Kurz?

Not to the best of my knowledge. Not sure if it is a comment from the PM of Austria or one from Scott Morrison that's being incorrectly attributed to him. Could someone fix that, please?

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

The Prime minister of Australia is not Sebastian Kurz. This is the Prime Minister of AUSTRIA. 2A02:1205:5050:9180:99C1:FE7E:5360:65CD (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021 (3)

Request to edit casualties: NBC news is reporting 1 dead from the individual shot inside the capital. 2620:10D:C090:400:0:0:5:120B (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The woman who was shot at the Capitol has died according to MSNBC - https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1346951791473164288. Anyone who could update the article to reflect this?

Yannkemper (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

NBC's Twitter has confirmed a death: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1346951706056282115 Zerim (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Zerim and Yannkemper: I have added this to the infobox. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021 (3)

Request to edit casualties: NBC news is reporting 1 dead from the individual shot inside the capital. 2620:10D:C090:400:0:0:5:120B (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The woman who was shot at the Capitol has died according to MSNBC - https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1346951791473164288. Anyone who could update the article to reflect this?

Yannkemper (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

NBC's Twitter has confirmed a death: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1346951706056282115 Zerim (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Zerim and Yannkemper: I have added this to the infobox. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

White Supremacists

It should probably be mentioned in the lead that the insurrectionists protesting against democracy and in favor of installing Trump as dictator for life are White Supremacists, no?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

How are they? I watched the live streams, and there were many dark skinned Afro-americans and Latinos storming the capitol. Mårtensås (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk pages are not a discussion about the topic. Please present reliable sources and describe changes in the form "Replace wikitext X with wikitext Y". — Bilorv (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Feel free to provide reliable sources to support any of these statements; then we can discuss. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Citation needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's take a deep breath. There are five separate claims in that sentence. I doubt that characterizes all protestors, especially the ones who aren't white. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki-Categorization

I propose adding the following categories to this article:

Well, I'm pretty sure that this riot is President Trump supporters and, believe it or not, not all Trump supporters are white, so it shouldn't be in "Category:White American riots in the United States" Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:CATV, each category needs to be verifiable to a reliable secondary source and included as prose in the article to support it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree, Category:White American riots in the United States is not appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
C'mon dude. White American riots is extremely appropriate. Is this a case of WP: I don't like it?108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I added the ones which seem to me to be supported by the article text at present. Tamwin (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Flag salad quotefarm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I note that a flag salad list of "reactions" has made its way on this article. The flags are disliked by many editors, and it is a quotefarm cobbled together from primary sources. Please spin it off, or at least get rid of the flags and prosify. Abductive (reasoning) 22:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussed above here Majorberg (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Archiving so we don't have duplicate discussions at the same time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

At this point I was wondering if anybody thinks that adding an image or two of the events unfolding into this wiki article to be a good idea especially given that based on the current and potential severity, impact, and scale of the protests this article will likely be a long/dense one? Thanks! Nicholaspark2001 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, due to lack of free images. Surely some will emerge and be posted on Commons; we will use them then AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph break

I think there should be a paragraph break between the opening sentence and the second sentence of the opener, before the words "Congress was in session at the time". I added a paragraph break, but it was reverted. I think it would be a better structure, the events in Congress and the beginning of the unrest are separate subjects, I think the first paragraph should contain what the event is, followed by another paragraph with more detail. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Attribution

References copied from Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election (Special:Permalink/998735474) in this edit. — Bilorv (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Attribution

References copied from Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election (Special:Permalink/998735474) in this edit. — Bilorv (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed social media image

This image from here seems like a good example to use in a social media section on the page. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

With rare exception, we can only use images that are freely licensed. Hopefully there are some photographers in D.C. at the moment who will later feel generous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Related? Explosive device at RNC

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/electoral-vote/an-explosive-device-is-found-at-the-rnc-and-the-dnc-is-evacuated

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Likely connected. 2603:6000:A507:C600:6428:15B7:CA4E:181C (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Added information on IUDs found on Capitol grounds. Botpo (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe you mean IED. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Can we drop the "Parties to the civil conflict" part of the infobox? This is not actually a war. A long list of federal law enforcement bodies adds nothing here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

See #Military-style parties in infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Change one person shot under unclear circumstances to One women shot in the neck by Capital Police while inside the capital building. A protestor claiming to be an eye witness with blood on his hand spoke to a report outside the building in the linked video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1DsbDjbO0 Webby131 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should see if this is included in more reliable sources first? Also, confirmed by police rather than a single supposed eyewitness. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on Trump's comments and remarks

WP:NOTAFORUM Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

I feel that President Donald Trump, while he called for peace and "law and order", seemed to very deliberately assert in the same video that he supports the protestors' cause, and I suspect that he is secretly egging them on. He says, I know your pain... I know you’re hurt... We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side... but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order... It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this, where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us! From me, from you, from our country. The fraudulent election." He seems to be doing something almost akin to dog-whistling. So perhaps some of the other comments he made along with his calls for peace should be included. Not to mention Twitter tagged this so-called "peaceable" tweet with: "This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can’t be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence." --121.99.126.230 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We cannot add speculation like this to the article, see WP:OR. We would need a reliable source to make these claims before we could repeat them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not think your opinion and speculation is necessary for this Wikipedia article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not actually talking about adding my speculation, I was just mentioning why I thought his comments were significant enough to be included in the article (I was interpreting it as a kind of secret encouragement). But never mind, because someone seems to have added most of his comments to the article already, either since I said this, or perhaps I just didn't notice it the first time round. Although perhaps the Twitter tag would be relevant and perhaps should be mentioned in the article, if it hasn't been already. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IED

Is Sky News a reliable source? I am not convinced that the IED mentioned in https://news.sky.com/story/us-capitol-explosive-device-found-and-one-person-shot-as-donald-trump-supporters-clash-with-police-12181008, supposedly found on Capitol grounds, and the one found at the RNC HQ (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/explosive-device-pipe-bomb-washington-dc-rnc-trump-b1783509.html) are separate events and not a mistake in the reporting. No other RS I'm seeing is mentioning an IED on Capitol grounds. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think most people consider Sky News to be a reliable source, but I think that we should wait to see if any other RS reports on an IED on capitol grounds.Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, [1] [2] [3] are among other sources that say the same, but I'm not certain if they are just regurgitating what an unreliable source has claimed. Some closer inspection would be necessary. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The New York Post is a deprecated source, so that's not usable. CNN is usable though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The article says "According to an NBC report...", so I assume they are just repeating what NBC have said, probably best to wait and see if it can be backed up by other evidence. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This one? https://www.nbcrightnow.com/ied-found-at-capitol/html_5f61cf79-d16e-5faf-b8b0-6bc930e72717.html LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 23:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
LegendoftheGoldenAges85: it says it's blocked for European IPs, does it seem reliable? (Although we should probably find another one if people in Europe can't access it) PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
My bad, all that that article in particular says is a tweet from Geoff Bennett saying "Pete Williams reports: Several law enforcement officials say at least one improvised explosive device has been found on the US Capitol grounds. We don’t know exactly where." Perhaps the referred report is this? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/electoral-college-certification-updates-n1252864/ncrd1253112#liveBlogHeader ? I don't know is this one would be blocked? LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 23:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I can access that one. I would judge that as reliable, as their source is actually the police (as opposed to some random guy on Twitter). It's been added to the article anyway, with the CNN ref mentioned above. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

In the fatalities ref in the Infobox, change January 6, 2021 to 2021-01-06 two times, in date= and access=date= --Nomentz (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Nomentz (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, my bad. Will fix in a second. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. I see no purpose in doing this; CS1 treats them the same. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done @AleatoryPonderings and Nomentz: Most other refs are using that YYYY-MM-DD format, best to keep consistency. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

So-called "Neo Nazis", weak citations

WP:NOTAFORUM Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The bizarre addition of "Neo-Nazis" to the Trump side has two citations. Citation 1 from the NJ today article's only mention of Nazism is a vague opinion: "The more Republican politics becomes radicalized, it’s becoming difficult to distinguish the differences between hard right-wing Neo-Nazis and the GOP mainstream." which isn't factual and given Republicans have very high polled support for Judaism and Israel (as Democrats) and don't follow NSDAP policies at all (Revenge for WW1, persecution of romani/jews, Annexation of German-speaking lands, conquest of Lebensraum for Austro-Germany, destroying the USSR in total war, eugenics) that actually made the ideology distinct from generic far-right ones. If you remove the aforementioned NSDAP platform from a groups' ideology, its effectively a generic form of far-right or some other ideology.

The latter article, at least tries to give a few cherries of evidence, mentions only 4chan "shitposters" commenting on the events with usual slurs and memes that they make about every event, every day, it doesn't prove these posters, if even American, are at the rally or just doing the usual shitposting routine. It also mentions how the same board is (obviously) also mocking the protestors with the same language, which contradicts the idea of "Neo-Nazis" being supporters rather than being ambiguous in support. It also lists other right-wing personalities and groups (which are all based on the American far-right, not German/Austrian far-right). Like the multi-racial/religious Kekistan. The article even finishes by highlighting the hardline conservative Jewish Republicans involved in the mob

Far-right is fitting as that encompasses numerous right-wing movements, including American ones, and as someone who's studied the makeup of Trump's inner base, there are dictator-worshipers but they worship Pinochet the most, considering Trump is loathed by the few Neo-Nazis still around due to many factors and their hatred of the USA

At least remove the first citation which does not provide proof, but a bloggers opinion. I think some Americans have difficulty understanding fringe foreign ideologies or know of Nazism beyond "Hitler yelled in foreign language, the goose-stepping and were strict"

So the first source is not a factual one and the second is weak cherrypicking, contradictory information more saying it's the Far-Right, not Neo-Nazis, who are organizing in the Trump mob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.160 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That was an excellent essay but could you please post the segment in question that needs fixing? puggo (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Box already removed due to NPOV issues like this. Let's try to keep the discussion elevated. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Under International change {{flag|Republic of Ireland}} to {{flag|Ireland}} in line with the opening sentence of the linked article. —Legoless (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

checkY done FlalfTalk 23:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Parties involved

A parties involved section on the infobox should be added again.

"false allegations of election fraud"

They're not false, there are real credible allegations that the leftist media seeks to silence. This article looks like it was written by mostly lefties, it's not objective or neutral at all. This is why the fire is rising. I say good. We're sick of you lefties distorting everything. 71.234.217.123 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources and a series of court cases have proved them to be false. FlalfTalk 00:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
They're not "reliable", they're filled with leftist propaganda. The courts have been subverted by the left. 71.234.217.123 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter locks Donald Trump's account

It's finally happened - might be mentioned? --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Already is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Title of Article change

These were not "protests". They were riots. The US Capitol was vandalized, and many lives were put in harm's way. Chuck Schumer said so himself just recently. Please do the right thing and change the title from protests to riots. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There's sections about requested moves above; leave your thoughts there.  Nixinova   T   C   01:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Protesters break through gates at governor’s mansion in Olympia" (Washington)

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is already mentioned in 2021 United States Capitol protests#Outside the District of Columbia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, Ah, thank you! I had overlooked and didn't find via Control+F. I've added the city name to the sentence. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing reference

The reference in the White House resignations section only mentions Stephanie Grisham. Another reference is needed for Sarah Matthews. 62.202.181.212 (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added [4]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

In the fatalities ref in the Infobox, change January 6, 2021 to 2021-01-06 two times, in date= and access=date= --Nomentz (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Nomentz (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, my bad. Will fix in a second. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. I see no purpose in doing this; CS1 treats them the same. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done @AleatoryPonderings and Nomentz: Most other refs are using that YYYY-MM-DD format, best to keep consistency. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

NZ's Response

"Democracy - the right of people to exercise a vote, have their voice heard and then have that decision upheld peacefully should never be undone by a mob. Our thoughts are with everyone who is as devastated as we are by the events of today. I have no doubt democracy will prevail."

"Like so many others, I’ve been watching what’s happening in the United States. I share the sentiment of friends in the US - what is happening is wrong."

-Jacinda Ardern. I feel perhaps that these should be added.

https://twitter.com/jacindaardern?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor--121.99.126.230

(talk) 01:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Added  Nixinova   T   C   01:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed at Impeachment of Donald Trump

Attention is needed at Impeachment of Donald Trump, where a person is repeatedly attempting to insert content into the lead about a second impeachment that violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LEAD etc. The content is given a single sentence in the body. Higher levels of disruption to this page is likely to begin to take place by many people in the short future. — Bilorv (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Riot

As much as I love snark, this is not a serious comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shouldn't this be called 2021 United States Capitol Riot? After all, these were violent Trump supporters, not peaceful Black Lives Matter and Antifa. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

See #Requested move 6 January 2021 for various proposed names, including "riot". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

is this legit cc-licensed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZvBZpBzMWk Victor Grigas (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, says so in the "License" in the description, but not clear on the point of the question. Was this in the article at some point? Should it be? — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I assume Victorgrigas was asking because it looks like a case where someone's uploaded something under such a license without actually holding the copyright to it (see commons:Commons:License laundering). The same account has uploaded this, which it's very unlikely they recorded themselves, under the same license. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I mistook this at first glance for a genuine Canadian news publication that would be recording the footage itself (and the channel's name and attributes seem designed to encourage this misreading). — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I asked because it looks like license-laundering to me. Victor Grigas (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

this is PD

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058 Victor Grigas (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Victorgrigas, thanks dude! Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should use this; we do not need to give more airtime to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
We already extensively cover Trump's lies. This is highly relevant, and should be included to ensure the coverage is balanced. Melmann 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the video is historic, so I think it should go in the article. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
If we do, it needs a content warning like Twitter uses. ɱ (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely should be included, absolutely should have some caption warning. The subtitles are a bonus. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a pitiful conspiracy theorist-pandering content warning like Twitter uses, but something which accurately describes Trump's claims as false (not "disputed" or "some people are saying..."). — Bilorv (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe something like this: "However, he reiterated his false accusations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election." Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Added to commons. It has a description there that may be suitable. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump makes a statement during violence in D.C. on January 6, 2021. Trump reiterates lies about the 2020 United States general election.
@Feoffer: Can you explain your removal here? We ain't Facebook, inclusion discussed already. Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Material inciting violence is a BLP violation, I'm afraid. If for no other reason than there are legal implications for the foundation. Feoffer (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Disclaimer. First amendment. Laughable. Also, the video isn't inciting violence, it's just lying about election results. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That is an interesting interpretation. Can you cite the specific policy? Especially since you are invoking the Foundation as the reason, which if they have a problem they can intervene directly. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I want to note that this video is notable all by itself -- https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/facebook-youtube-twitter-delete-trump-video-rioters-risk-violence-1234880063/ Victor Grigas (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fact not based on sources regarding shooter

The article states "An unarmed protestor was shot by a law enforcement officer within the Capitol, and later died from her injuries." but I don't see any fact in the references state the shot was from a LEO. The shooter seems to be unknown at this time. Trippledot (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not an issue anymore. Fixed now. Trippledot (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trippledot: I had the same concern earlier today, but discovered that the Washington Post source does point to a LEO as the shooter: "A Capitol Police officer shouted from a higher stairway at the intruders, yelling at them to stop, but when they didn’t, the officer fired at a man coming at him, two law enforcement officials said. Amid shouts and people rushing to get away from the sound of gunfire, protesters saw a woman in their group collapse. Police believe she was unarmed, a law enforcement official said, but the officer who shot her didn’t know that." GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection

Not many Minutes ago, Mitch McConnel named the events as an "Incurrection." He is the leading Republican Figure in the United States Senate and is on the same political side as the protesters. Due to this, I suggest that it be named an Insurrection. I know the discussion has closed, but new evenst call for another discussion. The Radioactive Box (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have also been informed that Chuck Schumer, The leading Democratic figure in the United States Senate has also referred to the protest as an insurrection. I feel that this strenghtens my case. The Radioactive Box (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
You could perhaps add in the introduction that both party leaders in the Senate have declared it an insurrection, but perhaps don't change any titles just yet. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am watching the Joint Session now, which resumed after the assault on the Capital. Every Dem is calling it an insurrection, and laying blame on Trump. The Repubs are (mostly) attempting to downplay the severity, but what did I expect? The Washington Post, siding with the Dems, said this: "The insurrection came just as many top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) were finally denouncing Mr. Trump’s anti-democratic campaign to overturn the election results." and the Post said the President needed to be removed NOW. RobP (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Mitch McConnell said that "the President needed to be removed NOW"? I find that hard to believe. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
EDG 543, it is indeed somewhat difficult to parse Rp2006's comment, but I believe they were saying that the Washington Post had said as much, not Mitch McConnell. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm hearing "insurrection" on mainstream TV news programs. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - here is the WP link: here. And (Repub) Pres GW Bush used the I word too. RobP (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Barack Obama's statement.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Far-right attack at the US Capitol

This could be an apropriate title. #Request to expedite remaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, consensus has already chosen the name. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Lots of reliance on Twitter here. This has WP:BLP implications, and WP:DUE considerations. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Working on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced all the Twitter sources, and added a hidden comment to urge people not to add to the "Reactions" section without a secondary RS. Hopefully people bother to read it... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Current Event

Is this event still ongoing? Cwater1 (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The Capitol has been cleared, but there are still protestors in DC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarify the dates

The dates here should be clarified: the storming of the building was today, the sixth, not the fifth as it is never explicitly said. Thanks—Bam.zander (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the date in the intro sentence. Is it unclear elsewhere? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

The following sentence in the lede: During his speech Trump instructed his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol to attempt to ensure that the 2020 election was overturned, is not supported by the source [5]. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but the source is inadequate. It's a timeline and appears to have had earlier material archived or removed. This sentence should be removed until a proper source is cited. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

SUPPORT

@RandomGnome: Rejected. The statement was changed slightly since you commented. It now reads "asked his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol" and this is supported by the Boston Globe source [6] which now quotes "we’re going to the Capitol [...] So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" (emphasis mine). User:GKFXtalk 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fix the grammar mistakes

This article is rife with a very simple grammatical mistake. Namely, the placement of a period (.) after quotation marks is not grammatically correct. The period should be put within the quotation marks and at the end of the quote.

For example: "fake news". should read: "fake news."

There is inconsistency in this article with this issue. The first portion of the article correctly places the periods within the quotation marks, but the latter half primarily puts the periods outside of them. Choinierenate (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Choinierenate: You have discovered an idiosyncrcy of Wikipedia that many American English speakers do not like, but that is quite familiar to non-Americans. See [7] for a good explanation of the difference. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: Thanks. Is the convention to use American or British grammar standards? It seems for dates, it's British convention. Choinierenate (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Dates generally follow the article in question, so they can use either, so long as it is internally consistent, which you can see at MOS:DATE. Our rules on quotations in particular can be seen at MOS:CONFORM. Hope that is helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, punctuation should be dependent on the situation it is used. Such as Foo "Bar". vs "Bar." if the quotation is the full sentence, or ends with a full sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (3)

Please add "Switzerland" to the international reactions. [1] 77.59.160.9 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide references and model content so that it is easier for editors to implement the changes. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done Ignoring Willbb234, request was perfectly clear in context. User:GKFXtalk 11:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/ParmelinG/status/1347104285423763456/photo/1

Tear gas and tasers

On several streams I've seen tear gas is deployed inside the capitol building, and tasers are heard rattling. I think this should be added to the article, but I'm still under 10 edits on Wikipedia (I only really edit wiktionary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mårtensås (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please present reliable sources which describe the information you wish to add. For convenience, it would be helpful for you to present suggestions in extremely specific detail in the form "Replace this wikitext with this wikitext". — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
WaPo source: "Cannisters of tear gas were fired across the rotunda’s white marble floor" -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-supporters-storm-capitol-dc/2021/01/06/58afc0b8-504b-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Flag icons

MOS:FLAG is clear here: stop adding flag icons all over the article. In particular, flags for subnational entities or supranational organisations are particularly frowned upon. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS or not, flags are usually used for international reactions in cases of civil uhh episodes. And there's a reason why. They are particularly useful to help navigation -- I find them very useful as a reader, and the section is going to grow. I'd vote to keep.--Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll second Calthinus. I'm sure I've seen them in international reaction sections before, and they're helpful. Keep. Tamwin (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
They just add clutter and don't help the reader. The reader can read that's why they're called a reader meaning they can read the country and don't need a flag. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Community consensus as expressed in the manual of style is that flag icons are generally not helpful. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override that. Bondegezou (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
And yet we have flags all over the place on other crucial and well established pages like Second_Libyan_Civil_War#Reactions; this really challenges the idea that this interpretation of MOS:FLAG is something that one needs to "override".--Calthinus (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF: we have a manual of style. We're meant to follow it. Bondegezou (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Not uncritically -- we also have WP:IAR. If there are clear arguments in favor of navigational assistance and no counterarguments, this interpretation of MOS:FLAG may be naught but a hindrance.--Calthinus (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The only "clear arguments in favor of navigational assistance" is you and another editor saying you like them. The broader community have thought about the issue at length and came to a consensus, which concluded that flag icons are actually a hindrance. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Calthinus basically on everything they've said in this section. I'll add the fact that MOS:FLAG doesn't even seem to particularly disagree with us here? If you read it closely, it's saying that flags should only be used in the case of someone who officially represents a body and where that body is specifically and directly relevant. Clearly, for instance, NATO is specifically and directly relevant when the NATO Secretary General is the one speaking, though it would not be relevant if a NATO member country was speaking. By my reading, MOS:FLAG is fine with us including the flags. Can you point me to a specific portion that clearly disagrees with this reading? Tamwin (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: @Bondegezou: Tamwin (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you Calthinus. But flags for subnational and supranational organisations is too much. So partial keep. Randam (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Randam I could agree to remove subnational flags. The navigation benefit is already had if they are lodged under their national bullet points, so it's not necessary to have the Scottish flag really.--Calthinus (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should remove flags from the international reactions section, and subnational from everywhere else. FlalfTalk 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think we should keep flags in both the International section and the Supernational Organizations section. I just took a look, I think they make the article look nice, and are useful to the reader. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove As noted it goes against the MOS, and considering the name of the country is right there, it's redundant to have both. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. They are unnecessary, and at best questionable MOS-wise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove, these are clutter, and force a list format which violates WP:QUOTEFARM. I don't think users are aware just how much these Reactions sections are despised by editors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per GW and Abductive. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove also per GW and Abductive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Media and commentators" section

Perhaps I'm a bit premature here, but for as long as just one commentator's opinion is present (seemingly to politically disparage against her, at that), this section will be pointless. Who would some names that might validate this section be? I can only think of prominent academics, but that's already a matter of conjecture. Perhaps we should remove it altogether. puggo (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminder that the BBC (and others) have live *text* coverage

For all the minute-by-minute updates that will need to be reflected on in a day, week, month, e.g. BBC livefeed. Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not tabloidistic. We need to be neutral, we are not the news. A part of that is stepping back and waiting to see how things play out. We don't want an all you can eat gauge fest of controversies, we want a neutral encyclopedia. Especially with new events it can be easy to swept in a tide of tabloidism. Still this event is utterly crazy so it can be hard to even comprehend the general situation. Des Vallee (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That is exactly why I mentioned it - it's a record of all the coverage, so we don't need to continuously update in the minute, we can reflect and the info will still be there. Or did I not say that already? Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. This article has gotten very heated. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

Add Slovakia to the International reaction section. Sources: https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22568102/caputova-scenes-from-the-capitol-show-how-dangerous-the-rhetoric-of-hatred-is.html https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-us-capitol-riot-europe-reacts/ https://euobserver.com/political/150531 Matroxko (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Majavah (talk!) 12:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed picture

Proposing this picture of the Capitol in smoke from Reuters (used in this article for example) as the article's picture. Don't know if it matches the qualifications however.

--132.221.36.36 (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use a picture unless it's licensed under a free license. Majavah (talk!) 13:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to link the article. In regard to the answer, disappointing but understandable. --132.221.36.36 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (3)

I have written the Israel response (Alternate Prime Minister Gantz) in the International reaction section but it was somehow deleted in further edits of this page. I would like to respectfully ask the extended confirmed editors to put it back and add the official reaction of PM Netanyahu with Sec. of the Treasury Mnuchin(https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1347123065377980417 Wakamoly (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's more photos from the rally today

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dannielleblumenthal/albums/72157717754531516 Victor Grigas (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add one to the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Added. Nice photos. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: before using images from here, please see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Rudy Speaking closeup.jpg. The images are a potential copyvio. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extra photos

File:Capitol Security Guard blocks pro-Trump extremists.jpg
File:Protestors inside of U.S. Capitol 2021-01-06.webp

RogerNiceEyes (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You have to have actually taken these images for them to be suitable, and even then, they wouldn't be suitable here, they should be uploaded to Wikipedia commons (if you have any images you actually took). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's double standards

WP:NOTAFORUM Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The main page labels peaceful protesters—four of whom were brutally murdered by the Democrat-controlled DC police—exercising their First Amendment rights as "rioters." If Wikipedia were truly neutral, it would call them pro-Trump protesters instead of rioters. Wikipedia never calls any of the Marxist BLM thugs who destroy centuries-old monuments and burn down police stations rioters. Likewise, the title "storming" is incredibly biased and another example of Wikipedia's hypocrisy and double standards. I dare you to rename George Floyd protests to "George Floyd riots." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.73.226.188 (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

WP is not an originator of terms or labels, we simply chronicle WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Where in the First Amendment does it state that violent actions such as storming the Capitol Building are a right? --58.162.223.230 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
You guys literally stormed federal property :/ yeah this was a riot especially with all the smoke bombs going off. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 12:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York Post names gunshot fatality

At https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/protester-killed-in-capitol-was-air-force-vet-from-california/

How many other outlets need to run with these details before we include them here? WakandaQT (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not the number, New York Post is the opposite of reliable. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSP#New York Post is a deprecated source. However, reliable sources have named her. There is an article that was just started at Ashli Babbitt (though I did nominate it for deletion). GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this Public Domain?

Cases of certificates of the electoral college votes confirming the results of the 2020 US election, after they had been removed from congress by staffers on Jan 6, 2021.

https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1346938705932648451 Victor Grigas (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright would be a better place to ask, but I'm pretty sure {{PD-USGov-Congress}} would apply. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think, although be careful as it’s speculation —Bam.zander (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact the certificates were "evacuated" by staffers isn't disputed, and we just want the photo. We might add in the caption that Sen. Merkley speculated they would have been destroyed by the invaders, but won't take his word for fact (until someone like Angeli or Trump speaks for the invaders to say that was a goal). Has the image been uploaded yet, @Victorgrigas:? Kingsif (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

India's reaction

PM Modi condemned the US capitol attacks and called for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. PM modi twitted "Distressed to see news about rioting and violence in Washington DC. Orderly and peaceful transfer of power must continue. The democratic process cannot be allowed to be subverted through unlawful protests."

https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1347009724789653508?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347009724789653508%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiatvnews.com%2Fnews%2Findia%2Fpm-modi-tweet-statement-us-capitol-attack-donald-trump-supporters-america-violence-676532

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smaran Nagaraj (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Woman intruder

"Woman intruder" in the intro section is incredibly awkward language and phrasing. Not only does it sound bizarre but why is the fact that she was a woman notable at all? You wouldn't say "man intruder". --2601:145:4380:79A0:542D:B3D6:5762:B099 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point, it seems it's already been removed. Female pronoun used in "her injuries" already communicates gender so even to those desiring it conveyed it's superfluous. WakandaQT (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Good call. To answer the "why", I think what happened is the article said "a woman was shot", and someone changed it to "an intruder was shot", and somehow we ended up with "woman intruder". GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
And this is why we have adjectives: female intruder. StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for NAM denunciation.

The following claim lacks sources: "The National Association of Manufacturers has also called for Trump's immediate removal from office, calling on Vice President Mike Pence to act."

These should do, if anyone with editing permissions wants to add them:

NAM: https://www.nam.org/manufacturers-call-on-armed-thugs-to-cease-violence-at-capitol-11628/?stream=series-press-releases

Reporting: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/532573-manufacturing-trade-group-condemns-gop-push-to-overturn-biden-victory https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/business/capitol-hill-violence-business-leaders/index.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/national-association-of-manufacturers-calls-dc-protests-sedition.html

69.172.176.96 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Derrick Evans

Derrick Evans, a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, was among those that stormed the Capitol.[1] Thriley (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/derrick-evans-west-virginia-capitol.html
Other sources do confirm this: [8] [9] [10] Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Virginia declared a state of emergency to assist DC

I believe this should be added to the article. Per VA Gov. Northam’s tweet: “I am also issuing a State of Emergency in Virginia, so we can continue to respond.”


https://www.nbc12.com/2021/01/06/northam-va-national-guard-members-troopers-being-sent-dc/ Penguinian96 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Portugal's reaction to the protests

On Twitter, the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs was the first to reacte to the protests expressing "deep concern with today's events in Washington" and Portugal "are confident that American democracy, the respect for the institutions and the rule of law will prevail". Augusto Santos Silva finish his reaction saying that Portugal "trust the US and its institutions to ensure a peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration".[1] Minutes later, the Prime Minister António Costa, also on Twitter, saying that he is "following developments in Washington with concern" qualifying the protests as "disturbing scenes". Costa finish his reaction declaring that "the outcome of the elections must be respected, with a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. I have trust in the strength of the democratic institutions in the USA".[2] 2001:8A0:F9B9:FB01:88E4:F85:9C0F:33B7 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/nestrangeiro_pt/status/1346945299818823682
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/antoniocostapm/status/1346946770694127621

Trump's tweets

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter safety: https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970432017031178 ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I believe this Twitter Safety thread is important as it is the first time Twitter has officially suspended the account of Donald Trump since he took office. Courier (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I question the phrase, "openly condoned supporters who violently stormed." Condoned what, exactly? I'm not sure we have evidence he openly condoned the storming (secretly is another matter). ErixTheRed (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Related move discussion at Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

I wanted to inform everyone of a move discussion I started at Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Requested move 7 January 2021. I am proposing moving the article to 2020—2021 United States coup d'état attempt.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mick Mulvaney

Mulvaney resigned recently. Is anyone going to add that? LeBron4 (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Int'l reactions

They are starting to pour in. I just want to say right now that I think it will get very long, and we should limit it to heads of state, heads of major autonomous units (Scotland matters of course because of Trump's property there) and or major party leaders. For example, the mayor of London may not merit inclusion once the section begins exploding. --Calthinus (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We can split it into a new article if we need too. Swordman97 talk to me 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This can also work.--Calthinus (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The mayor of London is a bit of a special case because he's widely cited internationally, IIRC. It may be a somewhat different case than the mayor of any other major city. Tamwin (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
We could just remove the section as a whole and create a new section titled 'International reactions' which summarises? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That's very premature.--Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Please explain. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no point in making cuts to a section before it becomes long. --Calthinus (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That's completely the point in order to save editors time and effort. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
And get into unnecessary dispute about who "matters" when we don't (yet?) need to? Nah. --Calthinus (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The President of the European Commission has also issued an official statement.
Move - It is getting too long. Move to a new page Sherenk1 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Move This article needs to be broken up a bit. Agree with Sherenk1. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

International responses

Do we need a sub-national entity like Scotland in there? Taken to the extreme, it could result in a very long list if that level of polity is acceptable. Arcturus (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could restrict to statements by heads of state? Arbitrary, but so would any criterion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that would be better. Maybe remove Scotland in due course, unless there are objections. Arcturus (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the entire section and flatten it into a list in a runon sentence that completely demolishes understanding of the differences between different state entities -- which is of high relevance for international relations.--Calthinus (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The current version of the page in fact equates the stance of Ireland (Trump is guilty of incitement) with that of Russia (some comment about Maidan). That's pretty misleading. [major RS recognize the relevance of the international response]. [This is currently the second-at-the-top story on Reuters -- and surprise surprise, it's on the international response from Reuters too.] I'll be reverting if there is no discussion or improvement in 30 min. --Calthinus (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Gronk Oz you have removed the international reactions again and equated Ireland to Russia. Judging by your edit summary which said nothing on the matter, was this an error? --Calthinus (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff : [11]. --Calthinus (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Calthinus: WHAT? I just changed one word, in a different section - where did all that come from? There was an edit conflict the first time I tried, so I cancelled that edit and started again from scratch. I certainly did not intend to change anything about the international responses. And now it won't let me undo my edit because of clash with subsequent edits. But looking at the article History to try and clarify that, there are almost a hundred edits since. If somebody can make sense of what should be there, please put it back like it should be, and accept my apologies for whatever I did wrong.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Gronk Oz. No worries all good, I'm a klutz myself :) --Calthinus (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Move - It is getting too long. Move to a new page Sherenk1 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This should be trimmed immensely. We really don't need to include every tweet expressing shock and outrage about what happened, even if they are from heads of state. Something shocking happened, people were shocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Colombia's reaction

https://twitter.com/IvanDuque/status/1346929338923450368?s=19 We reject the acts of violence presented today during the act of counting the vote of the electoral college in the United States Congress and I express my solidarity and support to the honorable members of Congress and to all institutions.--190.140.168.165 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Similarily, comments from the Swedish as well as German foreign ministers were mentioned in the article on the Swedish PM's reaction KnightofFaerië (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)-

Time Standards

There are currently several different standards for recording time within sections. Just under reactions there are a variety of styles including 2:38 p.m. EST, 3:35 p.m., and 4:11 EST. At some point the article should be cleaned up and standardized using MOS:TIME. Majorberg (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

EST and UTC should be used, at least in the first instance of time. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Done with my understanding of what should be done. As an aside: my God it's impossible to submit edits puggo (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep the section titles as NPOV as possible in these early hours of fast edits

Let's try to keep the section titles as NPOV as possible in these early hours of fast edits. One of the truly great benefits of coming to this Wikipedia article is to get a good descriptive summary of what went down in these events, without all the breathlessness and click-bait headlines of many media outlets.

For example, the subsection on events at the US Capitol covers many things that happened at the Capitol They include that the Capitol was breached, that riotous behavior took place, including rioters doing some things, and Capitol staff and legislators doing others, and someone was shot, etc. etc.

I'd suggest, as several editors have edited in the past couple hours, that the section simply be titled Capitol buildingrather than the more WP:POV approach of "Shooting in Capitol building" or "Rioters break into Capitol building" or "Shots fired in Capitol building" or, as it is now, "Rioters break into Capitol Building"

Then, we just let the sourced prose of the section describe all the events; and the title need not necessarily set the framing in these early hours. N2e (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion hosted by WikiProject of Current Events - Discussion about the lead

There is a current discussion taking place Hosted by the WikiProject of Current Events. Feel free to participate! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Public opinion

Should opinion polls such as this and this be added? PailSimon (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Added at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol § Opinion polling Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Domestic reaction, YouGov Poll, Highly partisan condemnation/support of storming

This information could probably fit under the "Reactions" section:

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/07/US-capitol-trump-poll

69.172.176.96 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Added at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol § Opinion polling Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

When it says "On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol", it should say "a very small number of protestors". No need for me to provide evidence, 80 Million people voted for Trump so if you count the people who also support Trump but are still underage, that number is even larger so the actions of about 20 people cannot define Trump protestors. And this is just the first paragraph... 82.11.130.168 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The article doesn't say (nor imply) that all, or even the majority of, Trump supporters were party to this. They were a group of people who were Trump supporters, that's all. — Czello 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this public domain?

It was made by an employee of the US Government: https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10157480675146857 Victor Grigas (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I doubt it, because taking the video was not part of his job. 777burger (LET'S TALK) 02:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Change title to 2021 Washington DC Conservative Counterrevolution

Ugh Kingsif (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Since the action was in response to the visible and highly provocative actions taken by the opponents of Donald Trump and their efforts to subvert and steal the election, it would be more neutral and academically honest to title this article the "2021 Washington DC Conservative Counterrevolution." The overwhelming weight of violence and suppressive acts show that this isn't a coup against a legitimate government, but resistance to a socialist/anarchist putsch led by the likes of AOC. Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:TITLE. This is not a viable suggestion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

Please change "Representative Adam Kinzinger (Illinois' 11th district) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Trump to be removed via 25th Amendment" to "Representative Adam Kinzinger (Illinois' 16th district) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Trump to be removed via 25th Amendment", as Congressman Kinzinger currently represents the 16th district; he only represented the 11th district 8 years ago. An1alias (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

Multiple sources are reporting that ANTIFA was largely behind yesterday's event at the capitol.

Not one word is mentioned of ANTIFA in this article. This is FAKE NEWS. Greggriffin1970 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please indicate exactly what you want changed (exact text). And please provide reliable sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Closed discussions re: page title

Below I'm collecting/merging discussions related to the page's title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've moved the discussions on the title prior to the move request here; please contribute there rather than here. Sceptre (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Rally" title?

Extended content
Resolved

Is this really a "rally" as the article title suggests? A rally usually refers to a lawful gathering of citizens and is largely peaceful. This is an unlawful protest and there are already reports of gunshots. We should consider moving the article to a "protest" or perhaps a "riot." AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Hardly a rally or a protest at this point. More like a coup attempt. District9123 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree. We need to remove "protests" from this title as quickly as possible. Jami430 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"Coup attempt" exaggerates or overstates the power of the actions to the protesters' benefit. Protest can be violent. It is slightly more accurate than "riot" in that the main purpose of this gathering is political. That you do not agree with them does not make them not protests. — Bilorv (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Page title change

Extended content
I have opened a formal Requested Move discussion; see below. Neutralitytalk 22:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Is there any objection to me moving this page to January 2021 storming of the United States Capitol? That is how the reports are coming in. [12] [13] [14]

--Neutralitytalk 20:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I object. I think that violates WP:NPOV RobotGoggles (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I also object. Not simply a matter of the Capitol being stormed, but also the rally beforehand. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I support it and believe you should start a move discussion for more attention. Regarding NPOV, sources across the aisle are calling it a storming. As for the rally beforehand, this article probably wouldn't exist and rather be merged into a short section in 2020–2021 United States election protests. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - This is clearly a more accurate descriptor than 'protest'. CoryJosh (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support - This is hardly a protest. Armed domestic terrorists carrying deadly weapons, waving flags, and shouting slogans attempted to storm a national institution over a free and democratic process in order to instigate an authoritarian regime. This maybe a riot at the least, if not an attempted coup. ZorpTheSurveyor — Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - This is obviously more than just a simple protest, it is a violent seizure of the capital in an attempt to install an unrecognized political power on the United States, that power being Trump as the next president. Drdak
Whatever what, it should not stay "2021 United States Capitol protests". There are sure to be multiple protests and demonstrations of some sort near/at the capitol in 2021. Could be renamed "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol protests", or something other than "protests", as has been suggested. SecretName101 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename to 2021 United States Capitol riots

Extended content

These are riots, not protests. I'd like to suggest that this page be moved to 2021 United States Capitol riots. --Poklane 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to determine that, sorry. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I do need to find actual sources to support this, but: it seems that there is a group of peaceful protestors and a group of more destructive protestors present, who are acting separately, based on what I'm seeing, though this could be false. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
To be honest they are both, it seems that in these instances we go with 'protests'. I'm not really in agreement with that but it at least helps to be consistent. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with User talk:Mtaylor848. When there's ambiguity, we go with "protests" or "unrest".
I do agree with Poklane (talk) that the title should be changed to riots, as “protests” do not seem to do it justice, because raiding the capital is much more than just a protest, it is much more like a raid/riot. It may also be worth it to change it to raid. Just my opinion. --Bdub 604 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Change name of article to "coup d'etat attempt"

Extended content

From what i can tell from the news these are no longer protests. It is a violent storming of the Capitol where lawmakers had to be herded into secure bunkers. There are reports of tear gas and shootings as criminals illegally enter the Capitol building threatening the lives of others.

This is obviously an attempted coup d'etat, not a protest. Do you guys think we should change the name of the article to reflect this, or does this come off as too biased or unfactual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.cal.69 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the lead of reliable sources, so we should not describe it as such until reliable sources do. Mz7 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that The Hill is a reliable enough source and the fact several government members are using the terminology is certainly enough to justify renaming the article. zacthebard (zacthebard)

Sitting members of Congress have described it as such, as has apparently the Attorney General from New York.District9123 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see why someone in the heat of the moment would describe it as a coup d'etat attempt, but we should wait until a consensus of reliable sources agree that the intent of the people storming the Capitol was to attempt a coup d'etat. "Coup d'etat" has a rather specific meaning that may not necessarily apply to this particular situation. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
If it were a third-world country, it would have been called a coup d'État seconds after happening, but because it's the US, it's just protesters exercising their free speech. 5.186.121.181 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Parliaments get stormed more often then one would think; it's typically labeled as something else than coups d'état, depending on circumstances and so on. The act of storming the building would probably not have automatically been called a coup had it happened elsewhere. /Julle (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Defeinitely not a coup; a coup is led by the military. You could perhaps call it an 'attempted revolution' without being egregiously wrong, but we would still be playing very fast and loose. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the definition of a coup d'état attempt as stated by Wikipedia. This is the attempted "removal of an existing government from power" through "violent means." This is an "illegal" and "unconstitutional" attempt at "seizure of power" by a "political faction." A coup does *not* require the military. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Under what definition is a coup only "led by the military"? Here's the actual definition of a coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." That's it. The word coup fits here, and calling it anything else is merely a racism-based defense of those involved. Had this been any other country, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But because it's white Americans, suddenly it's "not a coup" even though it fits the definition exactly? Reality does not work that way. This was a coup attempt, and the article should be titled so. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

It should be noted that the AP is advising journalists to not refer to the events as a coup, as they do not see the objectives of the invasion as being overthrowing the government. Riots or insurrection seem more likely changes, but coup should not be considered. Spengouli (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A coup carries the connotations of a "stronger" action - for example, the Turkish Coup of 2016 saw attacks on multiple cities, with various media and state institutions falling under attack. The Soviet coup was well organized, with multiple organizations opposing each other across the scope of the entire country. In contrast, this was a relatively localized incident. And similar things have happened recently - the Armenian parliament was stormed after their defeat in November, nobody called it a coup [1] Nmurali02 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.rferl.org/a/protesters-storm-armenian-parliament/30940248.html

Rename to "2021 United States coup d'état attempt"

Extended content

Armed insurgents are storming the capital of the country... this is a coup and most media are calling it a coup.

this was going to be exactly my suggestion. So I second it. Several sources have reported that the intent was to burn the electoral college ballots. And this was at the urging of the sitting president attempting to maintain power. RobP (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
From NYT: “This is what you’ve gotten, guys,” Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, yelled as the mayhem unfolded in the Senate chamber, apparently addressing his colleagues who were leading the charge to press Mr. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election. “This is what the president has caused today, this insurrection,” Mr. Romney furiously said later. RobP (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggested Move: 2021 United States Capitol insurrection

Extended content

This is not a fucking "storm" (whatever that is), and whoever titled this a "protest" should win the euphemism of the year award. Riot does not begin to cover the intent of overthrowing the American government and ending our 300-year tradition of democracy and installing Trump as un-elected dictator for life. The most appropriate words would be Insurrection, Putsch, or Coup.

  • Support Insurrection, as Nom. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, as the term insurrection was used on the Senate floor. Difbobatl (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support, I would expect an insurrection to be better organized, and as it stands it seems like a needlessly inflammatory term that does not appear to be used by any reliable sources for this event.--Beneficii (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC) I'm updating my vote, now that I see multiple media outlets using the term, even Biden.--Beneficii (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:TITLECAPS among other obvious reasons. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Snow Oppose this and any other edit-war-ish attempts to move this page while it is so WP:RECENT. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
What does "Snow Oppose" mean? Benicio2020 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
My only opposition was procedural, since when I wrote this we had four separate move discussions proposing moves to four different page titles, and I did not think we could hold a series of different active move discussions in different sections of the talk page. Having people support moves to multiple locations at the same time is incoherent; I thought it should be considered as an alternative proposal in one of the pre-existing discussions, which have already had numerous amendments offered in those discussions. I do not know how we will get consensus if multiple move discussions close as successful. But it looks like other people did not share that confusion, so fair enough, that's what discussion is for. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple reliable sources and highly notable public officials have used the term insurrection directly to refer to this insurrection.
  • Support As listed, this better fits described as an insurrection. We have not seen the likes of this in centuries and to simply call it a "protest" or even only a "storm" is mind-boggling to me. Nekomancerjade (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Protest is way too mild, but "Storming" doesn't seem specific enough. Multiple sources including Biden have also referred to it as an insurrection. Geekgecko (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Improper capitalization of "Insurrection." I do not think this was an insurrection, and neither do most reliable sources. As for sources provided by Ottoshade, Biden, Romney, and a CNN opinion piece calling it an insurrection does not make it factual. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed: Capitalization for 2021 United States Capitol insurrection has been fixed. Thanks. And if storming the capitol building of the wealthiest nation in the world doesn't count as an insurrection, I don't know what does. Ottoshade (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I believe 8 people in the "storming" discussion below have spoken about this title, myself included. It's the most accurate. It's not a "storming" because most people are interested in staying outside, whether peacefully or not, and of those people, indeed, there are many who have chosen to remain peaceful. Insurrection will not force those who are not being violent to be included with those who are. My proposal: call it 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection and mention in-article the division, that there are a small group of the "protest" who have turned the effort into an insurrection, though they are just that, a small group within. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Calling it a protest in no way comes even close to describing what's happening. People, this is the United States Capitol being overrun by armed gunmen. The frickin United States! When was the last time something like that happened? And to call it a protest? Please... Matronator (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is exactly what is happening. This is an insurrection and an attempted coup d'etat and one of the two should be the title of the article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support -- Romney, Biden, and RSes all use this language. Feoffer (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If this happened in Africa it'd have started out with "Coup" in the title -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: it's not a protest, not a coup, not a riot. It's an insurrection. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support NPR guidance says to call it an insurrection. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Does not quite fit the Wiktionary definition of insurrection (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/insurrection). Also, in my opinion, it is not neutral enough. Riots would be a better word.Krmarci (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: I think this can be a term that appeases the need to compromise between "protests," which this is much more than, and "coup," which while I think this qualifies, has some connotations I can accept as unideal. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Both CNN and NPR are calling it an Insurrection. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As one of largest anti-trump supporters we should hesitate to use POV terms. I would be fine with the term riot however Insurrection (in my view) isn't a good description of the events, we usually use this term for a extremely specifically overthrow. I think it would be best to entitle this to "2021 United States Capitol riots" instead. Best regards. Des Vallee (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This was very clearly an insurrection, based on the definition of the word: "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government". User:Des Vallee, who are speaking for by saying "As one of largest anti-trump supporters"? PerhapsXarb (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is how PBS and other fairly impartial news outlets are describing it, and therefore the term seems pretty universally accepted. U-dble (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's give it a few hours and see how the WP:COMMONNAME settles. N2e (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's the best term. "Insurrection" was also just used by Mitch McConnell to describe the event. [1] KristofferR (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/electoral-college-certification-updates-n1252864/ncrd1253177#liveBlogHeader
  • Support. Let's call a spade a spade, and it is either a paramilitary insurrection or a paramilitary coup attempt. MaeseLeon (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The words “protest” mislead readers because a raid on the capitol is much much more than a “protest”. I think that an “insurrection”, “Riot”, “Raid”, or “Coup” would all work. Bdub 604 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Insurrection. Protest is way too insufficient, riot is insufficient, but coup gives too much credit - coup has the connotation of a broader and better organized action with the seizure of multiple institutions simultaneously. Insurrection strikes the correct balance. 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Calling it merely a "protest" only serves to normalize the nature of the event. Let's not mince our words - if numerous government officials and news sources (e.g. CNBC) calling it an insurrection, we should too. Shuvuuia (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The media has been calling it this. It’s the correct term to describe this situation.-TenorTwelve (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: According to Harvard Law School professor Michael Klarman, "Invading the national legislature through force sounds like a coup; peaceful protest is obviously not". Though the majority of sources are not calling this a coup attempt (as of yet, possibly), we can agree that this was not organized to be a protest but rather an insurrection.--WMrapids (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: The above pretty well covers why “insurrection” is a much more apt and precise description of the events than “protests”. Safesler 07:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Not only has the media been calling it this, but Congressmen have as well. Many used the term on the floor last night, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell. Others have continued to use the term today in their own statements, like Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) and Former Rep. Joe Scarborough who is now a member of the media. Both Kinzinger and Scarborough are members of the GOP. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: 2021 United States Capitol incursion (or incursions)

Extended content

Throwing out another idea, with no preference on singular or plural. "Incursion" focuses (accurately) on the physicality of what's happening. A quick search online defines it as "an invasion or attack, especially a brief or sudden one." One advantage of "incursion" (or a similar tactical word) is to avoid politically-freighted terms about what is happening, such as protest, riot, coup d'etat, or insurrection. It's also kind of a synonym for "storming of" -- yet more elegant, Wikipedia-like, and sort of recognizing that today's events are not likely to have the same impact as the storming of the Bastille. Dss16 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick search shows that a few different media sources have used this term. Dss16 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait a few hours before renaming

Extended content

We don't know everything about this, just the media feed as it happens. Yes, I agree Trump's tweets are to blame, but we don't know if others have worked behind the scenes for this. We may not know all the background yet. Other factors may surface. I think there is possibly more unknown than known about this. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. News media seem to be converging on "insurrection" and "riot", but the situation is still developing and we should wait rather than wasting time on page moves while facts on the ground change. --Calthinus (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Further comment. Things like this, of this magnitude, do not happen because some public figure shot their mouth off on one occasion, or even whined in tweets for weeks before. Or even a handful of occasions. This just seems too successful, with everyone seeming to be caught by surprise. And if there's one thing we've learned over the last 4 years, there are sometimes contributing factors that don't surface for years. We have time to wait, a day or two perhaps, and keep building the article. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't think about that... you're right, this seems too successful to have been simply as an instance of popular allegiance to something the president had said. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Support. I agree that the current title is highly misleading, but it seems that there is still uncertainty around what happened. Lood1234 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Support. "Protest" is probably inadequate, but trying to define exactly what something like this is as it's happening is probably beyond us. /Julle (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose(ish) Why not rename it to "Conflict" if it's going to take time to arrive on a consensus on what to rename it? I think renaming away from "Protest" should be a relative priority, since it's gone so far beyond that. NHCLS (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an armed white supremacist insurrection by a mob intent on overthrowing the incoming democratically elected government and installing God-Emperor Trump as dictator for life, motherfuckers! Open your eyes! Why some of you want this to be titled "rally", "protest", or "peaceful gathering of friends" is beyond me.108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's take a deep breath. The best articles are written with a cool head and we should aspire to that standard. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support It's worth waiting to see what like The Associated Press and other news media organizations start to call it over the coming hours before making a conclusive decision on the naming of the article. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: Renaming this an insurrection should be the default response based on the reliable sources and plain meaning of an insurrection versus protests. Its title is simply misleading and incorrect. I can accept that further precision may be required later on. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: Rename ASAP. There is overwhelming support for renaming in the actual, genuine, and only relevant discussion below. There's a healthy discussion on what the best name is and there are at least two quite good options. Either is okay. If one is better than the other, a subsequent rename is also just fine, and that, subsequent, rename can wait. Not this one. This one needs to happen now. If a rename is done now, there will never be going back to "protest" that is clear at least.
Support Wikipedia will ultimately use the WP:COMMONNAME that is determined over time and is compliant with normal WP practices (e.g., 2021 preface, etc.) for such events. No need to rush a change from an reasonably descriptive term that exists at this time.

As one who was inside my high school building in a prior decade when an organized "protest" (attended my many; with many merely protesting various events and public policies) was turned into a "riot" when a group of troublemakers joined and threw molotov cocktails against the building, I get how both events can happen in the same few hours. But we need not sully the many "protest"ers with the obviously smaller group that actually did the law-breaking and riotous behavior. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Might even say days, but yes, this is currently an unfolding situation and we should see what the general consensus is before coming up with a more concrete name, as well as the above. Wikipedia isn’t a news source, it should be up-to-date, but we shouldn’t be worried about the title. The idea is to have it be what people can find to get information on it, not necessarily the best title with the most clickability. Sorry if that makes no sense I’m tired lol. —Bam.zander (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2021 (coup attempt)

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) Not moved - WP:SNOW close - clear conesnsus against "coup" in the title. Discussion of other names can continue at the other open move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt – Armed insurrection in an attempt to overturn the 2020 US presidential elections, "Storming of the US Capital" is whitewashing, this isn't some romantic "Storming of the bastille." Albertaont (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose and Snowball No indication of coup d'etat. Melmann 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Melmann. FlalfTalk 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments in the #Change name of article to "coup d'etat attempt" section above. Mz7 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. No sources state that it is a coup d'etat attempt. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Nope. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is a objective fact-based encyclopedia. Subjective opinions and feelings aren't tolerated. It is objectively not a coup, if that changes then it can be changed. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a riot at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonBrickLayer (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mob invasion does not equate to a coup d'etat. Peaceray (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Extended content

Change title of page to January 6th Terrorist Attack on the U.S. Capitol 2600:6C58:627F:A047:568:A352:7BB:F40 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done see discussions on renaming above. FlalfTalk 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Won't happen but here is the most apt title.

Extended content

'2021 United States Capitol Hill Putsch' Warlightyahoo (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

See #Requested move 6 January 2021 GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Since literally nobody is calling it a putsch, we won't use it as a title. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Might I suggest; 'Un(?)organized group of rowdy people who are doing VERY naughty things and should all go home and have a beer or something before this gets more out of hand'

“2021 Attack on US Capitol” should be the title

Extended content

It’s an attack, not a protest. And a violent one at that.

But calling it a ‘siege’ or a ‘coup’ (even failed) confers an undeserved level of notoriety, and those are also inaccurate descriptions as the terms have been used historically. Runnamucker (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it will need to include the specific date of the attack (Jan. 6) if they allow another.....

Trying to be optimistic that there will only be 1 such attack in 2021. Runnamucker (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree Only part of it is an "attack." This article is about more than the break-in of the capitol. It is a broader article about the protests in general. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree Calling it a "protest" gives a misleading impression. A woman died, and the national guard in DC and three surrounding states had to be activated to restore order. It should certainly be changed to denote the violence. ThirdDolphin (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes - we should have articles. Runnamucker (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

    • edit: we should have *separate articles Runnamucker (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capitol protests Article name change

Extended content

My thoughts are that its unnecessary to call it "Storming" we need to keep wikipedia as bipartisan as possible and non hostile to our readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.188.131 (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion about article naming at #Requested move 6 January 2021. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Title Change: The Capitol Insurrection of 2021

Extended content

I propose the title of this event is changed to "The Capitol Insurrection of 2021". NJB (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless you can show that that is the common name among reliable sources, I don't think you'll get much traction with this proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Already discussed above. "Capital" → "Capitol". Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. 777burger (LET'S TALK) 02:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Snow Oppose for multiple reasons. Not used in reliable sources, "the" should generally not be in page titles, and the year should be before the event title, not after (and honestly, the year should probably be removed altogether, see my comments in the earlier discussion). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to expedite renaming

Extended content

There is a clear consensus that protest is inadequate to describe these events, and more than enough people have weighed in to adequately represent the community. Considering the large number of views the article will receive early on, waiting a week to correct the name is a disservice to readers while not serving any discernible purpose.

For these reasons I want to encourage someone with the necessary agency to be bold and fix the name. If no clear front runner among the alternatives can be identified, picking any one of them will still be an improvement, and there is no harm in possibly fine-tuning with another move later on. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's unlikely very many people are even reading this article as neither the current name, nor the proposed alternatives, are very discoverable (the article is so new we won't have pageview statistics yet). WP has no WP:DEADLINE and is not a WP:NEWSPAPER. We can take our time and proceed deliberately over the next several months. Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, this article is linked in the news section on the front page, so it probably is getting a decent number of views. – numbermaniac 06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
      • People just don't interact with WP this way. On Dec 30 2020 Aden attacks was on the main page. It got less than 40K views over three days. Considering the number of editors working on that page and going back to it repeatedly, this probably represented about 2,000 actual non-WP humans on the planet Earth that the news section drove to the article. Our editing shouldn't be influenced by concerns about how people sourcing articles for spot news will consume the information because WP just isn't really an important outlet for breaking news. Our focus should be on long-term quality and we should go as slowly as necessary to achieve it. Chetsford (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • several months? Nope. Requested Move discussions are generally open for 1 week; I assume this one will not be open as long as that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry, to clarify, I mean editors will undoubtedly be working on this article for many months and we can proceed deliberately over that time - not that the move discussion should go several months! Chetsford (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support All proposed titles are better than the current one, and there does seem to be agreement that the title should be changed. Skrelk (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral I conceivably could be bold and make the change, but I don't want to yet. I oppose "protests" and oppose "storming", but support "2021 United States Capitol Siege" or "2021 United States Capitol Breach". Either way, I would rather that a clear alternative to the current name emerge. Matthias Winkelmann, what would you say the approval rating is for each of the frontrunner words is (i.e. what is the approval rating for "protests" versus "storming" versus "siege" versus "breach")? -- RobLa (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It is malpractice to leave this at the original name for any longer. Discussions are typically left open a week or more to allow for adequate editors to come across it and reach a consensus: here we already have scores of voters with an overwhelming consensus to move. Reywas92Talk 07:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Calling it a riot or uprising fails to take into account peaceful Trump supporters at the building. We used the same logic to not call the George Floyd protests the George Floyd riots, because violent rioters do not take away from what peaceful protesters do. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Riot is a more appropriate label for the events that took place Bravetheif (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am in the process of closing this, its a lot of work, I should be done soon :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New section

Adding new section so that I can !vote on #Request to expedite remaming. -- RobLa (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The RM has been closed with "2021 storming of the United States Capitol". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "2021 United States Capitol attack"?

Extended content

This renaming would be in line with other articles in the category Category:Attacks on legislatures, such as 2017 Venezuelan National Assembly attack.--Beneficii (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Of the alternative names presented, this honestly would be the only one I'd be in favor of. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
See the extensive page move discussions above on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I did see them. That section is for discussions that have been closed, and none of them involved using the word "attack" in the name.--Beneficii (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support the "attack" renaming, per the example cited by Beneficii.Gonzalo84 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support it here, as well. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Seconding this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests Runnamucker (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree There should be a separate but linked article entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title Runnamucker (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose It was clear that during the 2020 United States racial unrest, Wikipedia editors opposed using the words riot or uprising, when 20-30 people were killed in them, and over $1 billion in property damage was dealt. You need to have some consistency. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds very reasonable". Terrorist attack would be somewhat disrespectful to those killed in big terrorist attacks, like 9/11. Coup is not really accurate because the man in the fur hat with horns was not seeking to be the President of the junta. Storming is ok Vowvo (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Burying the lede

Extended content

I think the lede has been somewhat buried, not in the article per se, but in the title of the article. What's important about the events of yesterday was not that there were protests, but the riot through the U.S. Capitol. I can understand why "insurrection" or "attempted coup" would not be used per WP:NPOV, but the article's title should clearly be "2021 United States Capitol riot". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As I mention at the previous section, the apropriate title is 2021 Far-right attack at the US Capitol.
The RM has been closed with "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Would Putsch be the best term?

Extended content

The events don't seem organised enough to be a Coup, but the lack of organisation seems to have similarities with the Beer Hall Putsch. Thoughts? --58.162.223.230 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses what reliable sources use. Majavah (talk!) 10:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Whatever term RS use would be the best term, though we should wait for some time until they've more or less settled on one. (As far as I recall, as the terms are used and understood in English, a coup d'etat is an attack against the executive by another apparatus of the government, an autogolpe is an attack against the legislative by the executive, a mutiny is an attack against military authority by lower military authority, and an insurrection is an attack against the state by its citizens or some component thereof. But this is all dalliance as we don't have the editorial scope to independently select nomenclature, we have to chronicle what WP:RS say on the subject.) Majavah fastposted me! Chetsford (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC); edited 11:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

You have NO IDEA who was inside the Capital building. The dust hasn't even settled yet and you're passing judgement. Do you know Capital Police were briefed that Antifa were planning to start trouble by dressing like Trump supporters? That came directly from the mouth of an officer. Did you mention the other times that hearings and "regular order" was infiltrated, such as when Code Pink broke into a hearing and caused a disruption? 100.12.35.147 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Majavah (talk!) 21:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1104085148"