Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 6 January 2021

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: Moved to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.

This is perhaps the best attended RfC I've ever seen, some 200 !votes after less than 12 hours. Thanks to all who participated. I understand I am closing this quite early, but given the sheer volume of comment, it is unlikely that additional input will change the situation. Furthermore, the format of this RfC has gone off the rails, and there are now multiple sections for multiple names and folks are casting votes without a common format, so it will only get harder to close from here.

There is a clear consensus that the title should not be "2021 United States Capitol protests". The alternative was less clear. "Storming" seems to have a very rough consensus by !vote count and by the sources (at this time). A great many votes here were simply "I like it". That's not how we generally do things. Thankfully folks provided a policy driven reason: WP:COMMONNAME, citing the many major reliable sources that are using "storm" as their language. An option for "riots" or "insurrection" (among others) has also been floated, but the poor structure of their additions has not made them viable alternatives to the original, COMMONNAME proposal. I also note that very few sources were floated to back up "riot", and that it seemed to be the WP:OR interpretation of events by editors, along with terms like "coup". We say what sources say, and for the moment they seem to say "storming".

This is a stopgap measure, and is not meant to be a permanent solution. Once the issue calms down, I encourage folks to tackle this again. Please wait at least a week until further renaming, so that the media can agree on a WP:COMMONNAME. I also suggest that if an RM is going to have multiple options to use things like "Option A" or "Option 1", so that it is easier to close :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol – The protests preceded a much more noteworthy event, which will be the focus of the bulk of this article: the storming of the Capitol by an armed mob Neutralitytalk 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

General move survey

  • Support as nominator. RS are clearly settling on this name for now; e.g.,
    CNN ("Pro-Trump mob storms US Capitol as armed standoff takes place outside House chamber");
    Wall Street Journal ("RIOTERS FORCE WAY INTO CAPITOL; PROCEEDINGS HALTED");
    New York Times ("Pro-Trump Mob Breaches Capitol, Halting Vote Certification").
    Associated Press ("Trump supporters storm US Capitol, lawmakers evacuated").
    NBC News ("Pro-Trump protesters storm Capitol, forcing Senate evacuation during Electoral College count")
    The Guardian (""Pro-Trump mob storms Capitol as former DC police chief denounces 'coup attempt'")
    LA Times ("Biden says U.S. democracy under 'assault' after mob storms Capitol")
    The Times of London ("Trump supporters storm Congress")
--Neutralitytalk 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Also BBC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Haaretz opinion piece As pro-Trump Extremists Converge on D.C., Will There Be ‘Bloody Civil War’ or More Bluster? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support using coup or insurrection. As someone else stated, "storming" is too poetic; this is no romantic "Storming of the Bastille." This was also not simply a protest, and "2021 United States Capitol protests" is way too vague and will become outdated as soon as there is another protest at the Capitol this year, which is certain to happen. This is an article for the events of today (and the past few days for context), not a catch-all for all 2021 Capitol protests. Duey (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the statement that Duey made. We should call it like it is, a Coup d'état. The definition on the referenced page (as of now) is "the removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means." The attempts to disrupt the count was an attempt to prevent Joe Biden from taking office. I see no issue with calling it a Coup d'état. --MinerRo (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
— Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Also want to add that I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it later, as it seems clear this is more than a protest, but I think it would be better to wait a bit before moving it. Seagull123 Φ 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, while there were plenty of protestors remaining peaceful, there were many violent/destructive actors that, in my opinion, warrant the term "insurrection". LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
After looking at the article, this is clearly the focus, so riot. Esszet (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This clearly is perfectly justified under Wikipedia policies. Des Vallee (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - This was without a doubt a riot into the US Capitol, and this title fits the events perfectly. Fulserish (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support, this clearly has gone far beyond mere "protests". Wikipedia neutrality doesn't mean we should mince words or speak euphemestically. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support While I'd prefer insurrection or coup, this is better than the current title. I also think that if we go with storming we need to include the year, as the Capitol was stormed by the British Army during the War of 1812. (As it was a foreign army, it was not an insurrection so it's not a problem if we go with that title.) Smartyllama (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support But would prefer using the term riot. To me that is stronger than "protest" (and more accurate) but more neutral than "insurrection" or "attack" or "storming." While there are certainly valid arguments for using those stronger terms, to my riot captures the violent nature of the event without passing judgement. — Schistocyte (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While some pro-Trump protesters entered the Capitol building, they didn't manage to hold it for a very long time. The event was a part of the 2021 protests that have taken place outside the Capitol, so am against the renaming proposal. Fernsong (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose-It was mostly peaceful protests, just like the George Floyd "protests," which are so named on Wikipedia. Display name 99 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Mostly peaceful and yet they stormed the damn Capitol. "George Floyd protests" is used because that's the most common name, it's not Wikipedia making a judgement. Meanwhile, this event is so far typically identified as a "storming" or "insurrection". Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd also consider 2020 United States Capitol breach. I don't think "riot" is the proper title. C(u)w(t)C(c) 03:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ν) 05:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. This was far more significant than a protest, this will be regarded as a major historic event. “Insurrection” has been used to describe this event by several lawmakers in subsequent remarks made at the Capitol. I think “storming” is the most accurate, non-political description based upon similar events that have occurred in the past, e.g. Storming of the Bastille. AChakra California (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong SUPPORT. This was an unprecedented and huge event in the course of the nation's history. The main event was the insurrection. The protests just led up to it. Like most major media organizations, we must call it what it is. IbexNu (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait We shouldn't resort to labeling what could, and will, someday be referred to as a potential major historical event. That is not our job, that is more or less the media. When a term starts getting thrown around a fair lot, we can and will discuss again. Bigtime_Boy (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and my comment in the second survey below. Mottezen (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is an over-the-top designation and we need to wait until there is more information. The mention on the main page is irrelevant, and in any case it was over-hasty. We don't know how many people entered the building, how they were armed, or what sort of resistance they encountered. "Stormed" makes it sound like an elite military operation. StAnselm (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Storming feels informal - "insurrection", "riot", or any other word to indicate violent protest. Stormed doesn't hit the mark. But by all means, WP:NPOV doesn't mean we can't call this what it is. Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I Support 'Insurrection and Storming' as it:
  • accurately reflects both the legal act, and the manner in which the event took place.
  • neatly encapsulates any aftershock events which will likely follow this historic incident.
While I am in concurrence with many of the arguments from the "wait" camp, the article can be renamed more than once as the situation develops or is rebranded. Given its importance, the article should be renamed without further delay. Don4of4 [Talk] 06:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - riot. 'Insurrection' and 'storming' imply some justified, organised operation. This was a riot. Jw2036 (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as premature. I may change my !vote later but, given the situation remains fluid, and we don't know what all future subjects this article may come to encompass, the proposed name change may be too limiting. Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: what happened is way beyond anything resembling a "protest". Other alternative wording could include "riot" or "insurrection"; but "storming" still is the most adequate way to decribe what just took place. Azurfrog (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: the current word "protest" is far too vague and weak. storming, insurrection, or coup attempt, yes. Protest just doesn't sufficiently cover what happened. --Zippy (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Move survey: riots

Albertaont, uh, Joe Biden isn't president, and regardless, him saying something does not make it so. Also, the Storming of the Bastille was an insurrection, and a much more violent one at that. 98 people were killed. Please read some history. Display name 99 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe there will be two articles eventually. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I watched the event unfold live on TV, and there was a large crowd of people on front of the Capitol who apparently forced themsleves inside by sheer numbers. This is not a riot because there was no violence, at least outside the building. It is also not an insurrection, because the protesters did not attempt to take control of the government. Storming is also inappropriate because the protesters did not succeed in taking control of the Capitol. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most sources I've seen refer to the event as a "storming" of the capital. "Riots" could be sufficient enough but "storming" is more precise and indicative of what actually occurred.Yeoutie (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, It's clearly not a protest, but there's little reason not to wait to see what reliable sources end up calling it. Perryprog (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    Support for 2021 United States Capitol riots, things seem to have settled down a bit now, coverage wise. Perryprog (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. By definition of the word riot (noun) a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets. [13] The storming of the US Capitol fits the definition. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: Something similar happened in Australia, 1996 Parliament House riot, similar things have likely happened elsewhere. Therefore riot (or riots presuming occurring in multiple locations?) seems appropriate.

Survey: riot, storming, insurrection

It's clear from the above discussion that there is consensus to move the article to a different title. The two main suggestions have been "storming" and "riots". Which of these would editors prefer? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

More sources say "storming" than "riots" by a wide margin. Benicio2020 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Washington Post is calling it an "assault". I think that fits well. Tomato7331 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This thread is false, there is no such clarity on which of the pro-move suggestions are the main ones. Insurrection is also a top contender, and perhaps some others. This thread is a pseudo-move discussion and needs to be closed. Alalch Emis
What does it mean for a thread to be "false"??? There is consensus that "protests" is not adequate (approx. ~100 supports vs ~25 oppose). Insurrection is mentioned a lot (more than "riots" from what I can see?), but "storming" seems like it pretty clearly is the main contender by a quite wide margin, so that's what I'm supporting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's give it some time. The WP:COMMONNAME will emerge over a few days, not in the early hours of news media sources hitting the newswires and web. Let's face it, the daily media news circuit naturally has an incentive to, shall we say, embellish the title of various news articles to get the clicks. In a few days, we'll have the benefit perhaps of a few historians weighing in on the matter, and looking at it from a bit more of an arm's length. N2e (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My preference is "insurrection", and in the #Insurrection section below you'll find Senate leaders calling it that. Nixinova   T   C 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"insurrection" is probably the most "correct" term; "storming" is the term that has become the de facto description of the event by WaPo, the NYTimes, and similar large news orgs. I would be fine with either, leaning toward "storming" as it best serves the goal of Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia. SpurriousCorrelation 01:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Any of these four terms (storming, riots, insurrection, attack) would be technically accurate. I'd recommend insurrection, which not only multiple lawmakers are referring to it as, but is also I think the most encyclopedic and least emotionally charged. --FlagFreak talk 01:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Time will tell us more about the term that settles, but right now in the Capitol and on news stations (see NPR) the term insurrection is being used. "To rise against a civil authority" is the definition from Merrium-Webster dictionary, whose editors have already created a special page for the term ("lookups have spiked 34,450%" the page says) [14]Comm260 ncu (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


CNN, NBC News and other networks have systematically called it a terrorist attack during the last few hours. It was called a terrorist attack by Schumer in the senate as well. I think we should also consider a title that includes that word in some form, e.g. 2021 terrorist attack on the United States Capitol. --Tataral (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We typically don't name articles "terrorist attack". That's not a judgement on whether they're terrorist attacks or not, it's just not a good naming scheme. September 11 attacks was certainly a series of terrorist attacks, but we feel no need to include it in the name. El Al Flight 253 attack, Northwest Airlines Flight 253, 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing, 10 May 2010 Iraq attacks, 7 July 2005 London bombings and so on. "Terrorist attack" isn't very descriptive. /Julle (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Unlike the George Floyd protests, which were mostly peaceful but did notably erupt into violence sometimes, the "protests" at the Capitol are very unusual and would be better described as riots. The January 5 events can be considered a part of the background leading up to the riots. However, I would wait until we know what the sources will call it. FreeMediaKid! 02:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, it seems that insurrection would be more accurate than simply riots, as it describes the motive behind the autocratic sabotage. Nevertheless, I would still wait until the sources have a consensus on what to call it. FreeMediaKid! 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@TenorTwelve: I think it matters not what reactions a word choice could incite, and "storming" somehow feels right, at least for me; stronger than "protests" but not at the level of "coup attempt", with the added benefit of specifically referring to people forcefully trespassing an institution. English-speaking historians themselves didn't think it was too soft to be applied to that prison insurrection of 1789. LionFosset (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support storming as it is the most accurate description of the main event that happened on January 6, 2020 Mottezen (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support storming, as it leaves absolutely no dispute as to the subject of the article. Insurrection is okay, but may be premature as I suspect we're going to see far more examples of insurrection in the near future. The majority of coverage and noteworthiness has to do with domestic terrorists gaining access to the Capitol, the evacuation of lawmakers, and the subsequent destruction of property and loss of life. We do not have the luxury of being unspecific with so many eyes on this page today. TritonsRising (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2021(UTC)
  • Oppose as premature. I may change my !vote later but, given the situation remains fluid, and we don't know what all future subjects this article may come to encompass, the proposed name change may be too limiting. Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose storming, but support a rename. It wasn't a protest. It was a siege and a breach of security. -- RobLa (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but open to alternate phrasings. "Protests" is certainly an inaccurate and misleading descriptior of what happened, and I don't see any RS referring to the incident as a "protest". Other commenters make good points as to why "storming" might have other connotations. I don't think "riots" is a good description, since the key event was not a riot, but a focused attack. So, perhaps another title to consider would be "2021 United States Capitol mob attack". I don't think "insurrection" is a good term, because I've never heard that term being used to describe a single event. Skrelk (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Insurrection which seems the most accurate. Reywas92Talk 07:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Prefer riot, but support storming as well. "Insurrection" is apt, so if it were to come out on top I wouldn't be unhappy, but I think it's just a little too pointed at the moment. If time shows that "insurrection" has become the WP:COMMONNAME, then it should be changed at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


@TenorTwelve: I think it matters not what reactions a word choice could incite, and "storming" somehow feels right, at least for me; stronger than "protests" but not at the level of "coup attempt", with the added benefit of specifically referring to people forcefully trespassing an institution. English-speaking historians themselves didn't think it was too soft to be applied to that prison insurrection of 1789. LionFosset (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support storming as it is the most accurate description of the main event that happened on January 6, 2020 Mottezen (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support storming, as it leaves absolutely no dispute as to the subject of the article. Insurrection is okay, but may be premature as I suspect we're going to see far more examples of insurrection in the near future. The majority of coverage and noteworthiness has to do with domestic terrorists gaining access to the Capitol, the evacuation of lawmakers, and the subsequent destruction of property and loss of life. We do not have the luxury of being unspecific with so many eyes on this page today. TritonsRising (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2021(UTC)
  • Oppose storming. While storming is a better descriptor of what the situation was, I agree with others here that the word is too "soft" to describe the situation. On the contrary, I also think words like "coup", "insurrection", "rebellion", and others may be too charged. Unless a great majority of outlets begin to refer to this event as such, or perhaps national security officials describe it as such, a different word, should be used. Maybe 2021 breach of the United States Senate. Miss Show Business (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose storming, but support a rename. It wasn't a protest. It was a siege and a breach of security. -- RobLa (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but open to alternate phrasings. "Protests" is certainly an inaccurate and misleading descriptior of what happened, and I don't see any RS referring to the incident as a "protest". Other commenters make good points as to why "storming" might have other connotations. I don't think "riots" is a good description, since the key event was not a riot, but a focused attack. So, perhaps another title to consider would be "2021 United States Capitol mob attack". I don't think "insurrection" is a good term, because I've never heard that term being used to describe a single event. Skrelk (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Incident Incident is a catchall term that would encompass both events of today and any events that occur tomorrow that may be more pedestrian. Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support insurrection. Nicely clinical and descriptive. "Storming" has all sorts of unwelcome Third Reich undertones (stormtrooper, Der Stürmer, etc), which would doubtless please the perpetrators and so the word should be avoided. Ericoides (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

This feels a bit too meta, but I don't see the possibility for consensus emerging when the options are so fluid. It seems the options are:

I am hesitant to suggest closing the above discussions when so many people have already !voted, but it's very difficult to discern any emerging favourites when the options are so loosely structured. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is tough. I'd be in favor of another poll with clearer options, but so many people have already commented. Also, not sure if these are the only options - I suggested Insurrection at the United States Capitol - I don't think the year should be in the title. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection or riots are the best to describe the events that unfolded. Football3434 (talk) 07:31, 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.

Page Title to "2021 Terrorist Attack on the United States Capitol"

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: Not moved per WP:SNOW. Sceptre (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)



Yesterday's (1/6/21) events clearly fit the bill of a terrorist attack. Wikipedia's first sentence on the article of Terrorism is "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes." President Donald J. Trump of Florida incited his supporters to commit a terrorist attack during the largely ceremonial electoral college count[1]. Domestic terrorism is still terrorism.

I vote to change the title to "2021 Terrorist Attack on the United States Capitol"

Paulsprague19 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/07/donald-trump-speech-washington-dc-congress-electoral-college-vpx-ebof-sot.cnn
  • Oppose. Unless official sources, and the majority of reliable sources, start calling this terrorism, I don't think this is likely to gain traction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contrary to GorillaWarfare, I wouldn't insist on official sources, but I would say until the majority of reliable sources call it a terrorist attack, Wikipedia shouldn't either. Also, I would take a narrower definition of terrorism than the broad one you include above. The United Nations, although it has promulgated several variations, consistently defines Terrorism as actions taken with a specific mens rea. "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public", or "with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons". I think the intent to provoke terror is an essential element to terrorism, and one I think was absent from yesterday's regrettable events. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose any article moves for the next couple of days. Majavah (talk!) 18:20, 7 January 2021

(UTC)

  • Comment: The attacks have widely been called domestic terrorism. That was the term Chuck Schumer used in the senate, CNN, MSNBC used the term all night long, Hillary Clinton used it, it has been used by many, many others, both US political leaders and RS. But perhaps we don't need to have it in the title. If we were to consider another title, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol could be a possibility. --Tataral (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    A plethora of terms have been used to describe the events, so much so that it is quite easy to cherry pick hundreds of sources to back up any particular choice of words you wish to use. While "relying on sources" for facts and events is necessary, choosing from the large menu of possible words to describe the events, some of which carry certain pejorative or emotional-laden senses, should be up to editorial judgement, and we should always strive for WP:NPOV when choosing between otherwise equivalent words when deciding between those which carry emotional baggage and those that do not. The current title is no worse than the one you propose (it's no better either, but it's no worse) and it has the advantage of already being there. Storm or attack seem roughly equivalent to me. --Jayron32 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't propose that we move the article anywhere at this point, I just explained why I don't think it's not necessary to have "terrorist" in the title while pointing out that it has indeed been called terrorism by both official (Biden, Schumer) and RS. Regarding attack vs storming, I find them to be roughly equivalent as well; some editors had reservations about storming in previous discussions, and I just mentioned attack as one of the possible alternatives, which is not the same as proposing that we spend time and energy on a new formal move discussion to move it there (at least not now). --Tataral (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ONUnicorn clearly most WP:RS do not call so and is POV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and WP:SNOW. Obviously not in line with our policies. If this description becomes widespread then we may revisit this but this is not yet the case. --Calthinus (talk) 20:14, 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.

The article currently links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Evans when it should in fact link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Evans_(politician) 86.177.11.183 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Majavah (talk!) 21:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Archive 1 is already quite long. How do we get One Click Archiver to start an Archive 2? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Terasail: Thanks for creating Archive 2. When I use OCA, content is still sent to Archive 1. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Should be working correctly now. Majavah (talk!) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Majavah, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I don't use that script, I created the second archive since the first hit 150k. Just trying to reduce page size with closed discussions since it was at 300k which is just not useful. Terasail[✉] 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have two or three small requests

One, this incident should no longer be called a "protest" and the armed hostiles should no longer be called "protesters". Since they carried loaded firearms while breaching the Capitol with intent to assassinate senators and representatives, they forfeited the label of "protester". Please do not whitewash this serious event.

Next, the statement "DONALD TRUMP IS YOUR PRESIDENT WHEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT

YOUR MOM HA GOT EM ", please remove it, and please find the individual who posted it and ban him/her permanently. People with this mentality do not belong in the editorship of Wikipedia.Riffel2021 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID navbox

Resolved

Is the COVID navbox appropriate/necessary? Unless I'm overlooking, the article's prose mentions COVID once... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless there's an argument to be made that COVID-19 was the main reason behind the police response and thus central in the development of what happened. Which I don't think is the case? /Julle (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed and boldly removed. Majavah (talk!) 22:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

In text below (1) delete HAD before GATHERED (this use of the pluperfect is wrong), (2) delete comma before ON

Thousands of Trump supporters had gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to protest against the election results, which Trump had been falsely claiming were due to electoral fraud. Ryabovich (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done TimSmit (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Short description

I changed the short description from "Storming of the Capitol Building in January 2021" to "Protests inside and around the Capitol Building in January 2021" since there is no consensus to support "storming" as of yet. Putting this in the talk page since I could not add an edit description in shortdesc helper. lovkal (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this is a storming [15][16], to name just a couple. I'll happily see what others think though. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the majority of us agrees that this is not an ordinary protest, and a storming at minimum. However, there's an ongoing move discussion on this page above that is, as of yet, unresolved. The short description should match the article title, so until the discussion is resolved, "storming" is not warranted. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be easier if this was "is this a protest, yes or no?" to which I think most would say that sources seem to indicate "no, it's something else", but is that something else a ... storming? A coup? A riot? An insurrection? That will take longer time to agree on. In the meanwhile, the description should match the article. /Julle (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there's agreement that this is a protest, which includes violent protest. The question is whether that's the most appropriate, balanced title for the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion I think we should wait for the renaming discussions to end and then change the short description accordingly. lovkal (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

America First/Groypers and neo-confederates

@Saxones288: The only sentence in the Times of Israel source related to Groypers/America First is "Wednesday’s event is being touted on social media by a string of far-right extremists, from the Proud Boys to right-wing militias to Nick Fuentes, head of the white supremacist Groyper Army." This does not support that America First was a "side" in the conflict. Please stop warring it back in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is part of why I think we should scrap that whole section of the infobox. It's just going to be endless stuff like this until things settle down. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, Snopes says that someone raised a Confederate flag and some folks were waving them around. It does not say that neo-confederates were a prominent group in the events today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I am scrapping the 2 groups/associations. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Neo confederates were present, so were "QAnons" all sources describe this extensively. I am not sure if "Groypers" were present. If sources could be provided for this it would good. I think there is a difference between Groypers being present and them organizing into blocks, I mean you could most likely found an immense amount of wacky ideologies present that does not mean they were organized. Neo-Confederates and "Qs" were extensively present. Des Vallee (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we just get rid of that entire, ugly, half-sourced flagwank "Parties" infobox (well, box)? It looks completely amateur. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed on scrapping the box. This does not live up to Wikipedia's standards. I doubt we will be able to discover whether each of the protestors is associated with a group, and whether those groups coordinated it. This is not the same as "France" and "Netherlands" in American Revolutionary War where there is clear attribution.
Support ditching the cluttered, confused, confusing lower part of the infobox. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oregon, for the "Outside the District of Columbia" section

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Image downsize request.

I request for File:2020 presidential election US electoral college certificates.jpg to be downsized. This is because a bottle of Aquafina along with part of the Aquafina logo is visible within the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:198:103:9270:8b3:43f3:514:b6b4 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is anything copyrightable about the bottle at all, it's comfortably c:Commons:De minimis. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Finnusertop. There's nothing problematic about the image. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No prob w/ image. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

CHANGE "a mob of armed rioters stormed" to "a group of armed American insurgents committed an act of Terrorism, storming" Nojustiice2021 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Uncited and egregiously editorialized request. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit to 5.

5th person's death. An additional fatality should be reminded, as former police person died on Jan.7.2021. Which sums it up so far as 5.Wil1andar (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Source? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Source here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-officer-dead-after-riot/index.html
Already added in infobox. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Peace to all.Wil1andar (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Death yotal

Is it worth highlighting in the total deaths that one was a police officer e.g. Deaths: 5 (including 1 police officer) Darce98 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Total* Darce98 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It should probably read something like - Protestors: 4, Police officers: 1. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
and  Done. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A U.S. Capitol police officer has recently died during the riot

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-officer-dead-after-riot/index.html XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone added it to the infobox already. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Can pentagon generals send troops without a Presidential order?

Don't know if this has been covered here, but questions have arisen on TV about no presence of the US military stepping in yesterday. I'm thinking the Pentagon cannot order such action without the cooperation of the President. Am I correct? — Maile (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maile: This much is stated in the article "The order to send in the National Guard, which Trump initially resisted, was approved by Vice President Pence. This bypassing of the chain of command has not been explained." - Kevo327 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I'm talking about, since Pence was involved in that. It's another issue. I'm talking about what if the Pentagon saw an overthrow of the government about to happen, could they act independently of the President or Vice President and send in the US Army and/or the US Marines? — Maile (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Violent Intent

WP:NOR and WP:SPS EvergreenFir (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


see:

https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347011413101998080 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetilo (talk • contribs) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPS. Twitter is not a reliable source, and we don't do original research based off images. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worth watching for WP:RS to start reporting on this. Here's another example. https://twitter.com/AUIRASWHORE/status/1347003757440229378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347003757440229378%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fks5x8c%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis_nightmode%3Dfalse I don't yet advocate for adding this to this article, but I'd not be surprised if this becomes a topic from reliable news today (if not already). Jdphenix (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, Jdphenix: This has already been mentioned by public figures and media. For one, it was mentioned by Anthony Scaramucci here and by Seth Abramson here. This was then discussed in two articles (here and here) from Newsweek. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Correction: It was apparently mentioned by quite a few media sources, including BBC. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Support, per WP:RS provided by Prinsgezinde.
Oppose, both the source and the editor are biased and operating with unclean hands. Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Trump Is a Juggernaut: Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. — Czello 22:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Czello: That wasn't a personal attack. I was pointing out that the above editor has a posting history that raises questions about their neutrality. Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Trump Is a Juggernaut: I think it's a bit rich for you to "raise questions about their neutrality" when you have your username. You said they had "unclean hands". Always remember to assume good faith about other editors: digging through their edit history and assuming they're here to inject their own view into articles isn't cricket. — Czello 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Public domain images

Any ideas on where to look first? Charles Juvon (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Flickr is usually where I go. You can also filter by CC-licensed images using Google Image Search. I doubt any photographers currently in DC have sat down to upload and license their photos yet, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Historic:
BritishBurnTheCapitol-CoxMural
Charles Juvon (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Victorgrigas sometimes shares helpful images/videos for current events. Pinging for possible leads? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Pistols drawn on the Floor of Congress Charles Juvon (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'd suggest 1.) make a keyword list of things that people might upload footage under, like: MAGA, DC, Capitol, Capital, Revolution, Protest and so forth. 2.) look for new uploads 3.) Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud all have cc-licenses. This guy in particular is prolific: https://www.flickr.com/people/95413346@N00 4.) VOA is useable if its made by VOA staff (which is like 10% of the time) 5.) be careful of license laundering

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Leadership

Donald Trump should be added in the "leadership" section on the insurrection side in the infobox given that he blatantly incited the attack on Capitol and that the entire faction looks to him as their leader. Not listing him and painting this as a movement without leadership is blatantly whitewashing Trump of his part in the affair. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

He did not tell them to attack the Capitol. He in fact eventually told them to leave the Capitol. I don't think he is really leading the protesters/rioters in any meaningful sense. Tamwin (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed it as he has publicly called for peace and wants them to stop. End of. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump's tepid message to the insurrectionists doesn't change the fact that he'd spent months inciting exactly this kind of action. There is also no question that the groups involved in the insurrection look to him as a leader/figurehead -- they have directly acknowledged his orders before, notably when obeying his now-infamous "stand back and stand by" comments last year. Even if one takes his backing down as genuine, he was blatantly the inciting figure and leader of the movement at the start of the attack on Capitol. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Do reliable sources describe him as the leader? Tamwin (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
TKSnaevarr, no. President Trump has not explicitly told anyone to storm the Capitol building, he asked them in a Tweet to stop the violence, and then in another to leave. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
But isn't he essentially giving orders? In various videos he's released condemning them, he uses the first person plural ("they stole the election from us"), identifying himself with the protestors and the rioters, and then talks about "the other side". He's aware that these people see him as their leader, and rather than dismissing them, he continues trying to appeal to them, telling them gently, "you have to go home now". You could say he's taking advantage of the fact that they see him as their leader to try and order them to leave peaceably and get them to dispel the violence. But he's not exactly distancing himself from them. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Caused By

Since a major cause of the protest was President Trump's claims of election fraud, should that be added to the infobox in the "Caused By" section? Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/953616207/diehard-trump-supporters-gather-in-the-nations-capital-to-protest-election-resul "President Trump himself addressed the crowd and urged them to protest what he falsely claims was a rigged election before marching to the Capitol and pushing past security barriers there."Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare Trump's claims being the cause was quoted by CNN in its live session. Will that be considered a reliable source? 180.151.224.189 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you'll need to demonstrate that this is the mainstream view among reliable sources, which to my observation it is not. He certainly helped to incite the protest, as did quite a few other people, but I don't think it should go in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

DC National guard statement

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2464427/statement-by-acting-secretary-miller-on-full-activation-of-dc-national-guard/ Victor Grigas (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fix wrong link - Derrick Evans

Hey, I'm unable to edit, but there's an error in that "Derrick Evans" links to a totally unrelated British man - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Evans, as opposed to the actual participant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Evans_(politician). Given the gravity of the situation, it might be prudent to fix this swiftly.

2A00:23C6:2723:7900:4936:77E9:A3FE:2E3D (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC) T

Citation 3 missing

Citation 3 is currently broken. Please fix it. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New draft regarding possible impeachment and removal, or removal via 25th amendment

I made a draft at User:MarkiPoli/2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. There isn't much there as of now so please edit it if you want and add to it. I believe an article is now necessary considering there are members of the cabinet talking about the 25th amendment in earnest, and 36 House democrats (at least) have said Trump should be removed, either via impeachment or 25th amendment. If anyone wants to make the article in mainspace after its cleaned up a little, go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkiPoli (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Until there is some reporting on this, it's just a conversation that is ongoing and it has been a subject of discussion for four years now. The guy has just 14 days left in office, this is more of a symbolic gesture. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
[17], [18], [19], [20], [21] - For the moment, this looks serious. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
CBS News has reported itMarkiPoli (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unified definitions of 'rally', 'protest', 'coup d'état' and 'riot'

I have noticed that there are many conversations in the talk section that are debating to change the title of this page. Some of these arguments have almost devolved into the minutiae of what the words 'protest' or 'rally' even mean. In order to avoid the endless pit of argument, I propose that Wikipedia use a standardized definition. I recommend using a source that is NOT Wikitionary, since that can be freely edited and the arguing will start again.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot

This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia in any way, so please forgive any errors in protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:5300:6:9159:1518:3906:67cc (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2021

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: No result; we've just had a massive RM on the issue that was closed due to receiving over 200 comments in less than 18 hours, and the closer there said that any further requested move should not be discussed for another week, to allow for a breather for the article. I intend to help enforce that close, at least until after the weekend. Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


2021 storming of the United States Capitol → United States Capitol insurrection

1. Better meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Article titles.

2. Supported from WP:RS. See:

3. Accurate. This was "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Remember, wikipedia does not Wikipedia:CENSOR.

4. Given the connection of "storm" to QAnon, title is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See storm Casprings (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose I’ll repeat my comment in an earlier thread on the sources listed in 2 above: Every one of those sources listed refer to the Capitol being stormed (mostly in the first paragraph). Several of them only use the term ‘insurrection’ in the article title and not in the body of the article, often within quotes i.e. not in the voice of the source. Insurrection appears to be used as a loaded term. At best, the cited sources indicate no more than equal support for storming and insurrection. It seems to me using dictionary definitions that storming is more appropriate - insurrection gives more political heft to what was simply rabble violence. DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
They delayed the certification of the president elect and came directly from a political rally. It was certainly political. Wikipedia:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn’t say it wasn’t political. Most dictionaries use insurrection as a synonym for rebellIon, revolt, uprising etc. A bunch of crazies bursting in to the Capitol and once in there, not knowing what to do other than put their feet up on Pelosi’s desk, get thrown out in a couple of hours taking the metro home doesn’t meet the dictionary definition in my view. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title has been discussed to death and most of us would like to move on. I think the year is important in identifying this specific event. I don't think "storming" is off-limits just because QAnon also uses that word. If it is off-limits, the next-best alternative is riots, because it describes what MAGA's did, rather than what they were trying to do. "U.S. Capitol Insurrection" is much worse because it introduces needless ambiguity as to whether it's an insurrection at the Capitol, of the Capitol, or by the Capitol. RoxySaunders (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - This proposal conflates too many things: a) the descriptive term (e.g. "protest", "storming", "standoff", "breach", "insurrection"), b) how much chronological information to include (e.g. year, month-year, none), and c) the structure of the title. Personally, I care the most about "a", and dislike both "protest"/"protests" and "storming". It seems most urgent to have a serious conversation about the term before structuring the title around the term. Of the terms I listed, I mildly prefer "standoff" to the others, but my mind can be changed. -- RobLa (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The current title is the result of a previous consensus and accurately reflects the events and coverage of them.. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - insurrection would be a more organized undertaking in my view. This was just a misguided unstructured mob, so storming is rather appropriate. If some future investigation reveals that they were actually organized, equipped and commanded in some way, then I would agree to call it an insurrection. Crnorizec (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Insurrection would be an apt title for the events that transpired. District9123 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Decausa. 777burger (LET'S TALK) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - It's the term that most accurately describes what happened as detailed above. It's the term that elected officials are using on the floor of the House and Senate, it's the term that's being used in the media, and it's the term that most people will use when they look up the article. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support But I think a discussion of what elements we want in a title should be complete first before moving again. Do we want the year? "Insurrection"? Some variation on "coup"? It's all still being discussed. But being made aware that "storm" has QAnon connotations, I think a move away from that should happen in some form. If this gets broad support, count me in. Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I think "insurrection attempt" would be a better phrase, though I think "coup d'etat attempt" would be better. Skrelk (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I would not be inclined to support this change if they had simply broken into the capitol building. However, considering individuals were occupying offices of extremely high-ranking government officials and made their way on to the floor of the upper chamber of the legislature, there is really no other description that fits. Maybe "insurrection attempt" Cliffmore (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing else to add UnknownM1 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as it's more accurate. Elishop (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support - When I searched for this article, I assumed that it would be something like "US capitol insurrection wiki". I believe most people will search using this. It's accurate and is more appropriate given the significance of what occurred Teammm talk
    email     23:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I voted my support for the previous move, I don't think it needs to be moved again just yet. give it time! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not Yet While I support this language with my personal politics, unless this event begins to be discussed more in this framework, it would be NPOV. And while it might become framed in this way, we don't predict the future here. I suspect this move request to be closed under no consensus and reopened in the future should the public terminology of this event changes. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per points made in previous name change discussion Admanny (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The term "storming" is a more neutral term and more in the tone of an encyclopedia. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Definitionally the incident was a violent uprising in a direct attempt to halt the progress of democracy. If this isn't an insurrection, I don't know what is. Ottoshade (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is both appropriate to the incident and to WP:NPOV. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Regardless of the eventual name change, these were not "protests", as protesting does not involve invading any capitol building unlawfully. "Insurrection" is a stronger word than the action of "storming". If the name were to be changed to insurrection, then I do not oppose it. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with minor change to 2021 United States Capitol insurrection - NPR, Associated Press, CNN, New York Times (per McConnell) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support given that we have more than half a dozen news organizations calling it 'insurrection' along with multiple politicians, it's apt to call it 'insurrection' instead of calling it something else violating WP:NOR. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_2&oldid=1136836122"