Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Riot or Mostly Peaceful protest?

Mincing words and using words as weapons sure has plagued this country. If Portland and Minneapolis are being wielded as Mostly Peaceful Protests then the equal treatment of this moment in time must be awarded. The only way to change this meaning is to literally go back in time and designate all Antifa and BLM riots as riots. It’s time we start providing equal treatment under the law. Visto Dalla Florida (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia only goes with what the reliable sources say on a subject. This is not the place to right great wrongs or publish our own analysis of subjects. --Equivamp - talk 14:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Read wp:legal, also (as far as I know) no law required us to treat different demonstrations eqauly. Moreover (as said above) we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, the subject of this article is the attack on the Capitol. Most of the criminal acts that have occurred during BLM protests are not independently notable, while in this case the Capital storming is much more notable than the adjacent protest. VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Equal Protection Clause applies only to U.S. legal matters, not to some website operated by a non-profit.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Atop the previous suggestions, I recommend you read this. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 22:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Visto Dalla Florida: you're entirely correct. There's a big problem with this article conflating two things: protests and trespassing in the Capitol—both of which were mostly peaceful, but the latter of which included rioting. There were thousands upon thousands of people in DC for speeches and marches, which took place peacefully. Then there was a relatively small riot—the DOJ estimates that 800 people entered the Capitol, with the vast majority of those peacefully "walking in" and committing no crime other than trespassing.[1] Some 135 of those c. 800 have been charged thus far, with only 7 involving weapons charges. There's no evidence that anyone brought a firearm into the Capitol, and there are only three people charged with having a weapon in the building: one baton, one pepper-spray (apparently not his), and one with a baseball bat. An additional four were charged for possessing a weapon while on the grounds: one handgun, one baton, one bat, and one Taser (apparently not his).[2] This article depicts something totally different than what actually took place, and it's clearly for political reasons.
As you point out, the disparity in article coverage is shocking—indeed, it's past the point of parody:
  • 2021 storming of the United States Capitol has "methods" of: rioting, vandalism, looting, assault, shootings, arson, tactics of terrorism (intimidation, intention to take hostages, kidnap and execute).
  • George Floyd protests has "methods" of: protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience, civil resistance, online activism, strike action, riots
How a Wikipedian of any integrity can not take issue with that is beyond my comprehension. Arson, looting, and vandalism are notable features of the hours-long Capitol riot—but didn't take place during last summer's months of rioting? Wikipedia is totally broken when it comes to current events, infected with a bias so strong and overwhelming that it no longer can credibly call itself an encyclopedia. Look no further than the response to your pointing out there is grossly inconsistent treatment of similar events in articles—not one so far has shown the slightest interest in the actual issue you raised. People who care about this project need to put their foot down. Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Men with plastic handcuffs" appears incorrect; weak citation(s) for "11 Molotov cocktails and assault rifle"

Other than law enforcement, the only people I see documented to be carrying "plastic handcuffs" are a man and his mother—who found them abandoned inside the Capitol, presumably by police, who were photographed employing them.[3][4] There's certainly no suggestion the man and his mom broke into the Capitol with a plan to "take hostages" or "kidnap" anyone. The references to them are pure hyperbole and far from NPOV—and must be removed, or at the very least, made accurate and NPOV. Ditto for the man supposedly arrested for 11 Molotov cocktails and an assault rifle. The only sources cited seem to reference and re-echo a single tweet claiming that Michael Sherwin, the acting US attorney, said this. I can find no confirmation or follow-up, which seems odd given this would be the most heavily armed person arrested, by a long shot. This article is far, far too breathless and it's proving to be embarrassingly POV and wildly hyperbolic. Elle Kpyros (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • There were more than that - i.e. Rendall Brock Jr. "A retired Air Force officer who was part of the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol last week carried plastic zip-tie handcuffs because he intended “to take hostages,” a prosecutor said in a Texas court on Thursday." [5] [6]. Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I so appreciate that! And I see that Brock, like Munchel, allegedly found the cuffs inside the Capitol—if it's worth mentioning the cuffs, we ought to include that. It casts doubt on the idea that either was there with a plan to take hostages—making the Wikivoice "possibly with the intention of using them to take hostages" pure supposition and something that must be excised. For what it's worth, the FBI affidavit for Munchel includes several photos of him without flexcuffs prior to the one in which he holds them. Neither have been charged with any crime in connection to the flexcuffs or what are described as "an item in a holster on [Munchel's] right hip" (which there is reason to suspect may have been a Taser). All documents are available online.[7] Thanks again! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Just a drive-by comment here: Claims of a prosecutor are not considered neutral. These claims should not appear in wikivoice. Mcfnord (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Elle Kpyros, here's follow-up on the Molotov guy: [8]. His name was mentioned in one of the refs, so I just Googled him and got a more recent source. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@David O. Johnson: I very much appreciate the update! It seems the weapons were found in the truck in which he was living, not on Capitol grounds. He was not charged for being on Capitol grounds,[9] and I've seen no evidence that he was part of or intended to be part of any riot—have you? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That you think it's "POV and wildly hyperbolic" to accurately document the acts of an armed person carrying flexi-cuffs into the House Chamber is interesting, but not relevant. It is, in fact, neither. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: thanks, but I'm aware of no source cited for claims there was an "armed person" carrying flexicuffs "into" (as opposed to "in") the House Chamber, or of "armed and armored men carrying plastic handcuffs"—other than what appears to be a wildly hyperbolic Slate article. From what I've read, according to an FBI affidavit, one of the two men was carrying flexicuffs (and possibly a Taser, although he was arrested later in his hotel and hasn't been charged with any weapons violation). I see one single man has been charged for having a pistol on Capitol grounds—he was arrested at the Visitor Center and I'm unaware of any suggestion he was ever in the Capitol building at all, let alone with a weapon.[10]
Incidentally, an Alabaman man was charged with possessing firearms and Molotov cocktails in the truck he was living in, parked in front of the RNC, with no suggestion or evidence he was ever on Capitol grounds. He happened to be arrested "during the riot" and not far from it—because while looking for bombs, police saw a firearm in the truck, then waited for him to return to it and arrested him. The information in the article is all based on breathless reports from the hours after the riot, and every one is inaccurate. He shouldn't even be mentioned in the article, since as far as anyone knows, he had nothing at all to do with the "Storming of the US Capitol" or any of the events that led up to it.
To clarify, according to the DOJ page on individuals charged thus far, there have been a total of seven (7) people "armed" or possessing "weapons" on the Capitol Grounds (i.e., "storming the Capitol")—that's far less than one percent of the people in the building, and a minuscule fraction of those on the grounds. I've broken it down between those in the building and on the grounds—while there may well be no legal distinction, it appears to be relevant to our article. On a broader note, there is a real problem with the article distinguishing between those at the broader rally/marches/protests; those who were on the Capitol grounds; the c. 800 who were inside the Capitol building; and the few ever in any of the legislative chambers.
On the Capitol grounds, with no indication or evidence they were in the Capitol building, four (4) in total were charged with possessing weapons:
  • 1 charged with a firearm
  • 1 charged with using a Taser on Capitol grounds ("handed to him" per FBI)
  • 1 charged with a baton
  • 1 charged with a baseball bat
With evidence they were in the Capitol building, but no evidence they were in any legislative chamber, three (3) in total have been charged with possessing weapons:
  • 1 charged with a baton
  • 1 charged with a baseball bat
  • 1 charged with pepper spray ("handed to him" per FBI)
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever of any rioter with a firearm inside the Capitol building. There is (IMHO quite good) reason to suspect that one person, who was also photographed holding flexcuffs, may have had a Taser in the building—but he hasn't been charged with it and it seems extraordinarily unlikely that he ever will be. It's my strong opinion that the article needs to be clarified to reflect the above—in places it suggests otherwise, with "armed and armored men carrying plastic handcuffs" and "[s]ome individuals came heavily armed" being especially egregious. I understand that the above is to a large degree WP:OR and I'm not suggesting adding it to the article—at the same time, we should never cite supposedly "reliable sources" if they contradict the best available information. And I stand behind my assertion that the article is both full of hyperbole and fails NPOV—reading it, one would think the Capitol was overrun by a mob of armed men, which is patently untrue. Indeed, it's clear now that the large majority of the c. 800 people "walked in" peacefully and committed no other crime than trespassing.[11] Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2021 United States capitol protests § Requested move 20 January 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2021 United States capitol protests § Requested move 20 January 2021. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of the lede - "thousands of the crowd"

It currently states "thousands of the crowd" in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. This is awkward phrasing but I can't think of how to fix it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I just changed it to "thousands of the protesters". I think that's OK because when they left the rally at the Ellipse and walked to the Capitol, they weren't rioting yet. It would be incorrect to call them something like "rioters" at this point. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

please add Faces of the Riot

Please add external link Faces of the Riot. It is some sort of memorial. Maybe also some help for FBI. -- Chrxix (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial or a help for the FBI. The site is not a WP:RS. If there's content by reliable sources about the site, maybe we could add something to Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. But so far, I see no reason to do that. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Also wp:blp, we do not have "rogues galleries".Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Insurrection Day" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Insurrection Day. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Insurrection Day until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Future move requests for this page should be multi-move requests

A procedural detail: Since this page has several daughter pages, a move request for this page should be a {{multi-move request}}. See WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages.

For example, there might soon be a request to move this page to 2021 United States Capitol attack. The wikitext for this request should look like this: 

{{subst:Requested move|2021 United States Capitol attack|reason= ...
|current2 = Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new2 = Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
|current3 = Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new3 = Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
|current4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack
|current5 = International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new5 = International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack
}}

(Note that I'm not suggesting that the current move request should be changed. It should have been a multi-move request, but we didn't think of it, and it's too late now. No big deal. We'll sort it out later if necessary.)

— Chrisahn (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Refs in lead and 'Prior intelligence' section (Oath Keepers)

Given that the Oath Keepers are mentioned in the section headed 'Prior intelligence and concerns of violence', and there fully referenced, expanding on the few words in the first paragraph of the lead, Some rioters had earlier planned aggressive action, is it necessary to repeat the references in the lead? Qexigator (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits relevant to a discussion about this are

  • as edited by Soibangla (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 23 January 2021 (→‎top: once again, and hopefully for the last time, this most definitely belongs in the lead because it indicates a conspiracy by a paramilitary group to invade the Capitol, and I can understand that some would like to whitewash that they allegedly said "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas.").[12]
  • as edited by Qexigator (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 22 January 2021 (necessary link in the abbreviated sequence of events [13]
  • as edited by Qexigator (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 23 January 2021 (better placed here as necessary link in the abbreviated sequence of events, and rmv repeat to later section (discuss at Talk if you propose otherwise)).[14]
  • as edited by Qexigator (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 23 January 2021 (concise mention of preplanned aggression placed in first paragraph, as necessary narrative link in the abbreviated sequence of events described there, expanded in 'Prior intelligence' section (if you still think it a problem do not merely undo but discuss at Talk)[15]

Qexigator (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the refs in the lead if they will prevent editors from removing the vital sentence from the lead for any specious reason, including any assertion that it's not supported by citations. soibangla (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Other edits

  • as edited by Soibangla at 19:58, 23 January 2021 (??top: once again, and hopefully for the last time, this most definitely belongs in the lead because it indicates a conspiracy by a paramilitary group to invade the Capitol, and I can understand that some would like to whitewash that they allegedly said "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas.").[16]
  • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 at 07:08, 24 January 2021 (this info just appears grafted onto the existing sentence and its awkward)[17]

Qexigator (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 23 January 2021 (Rm info repeated later on in lead with easter egg piped link and repeat wikilink)[[18]]
  • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 at 13:31, 22 January 2021 (Not the place to add this)[19]
  • as edited by Qexigator at 10:16, 22 January 2021 (Oath Keepers violent intent)[20]
  • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 at 02:09, 19 January 2021 (copyedit and trim lead)[21]
  • Talk:Clarify sections "Planning of the storming" and "Rioting in the Capitol building"[22]

Qexigator (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The "coup" & "insurrection" discussion

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

Can you explain what is meant by "some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt." Which legislative act? The joint session counting votes? RobP (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In the heat of the moment, most newspapers will use emotive and hyperbolic language because their job is to attract readers' attention. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should describe the event as it is described by authors after the event, not in the middle of it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"Coup", "Insurrection", and "Sedition" have specific legal implications. Beyond WP:BLPCRIME, confirmation needs to come from an official source. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The description of events will not become more rational over time. Let's let hyperbole roam freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.17.25 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the hard work that went into organizing this and from everyone who added sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources describing as "coup attempt"

All of the media listed below promote a liberal, left and progressive viewpoints. There is no evidence that protesters were a united organized group that was actually attempting to take over the US Government with, I've read, 13 weapons found? Instead it looks as if it was a mixed group who invaded the building to disrupt the electoral college contest and make some messes. The behavior of some of the DC police is also puzzling. I would avoid hyberole and wait for some official DoD reports. The mainstream media is advocacy based. Here we aim to present different sides in a neutral way regardless of personal viewpoints. If you can't manage that attitude, edit non-political articles only. Lmlmss44 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Generally reliable sources

Other sources

-- Removed "coup de force" French-language sources, as the French "coup de force" does not correspond at all to English "coup (d'état)". Alalch Emis (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware that screaming, breaking windows, looting stores and then leaving fell under the definition of "coup". TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources describing as "insurrection"

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

Generally reliable sources: categories and policies

Generally reliable sources: headlines

The Insurrection At The Capitol Is A TV Event That Will Live In History RobP (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump caused the assault on the Capitol. He must be removed. "Failing that, senior Republicans must restrain the president. The insurrection came just as many top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), were finally denouncing Mr. Trump’s antidemocratic campaign to overturn the election results." RobP (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Others

Other terms used

Autocoup

Breach

I'm seeing more & more stories on this event refer to it as a "breach". I personally don't think it is the best word to use, but feel with respect to the principle of NPOV this fact needs to be mentioned. -- llywrch (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not been seeing more and more such stories. A breach can be done by a single human and is roughly synonymous with trespass. The breaching of the Capitol is a moment in time. That's when the first door was broken down. By my estimation, that's 0.0003% of the totality of what happened. That's the sporadic type of usage of "breach" i'm seeing – in reference to particular moments and situations of that event, not in reference to the event itself. Alalch Emis (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Seconding Alalch Emis: Breach is appropriate for articles like List of White House security breaches; a four-hour occupation by armed persons is far more than just a "breach".-Ich (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Invasion

  • Capital Invasion [[23]]

Its what it was, RS say it and it really is not all that loaded.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Riot

However sources like this say people are bieng charged as rioters [[24]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

“A”, if not “the” mainstream view is that ‘coup’ is apt. Instead the word has been entirely whitewashed from the first half of the article, where it is called a mere riot.
C’mon, people. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A riot would be if a normal protest went out of control; there is evidence showing that this was at least partially planned out and the intention was to kill or kidnap several members of Congress and maybe the vice president which makes it an insurrection SRD625 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This was not a riot. This was a violent uprising against the legislators in order to stop them from performing the Constitutional requirement to count the electoral votes. This is the very definition of an insurrection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with calling this a coup or insurrection. Media headlines often exaggerate things to attract the attention of the readers to the article.The words “coup” or “insurrection” are more likely to attract attention than simply stating the capitol was “stormed”. Based on the evidence, this was mob of people from a variety of groups. It doesn’t appear to have had an organized leadership, and had no intention of overthrowing the US government, simply to disrupt the vote count. The theft of labtops was probably by conspiracy theorists trying to confirm they were right. Many members of the mob seem to have just contented themselves with vandalism, with several pieces of artwork representing historical figures from both the left and the right targeted. This indicates the goal was general destruction rather than targeting paintings and statues of people associated with one side of the political spectrum. In any case, we cannot simply speculate or exaggerate details like the media. We need reliable, unbiased sources, which will presumably become available as time goes on and the investigation reveals its findings. Investigation is still underway, and it could be awhile before we get any concrete answers. I say we leave the title of the article as is for now. Anasaitis (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Attack

@Somedifferentstuff: your proposal is worded using "domestic attack". This generally refers to domestic violence. It's an unfortunate coincidence. I don't think anyone but you has or would support including "domestic" for this reason, and for the reason of that exact phrase not being supported by reliable sources, and for not being concise either. What do you think about this assessment? — Alalch Emis 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, in this context, domestic means that is was done by people within the country (def. existing or occurring inside a particular country; not foreign or international), as opposed to being done by people from outside like 9/11. Take a look at the first sentence of this article (Oklahoma City bombing) as an example. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff, That's "domestic terrorist truck bombing" not "domestic attack". "Domestic attack" is nowhere to be found in that article. Your usage of that term in this context is novel and unusual. IMO it was a bad idea to condense it with the default option as it differs significantly with the addition of "domestic". You can still remove it, because it's not supported by anyone else. People who support attack support the default version. — Alalch Emis 20:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Very few not-in-the-moment sources use coup without attempted, because the word coup does imply a success. The word storm doesn't have that implication, a storm is a still a storm whether it's successful or not. Same with a protest, an attack, a demonstration, etc. I think that we should avoid using coup simply because we can't use it without putting a qualifier there, which instantly strays into commentary territory. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Support Holding on Changes I appreciate the work that went in to making this list, however, caution should be exercised. Business Insider is currently the subject of an intense discussion at WP:RSN and I question the quality of Uproxx for reporting civil-military relations; many of these are op-eds and editorials that are using the word "coup" as a term of art; and several of these are non-English language sources where the nuance of the word coup does not precisely reflect in English translation. Factually, if it were determined to be a putsch of some type, it would be an autogolpe and not a coup. A coup is an attack against the existing executive power, while an autogolpe is an attack against the existing legislative power. As time progresses, this nuance will be learned and internalized by reporters on beats that normally don't deal with this subject and we may see an evolution in nomenclature. We must chronicle the terms used by RS, however, that does not preclude us from proceeding with deliberation and caution, particularly insofar as current events are concerned. Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Not a survey, but thanks for the info as I agree that we should wait and created this discussion so we can pick apart the sources while we wait. The op-eds included are written by the editorial boards of the said sources, showing that the term they use is what the publication decides best describes the event. "Putsch" is not used often in English and especially not in this circumstance, though it is often synonymous with "coup" when used. Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue. An autogolpe or self-coup is a type of coup, so it would still be accurate to describe it as a "coup attempt" without being too specific on what type of coup it may be (which seems like many publications have done by simply calling the event a "coup attempt"). Also, we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt", such as the 1851 French coup d'état, the 1973 Uruguayan coup d'état and the 1970 Lesotho coup d'état. So if the event were to be determined to be a self-coup attempt, then it would be acceptable to name this the 2021 United States coup d'état attempt in accordance with predecessor articles. That is, unless, sources give us a special name for the event.--WMrapids (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue." I regret to inform you that's an objectively false statement. As the French term is invoked in English, a coup d'etat is understood to be an attack against the executive power in all literature on the subject while the Spanish term autogolpe is invoked to mean an attack against the legislative authority by the executive. I can't find my copy of Luttwack's Coup d'Etat at the moment, but I'm pretty certain he clarifies it that way (and it is the definitive source on the subject), but there's a breadth of other scholarship on this as well in the academic literature (e.g. [25] or Paul Brooker's Non Democratic Regimes [page 83 in my edition]). "we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt"" Please see WP:WINARS. In any case, this is all neither here nor there since it sounds like we both agree we should wait to implement any changes. Chetsford (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I did some searches just then, most of the articles I just read referred to it as a "riot" or the "protestors storming the capitol building". I'm not seeing a lot of obvious references to coups, and my personal feeling is, a coup would involve some level of sophisticated organistion, this is just the working of a mob. Just my 2c! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chetsford: The simple definition of a coup is "the removal of an existing government from power" (Wikipedia), "a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power" (Oxford) or "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" (Merriam-Webster), all meaning that it is the removal or change of a government, which generally can constitute multiple branches, not only the executive. However, it seems that you are more interested in the intricate definition of a coup according to various scholarly opinions which, as you can see in some articles above, are divided. Your opinion is respected, but we do not use WP:OR. Reliable sources seem to be using the simple definition approach. As for WP:WINARS, that is obvious. The articles were listed as examples for if this event is determined to be a coup attempt by reliable sources, not as a source to determine the article title.--WMrapids (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
While I appreciate you looking up the word "coup" in the dictionary, we generally frown on WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I feel like this article by the Brookings Institution makes good points and pretty much gives an explanation of what I said above.--WMrapids (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The are some outlets starting to refer to the insurrection as the "Beer Belly Putsch", though it's clearly never going to be the most common name for the event. — Red XIV (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: That's helpful. It seems like many reliable sources are describing this a "coup attempt", though it's still early so we are working on determining Wikipedia:Verify. Due to the importance of this article, we can be sure WP:OR should not be a problem as well. WP:NPOV seems to be alright too as numerous reliable sources have verified that Biden had won the election and that such acts of reversing the election are unlawful, so describing this as a "coup attempt" would be neutral. It seems like we are just working on the verifiability regarding how to describe the event at this point (insurrection, coup attempt, etc.)--WMrapids (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If looking at more sources, The Guardian has now collected all its coverage under the tag "US Capitol stormed" on its website. But then they have a headline calling it an insurrection, and an opinion piece saying to call it a coup. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It is in my mind too early to use these types of words. The most accurate statement is protest turned riot. Unless someone can prove that the people involved had an organized plan to overthrow Congress, which is very doubtful, than the other labels don't apply. Also a lot of the sources using these terms are opinion pieces, they can be useful in describing what people 'think' of what happened, but not what it actually was. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It's untrue that the labels "insurrection" or "coup" don't apply if there was not an organized plan to overthrow Congress. This is an arbitrary standard. I don't see what would support such a stance. The RS are converging on "insurrection" as many have noticed. Although there are some RS using "coup", as you have observed, some of the sources listed here are opinion pieces. This is not the case with "insurrection". Alalch Emis (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Putting aside my own personal opinion about this event, I wonder why do we need to count noses & apply just a single label. Why not write something like the following: "While this has been described as a coup [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], others have described it as an insurrection [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], or a riot [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here]." IMHO, that would adhere to NPOV: we are reporting what others say, not our own opinions. (And we can save our discussion energy for which sources to use as examples.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would consider a coup to be an attempt by a group of high ranking government officials to suddenly seize the reigns of power, generally by posing a threat to the life or freedom of the existing leader. The storming was not by government officials and did not appear to have their support to take control of the government. It also seems that most of the people who broke in were not there in some sort of an attempt to take control of the government. As such the 'coup' label is unhelpful to readers. I am more supportive of insurrection, especially given its use by NPR and AP. Generally speaking, this seems most similar to Euro-Midan. ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Also, Biden used that term.

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

What these guys did was really stupid. I would put that in the article if I could. For now there is only speculation about insurecction or conspiracyt. I'm joining others in voting wait and see. Spudlace (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There is tremendous clarity regarding what happened due to the incredible amount of journalistic activity and coverage, and the public nature of the events. The pseudo-revolution was televised and it amounted to an insurrection. This is what the RS are expressing at this point. This is not to say that what took place isn't a storming, but the storming is the 'how' to the 'what' - the insurrection... which does not have to be smart. This standard amuses me. This event will not be remembered as stupid but as painful and frightening to people all around the world. Alalch Emis (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • not a coup There are some mainstream sources and dedicated articles that the event was not a coup. A problem with "a coup or not a coup, that is the question" is because of strong feelings of journalists, some have been very forceful to call it a coup. With polarization, nobody wants to compromise. To me, it was a riot but there was no concerted efforts common in a coup. That could change with a FBI investigation. How exactly was the man with the fur hat and horns going to be King of the US? And the man with his feet on Speaker Pelosi's desk; did he have secret plans to be the new Speaker of the House? The problem with the above list is that many of the articles have become politicized so that they are no longer reliable sources. That is sad to see. Vowvo (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Federal law enforcement assistance of Trump

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

Insurrection?

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

What is an insurrection? "Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers." [26] How is the occupation of the capitol "violence against the state or its officers"? Certainly, it is the primary inflammatory term associated with the event. But is it accurate? Jrb1tx (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is very accurate.... many news used the word, "insurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, insurrection is the term most used by reliable sources. Only Fox news calls it a "storming" in attempts to romanticise the event and build support for a Trump pardon for the participants. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the decision was to wait for a week to see what the event is to be referred as. Many reliable sources started using the word "insurrection" at the Capitol more consistency now. I assume at some point, the article will be moved to 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol, right? Here are just a few examples:

Media
  • NPR created a news category called "Insurrection At The Capitol"[27]
  • PBS Classroom resource: Three ways to teach the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol[28]
  • Tampa Bay Times "insurrection at the Capitol"[29]
  • Fortune "the insurrection at the Capitol"[30]
  • National Geographic "the Capital insurrection"[31]
  • The Guardian's First Thing "insurrection at the Capitol"[32]
  • Aljazeera "US Capitol insurrection"[33]
Politicians from both parties
  • Statement of President George W. Bush on "Insurrection at the Capitol"[34]
  • Mitt Romney on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (NYTimes)[35]
  • Joe Biden on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (Sydney Morning Herald)[36]
Discussion and event names
  • Hammer Museum "Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s Next?"[37]
  • University of Denver "Insurrection at the Capitol"[38]

An important reliable source is from the the Congress. The Article of Impeachment describes the event as an insurrection which had 4 elements in it:[39][40]

  • Beaching and vandalizing of the Capitol
  • Injuring and killed law enforcement personnel
  • Menacing the Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel
  • Engaging in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts

I think the word breaching is similar to the current word "storming" that is used as the title. That is just one element of the overall event in which it is known in the article as an insurrection. By leaving the title to just one element of the event, it may not capture the overall picture of what it is as many reliable sources now describe the overall event than just as the "storming" part of it. Z22 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The second Trump impeachment WAS for him "inciting an insurrection" and it is now in the history books. So how is this not the most appropriate description for what happened at the Capitol now? RobP (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That was a coup d'état

I am looking at this new article in CNN, Investigators looking into planning of Capitol riot. Indeed, it is highly probable that the planning and participation involved well prepared groups of rioters in all gear (they even brought restraints to capture the members of Congress, just as they wanted to capture the Michigan governor), some police (who did not stop the mob and allowed everyone to leave when the rioters realized that lawmakers are gone), possibly some Pentagon officials (who did not sent the guard even after the request by DC mayor), and possibly even Republican lawmakers and the president. There is a lot of chat about it, including even some analysis by Michael Moore and separately by Yuri Shvets who is definitely an expert (here (Russian)). The purpose of the coup was to prevent the inauguration of new president. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. A coup d'état attempt (so far).
The Capitol siege was planned online. Trump supporters are now planning the next one
"Given the very clear and explicit warning signs – with Trump supporters expressing prior intent to “storm and occupy Congress” and use “handcuffs and zip ties,” clear plans being laid out on public forums, and the recent precedent of the plot to storm the Michigan Capitol building while Congress was in session – it is truly mind-boggling that the police were not better-prepared,” said Rita Katz, executive director of SITE Intelligence Group, which was among the research groups that detailed what was coming in the weeks before the Capitol was attacked. It recapped much of this evidence in a report published Saturday." ... "ARMED MARCH ON CAPITOL HILL & ALL STATE CAPITOLS” for Jan. 17, the last Sunday of Trump’s polarizing presidency."
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, wrote the book Strongmen: How They Rise, Why They Succeed, How They Fall: “Historian of coups and right-wing authoritarians here. If there are not severe consequences for every lawmaker & Trump govt official who backed this, every member of the Capitol Police who collaborated with them, this 'strategy of disruption' will escalate in 2021.”
This Is a Coup. Why Were Experts So Reluctant to See It Coming?
Fascinatingly, fascist-natingly, the Defense Department is referring to the pro-Trump riot as “the January 6, 2021 1st Amendment Protests.” https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/1/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC.pdf ← This memo tells you all you need to know.--217.234.68.109 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! In particular, this interview] with Ruth Ben-Ghiat is very helpful. This might be a bifurcation point in US history. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You are welcomen ;-) Ben-Ghiat: "I’m very worried that this... “armed march” being planned for January 17th around the nation. And once you legitimize and give a presidential imprimatur to extremism, and once you convince — you plant people throughout federal agencies, you know, you radicalize law enforcement, as Bill Barr, who stepped away but has a huge amount of responsibility for this, it’s very hard to turn this back." Remenber, No public appearances with remarks from the AG or FBI director. Capitol Police haven’t held a single briefing. DHS secretary just stepped down. All since a mob just stormed the Capitol. --217.234.74.185 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
And what they are going to do next? "They were talking about 4,000 armed 'patriots' to surround the Capitol" [41]. Who knows? In 1999 Putin and his comrades arranged a series of terrorist acts to grab the power (that page was fixed for "neutrality" by one of Russian-speaking accounts [42]). My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Speaking more about coups, the leader must have a support by organizations like the army, the secret police or political Parties in order to succeed. Neither seem to be the case here, except only supremacist organizations and some Republicans. However, this is hard to say with certainty at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


Not a coup. When this was taking place, lots of names were used. Now, I don't see coup used a lot or at all. These leads me to believe that WP:RS reliable sources dictate we not use coup. The same thing with assassination. Now there's a news report that someone wrote on social media about assassinating AOC. Terrible. However, that does NOT mean this article should be retitled "2021 Assassination attempt on AOC in the Capitol". Vowvo (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

French-speaking sources cited

I am a native French speaker, and it seems that some French newspapers in the list above don't actually qualify this event as a coup, but as a « coup de force », which Wiktionary defines as “A suddent, violent act.” The word “coup” in English would be translated as « coup d’état » instead. The affected sources are Le monde diplomatique (both), BFM TV, Orange, Euronews, Ouest-France, and La Voix du Nord (which uses « coup d’état » in citations only). Also, I couldn’t verify the citation for the France Info article, “Pro-Trump coup” is just « États-Unis » in the title of the article on my computer. In fact, the article says that « Didier Combeau estime qu’il s’agit plus “d’une manifestation d’extrémistes peu nombreux” qu’une tentative [sic] coup d’État » (“Didier Combeau believes that it is more “a menifestation of few extremists’ than a coup attempt.”) Nicolapps (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have verified that "coup de force" indeed does not correspond to "coup d'etat". Therefore I have removed the following sources from the list:
-- Alalch Emis (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Nicolapps (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
NOTFORUM and Civility violation

Please remember that news outlets use sensational words to describe an event in order to get the attention of the viewers. Those that were protesting wanted their voice to be heard. Just a portion of the people that attended the demonstration were violent. Most of if not all of the priceless works of art were untouched. There were many videos of people in the capital just mulling around like they were on a guided tour. Almost in awe of their surroundings. The love of their country and their freedoms brought them to the capital. Many did not heed the words of the president when he asked his supporters to be peaceful. If it was a coup, who was the one calling for it? If it was an insurrection where is the evidence. The news outlets use those terms, but they do not provide any proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBehaving (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You sweet, summer child. What sort of dull-eyed thugs are needed to overthrow the nation and keep power? The current president will use any support he can find, and did so, and as it became ugly, he reveled in what he had unleashed. In the Rwanda genocide, leaders announced over radio it was time to "cut down the tall trees". They don't say 'Ok, let's quite precisely knock on the door and demand control of the democracy.' I do think "Hang Mike Pence" is no construction of sensational words by a click-seeking media. This is technically a "reverse coup" I guess. I'm glad they only wanted to murder the vice president, rather than destroy priceless art. I don't believe they love this particular country, which is a democracy. And crushing the skull of a policeman isn't embracing freedoms. This is a coup attempt in plain sight, with all the ingredients. Mcfnord (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote earlier, a coup implies some actions by regular military or organization by ruling elites. If the action is done purely by normal civilians, no matter what their intentions are, no matter how organized they are, would still be an insurrection and not a coup, and as I pointed out there are other Wikipedia articles of similar events in Armenia and Serbia which aren't even called insurrections, but called protests. Media outlets may use sensationalist terminology to grab people's attention, or purposefully imply that the action was a coup, even if that is more flowery language. That being said, if there was any media outlet that proves the action was done by military or specifically orchestrated by Trump as an attempt to disband congress, then yes it would be a coup. So far, all we have proved is that Trump incited or inspired the action, and some police were delayed a few hours before intervening, and that's pretty much it right now. In fact, if the people are calling for hanging Mike Pence, who is absolutely in Trump's camp, that kind of invalidates the claim of it being an elite-orchestrated event, and therefore invalidating it being called a coup. QED. LutherVinci (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC) (forgot to log in earlier)
@LutherVinci: Having the military being involved is a common misconception; it just requires a violent attempt to overthrow a government. The New Yorker actually hypothesized a similar example in October 2020, stating "For example, Trump could summon federal agents or his supporters to stop a recount or intimidate voters. According to some experts, this would constitute an autogolpe, or 'self-coup'". This is almost what happened on January 6. However, it seems that the event has been consistently described as an "insurrection" by reliable sources, so we should use that description and then make comments about the term "coup" in the body.--WMrapids (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@WMrapids as your source says, mobilizing federal agents would be a coup, and I would agree, because again that would be actions by elite authorities (even if not technically military). As you pointed out, that is "almost" what happened on January 6, but ultimately federal agents were deployed to recapture the Capital and arrest the rioters, and therefore no elites were involved in the insurrection. LutherVinci (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is what the United States government has declared took place.

Time to change the headline

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-news-01-12-21/h_ff48d5c57b86031716423f4c0b8b9940

--Caffoti (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

cnn is explaining the difference between sedition a coup d'etat and an insurrection. ://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/insurrection-coup-sedition-meaning-trnd/index.html

Riot or Insurrection/Coup Attempt

One more important distinction, no one has been arrested and/or charged with the crime of treason, insurrection, or for a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.167.165 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above is simply not true. Famously, the president of the United States has been charged with the crime of "insurrection of the United States" when he was impeached by the US House of Representatives. Univremonster (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The "2021"

Should we keep the "2021" in the upcoming title "Insurrection at the United States Capitol" (i.e. it would be titled "2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol")?

BobTheBob45 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

See below. The proposed title under discussion is Insurrection at the United States Capitol. --RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the proposals to rename the page as the "2021 insurrection of the United States Capitol. Most media outlets have now switched the term "insurrection" over "storming" and Congress has officially adopted the term in their articles of impeachment ("incitement of insurrection"). It would therefore make sense for Wikipedia to fall in line with this more accurate consistency. Golfpecks256 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Court findings from greatly acceptable sources

[43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Using list-defined refs?

I'd like to consider using list-defined references on this article. I've noticed a lot of references get orphaned due to editor error, and list-defined references mitigate this issue. Additionally, list-defined refs help make the Wikitext more readable. Any thoughts? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please no. List-defined references are a pain. You need to search all up and down the article to find or add a reference - insert it here, cite it there - instead of being able to do all your research and citing within the space of a single section. The references are entered in random order down in the list; good luck finding the one you want to view or edit, in an article with 470 references. And if you remove a text citation, the reference remains in the list as an orphan. Also, although this doesn't affect me, I see that list-defined references do not work for anyone using the visual editor. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Named references, on the other hand, can be quite easy to use (I don't use visual editor). The ref stays with the content, and is removed upon the last use of the ref. See Remove numbering from id/href when reference name is defined on MediaWiki. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC to gain consensus for a follow-on Wikipedia:RM

Move requests are the domain of WP:RM. There should not be two concurrent RMs open at the same time, which is what this RfC effectively is doing. The entire set up (quasi-RM RfC) is too unconventional and shouldn't be repeated again. El_C 04:00, 25 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.

This RFC is meant to gain consensus for a follow-on Wikipedia:RM. The current title was, per the closer, a temporary solution. Current discussion and a currently open move request concerns the use of riot, attack, or storming. I would ask that you vote on the following choices and, if you favor two or more, to rank your votes.

  • Choice A Use the term attack, as in the title 2021 United States Capitol attack
  • Choice B Use the term riot, as in the title 2021 United States Capitol riot
  • Choice C Use the term storming, as in the current title.

Second, a yes or no question:

Discussion

  • Support both Choice A and Choice B, in that order. Oppose keeping Choice C. On the second question, no, the title does not require the year.
Doing a title search on google news gives you clear results on what WP:RSes are naming the event
riot used 67,700 times,
attack is used 193,000 times,
storming is used 6,340 times.
That is good evidence, to me, that both riot and attack are acceptable, but attack is slightly better. I would also note the connection of storm and the QAnon.
No. For the year vote, I would argue that the event is notable enough that it does not require a year and excluding it better meets the standards of WP:TITLE. I think WP:NOYEAR works here because of the importance of the event. Casprings (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: I would be curious how attack fails either one of the policies you mentioned.Casprings (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Same thought here. Can you explain how WP:CONSISTENT in particular applies? VQuakr (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a typo, has been fixed
Grammer wise, it should be capitol as it is a reference to the building (see: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capital-vs-capitol/) That said, I don’t think that should take away from the overall argument and if there are other grammer arguments, we can discuss them. That hasn’t been the major hang up in gaining consensus.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
reely??? — Alalch Emis 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. A Capitol is the word for the building. Capital is the word for the city where the building is.Casprings (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Casprings: In Choice B, you had written 2021 United States Capital riot. That's why Qexigator asked. I've fixed it. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: Thank you. Sorry I missed that.Casprings (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Thanoscar21: You can vote for attack right away, there is an actual RM for attack (and other names) right above. This RfC is potentially misleading in how it's framed. It promises a "follow-on RM" but it's very possible that the result of this RfC will have no bearing on it, because the current RM could have a lasting effect and determine the future of the naming process, if any. — Alalch Emis 02:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no RM for "attack". There's an RM for "riot". This talk page is such a mess... — Chrisahn (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Meta-Discussion

I think this RFC should be closed. We have a RM discussion above. Then someone added a table. Then someone closed the table. Then someone opened it again. This RFC asks the same question as the table, just in a different format. It will only make the discussion even less focused. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It asks it in a way that people have to make clear choices and rank their choices. Moreover, it expands the discussion beyond the people taking part in the move and takes it out to a wider population of Wikipedia editors. In sum, more editors and more structure.Casprings (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This RfC absolutely should be closed as I stated above. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this RfC is made in good faith but is not helpful at this time and should be closed. There are suggestions above for a more general survey of proposed titles that may prove to be more helpful. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
MelanieN you seem to be soft- forum shopping (buying support) for your negativist view of the current RM by evading substantive discussion on its' reach and functioning where that discussion is actually being held (the long "meta" subsection underneath the table). The current RM is the more general survey. — Alalch Emis 16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: Whoa there. Calm down. I really appreciate your contributions to the current and previous RM. Good job! But this comment looks like you should take a breath and relax. We all may not always agree on how to make sure that these messy discussions remain productive, but there's no reason to accuse other editors of stuff like that. Take it easy. Or at least a bit more easy. :-) Cheers! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
RFC’s typically stay open for 30 days. I think we know enough about the various fault lines. It seems pretty clear that the current move request is moving towards no consensus. There is no reason we can’t use this to get a clear poll and finish or do other move requests as consensus develops.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
As I already mentioned, this RfC will not be helpful; it should be closed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It is not clear at all that the current RM is moving toward no consensus. — Alalch Emis 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If it does, so what? I support a move to riot over the current title. Still a decent way to move towards a long term name.Casprings (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Somedifferentstuff: No, close the RM instead. It's FUBAR. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@VQuakr: I was attempting to work with you, but we'll have to agree to disagree. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The table is more easy to read, the RFC does not include "insurrection".... it should be added to Choice D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I excluded that because of the last RFC that used that term. It had its own RFC, so I didn't see the need.Casprings (talk) 00:27, 25 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 reidirect

Should 2021 United States Capitol insurrection redirect here? They are both about the same topic anyways. - Cilabsuhsk (talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. There already is. - Cilabsuhsk (talk | contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Day of Broken Glass" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Day of Broken Glass. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Day of Broken Glass until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop discussions about moving the page

They are becoming a distraction. --Robertiki (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that you just started a discussion about moving the page.     ....and it distracted me. 24.10.153.160 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for that. I will refrain from opening more :-) --Robertiki (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop collapsing discussions with edits of others

This is a talk page, not a article page. I ask the editors to remove the collapse templates they put in. --Robertiki (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one responsible for collapsing that part of the page, but I uncollapsed it for your convenience. I don't feel like uncollapsing the technical subsections above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

change: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss and displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind."[1]

to: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind."[2]

reason: The prior citation improperly stated that during the CNN broadcast Jim Acosta had stated that Trump's displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force was a reason why Trump was out of his mind according to a white house staffer. I have provided the citation to Jim Acosta's original broadcast on CNN to support the rest of the sentence. That broadcast does not include the white house staffer talking about Trump's supporters' attempt to overturn the election result. 65.130.60.135 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Publius V Publicola (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brigham, Bob (January 6, 2021). "Trump is 'fuming mad' after unsuccessful insurrection – aide says he has 'lost it': reports". Raw Story. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved January 10, 2021.
  2. ^ Acosta, Jim (6 January 2021). "Senior White House Correspondant". CNN. No. The Presidential Election Congress Counts the Vote. Internet Archive. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

'Excessive citations' tags in infobox

I see at least two 'excessive citation' tags in the infobox, neither of which follow a string of citations, so I'm curious if the tags still apply. Shall we remove? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so; one of them has seven bundled citations: [44], while the other one has five bundled citations: [45]. If anything, we should reduce the citations. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
David O. Johnson, Ah, sorry, I did not realize the citations had multiple sources, I assumed the tags were added because of a string of citations. Make sense, thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI report that the capitol assault was preplanned

Every media outlet has reported in a statement by the FBI that there is evidence the assault on Capital Hill on January 6th 2021 was pre-planned. Few actors have been revealed. It is misinformation on the part of Wikipedia to publish a blanket statement that this assault was carried out by an angry mob of Donald Trump supporters. One man, John Sullivan, who posted numerous videos on fb and twitter under his moniker "InsurrectionUSA" was instructional videos with specific details on what to do on January 6th. Time. What to wear. What to bring. When and where to meet. He was arrest and charged with inciting something that day, and released without bail. Jillnage (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Breaking news items aren't always incorporated into articles immediately. But we can't report allegations made in indictments as fact, either. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Section above headed "Refs in lead and 'Prior intelligence' section (Oath Keepers)" mentions edits intended to include some reference to this in the lead, including my edit at 23:31, 22 January, with a few words added to the first paragraph, to read "Some rioters had earlier planned aggressive action, [refs] and the riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and five deaths". with the edit summary necessary link in the abbreviated sequence of events. [46]This is still open for discussion. Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? I read something similar on a Politico article but the FBI affidavit it uses as a source doesn't claim that. it says that the Proud Boys planned to attend the demonstration and that some were seen with what seemed to be communication devices (probably cellphones with earbuds). Their leader asked members to wear black according although it's unclear if they actually did. And John Sullivan is a left-wing activist who apparently came alone. His videos were taken at the Capitol not beforehand. TFD (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: a.k.a TDF : John Sullivan is NOT a "left-wing activist" - Read → John Earle Sullivan → "Federal authorities had not identified Sullivan as a member of antifa and the FBI had announced on January 8 there was no evidence of antifa involvement in the siege. Black Lives Matters Utah had for months disassociated itself from Sullivan on concerns he might be associated with the Proud Boys." Grayzone → His brother is Proud Boy James Sullivan, the founder of a right-wing outfit called ″Civilized Awakening″ and a close ally of the Proud Boys, James Sullivan described John to me as an “agitator” who suffers from mental health issues and is driven by an insatiable desire for media celebrity. Their father is a retired Army Lt. Col. --87.170.202.52 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Article lead is too long

The lead of this article is seven paragraphs. The general rule for lead lengths is no longer than four paragraphs. The main body of text, that is, the lead plus the sections minus the references takes up about 50% of the whole page. The lead is severely bloated compared to how much body there is. The lead is way larger than all the other subsections respectively. A correct size would probably be 2-3 paragraphs. Writing this much in the lead may be motivated by some editors to introduce as much bias as possible where most people (only) read. Lukan27 (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I was with you up until "Writing this much in the lead may be motivated by some editors to introduce as much bias as possible ". We comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I say "may" for a reason. Also please note that I didn't say which kind of bias. Nevertheless, the lead is too long. Lukan27 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
So do you have any concrete suggestions as to what should be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that removing some information about opinion polls about Republican support. Not that it isn't significant (and frankly disturbing) information, but the lead here really should just summarize the event. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The attack was incited not only by D.Trump, but by many his fellow Republicans, including senators who promoted same lies about the results of elections. That should be noted. No wonder, they will now protect Trump from impeachment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the lead is pretty good, but I agree that it should be shortened a bit. In each paragraph there are one or two sentences that we could remove, and after that we could maybe merge some paragraphs. In the end, the lead would probably be 30% to 40% shorter and have maybe five paragraphs instead of seven. But: I think it's too early to do that. More precisely: I considered posting a long list of suggested cuts for each paragraph here, but I expect that would only lead to a heated and uproductive debate. Also, WP:RS still publish new information about the events every day. In conclusion: Yes, the lead should be shortened, but we should do it after things have cooled down (which I guess will take a few more weeks). — Chrisahn (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
In relation to bias, the lead being a summary of the article's body, has to present the bias of the body, that should itself present the bias of reliable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

With a subject this complex, I think having a lead that's a little longer than normal is probably ok. See the edit history of the article Brexit as an example. The brexit article at one time had a very long lead and over time was eventually shortened after continuous review and the article being broken out into sub articles. This article is similar and also deals with a complex subject and as such having a longer lead is necessary to properly address all the issues dealing with the event. Over time and as the article content is broken out into sub-articles or condensed then it will become clearer how to make the lead more concise. For now, the longer lead helps readers summarize the relevant issues raised by the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that a sentence on the end result (the "... and led to" formulation: failure of the aggressors and subsequent orderly transition, plus perhaps impeachment) should be included already at the end of the first paragraph. The first paragraph in articles on historic topics such as large protests, revolutions, wars etc. tends to sound more conclusive, and establish significance more immediately. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Remember that this article is under a 1RR restriction as it deals with American politics and any edits you make can be reverted and you are not allowed to reinstate them unless they have been brought to the talk page and consensus reached. You also are not allowed to revert any editors challenge of your edits. See WP:BRD on how this is done. Since you are a new editor I wanted to respectfully remind you of that. Happy editing. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur with the sentiments above that it may be too early to have a short lede. Identifying the most salient features of a topic is not easy when that topic is still developing. Premature attempts at optimization will lead to squabbles and headaches more than to clarity, I suspect. XOR'easter (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly concur. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a lead section slightly longer than 4 paragraphs is not necessarily an issue now. I'd like to point out, however, that the lead right now could likely be condensed into 4-5 paragraphs just by reorganizing and combining information into clearly delineated paragraphs. I've tried to do so in my suggestion below - I've done a few things including condensed/shortened some sentences, as well as reorganized it by topic. Please note I've removed references from this to enable it to be more easily viewed on this talkpage - they'd have to be worked in if my suggestion is considered good. The loose organization of my proposed lead is this: overall summary > specific events > response > reaction. The only information/sentences I intentionally left out of this "new lead" are duplication of information - such as the fact that the looting is discussed in three separate points. If I left out any other sentences/information in this reorganization, please feel free to add it or edit as you see fit. My point here is to show that the information in the lead can all be kept while reorganizing allows it to flow better and fit a four paragraph lead - which can be extended to five if people feel necessary. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, while the 117th United States Congress was meeting to certify the electoral college victory of President-elect Joe Biden. Part of a series of wider protests of the 2020 election results, the riot consisted of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president of thee United States, in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the election. Upon outside security being breached, Capitol Police evacuated the Senate and House of Representative chambers, and several other buildings in the complex were also evacuated or locked down. Rioters, who were called to action by Trump by claims the election had been "stolen" from him, stormed the building and occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. Many of the rioters became violent, assaulting Capitol Police officers and reporters, erecting a gallows on the grounds, and attempting to locate lawmakers (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) to take hostage and/or harm.

On the morning of January 6, thousands of Trump's supporters gathered in Washington D.C. for a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, where Trump repeated his false claims of election irregularities and encouraged the crowd to "fight like hell". Rioters, encouraged by Trump, walked to the Capitol in an attempt to encourage Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results of the Electoral College vote, which he lacked the constitutional authority to do. Rioters blamed Mike Pence for not attempting to override the Electoral College votes, and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" during the breach. Once inside the building, the empty Senate chamber was occupied by rioters, and federal law enforcement officers defended the evacuated House floor with handguns. Multiple improvised explosive devices were found near the Capitol grounds, in a nearby vehicle, as well as at the respective offices of the Democratic and Republican national committees. Multiple office spaces within the Capitol building were looted, including that of the House Speaker and other lawmakers. Five people died during the riot and occupation of the Capitol building, including 4 rioters and one police officer.

Trump initially resisted activating the D.C. National Guard to quell the mob of rioters, and in a Twitter video called the rioters "very special" and told them to "go home in peace" while repeating his false claims of a "stolen" election. After several hours, the Capitol was cleared of rioters by mid-evening, and the counting of electoral votes resumed and continued until its completion in the early morning hours of the next day. This was followed by Mike Pence declaring Biden the President-elect and Kamala Harris the Vice President-elect and affirming that the pair would assume office on January 20. After pressure from his administration, including the threat of removal from office and multiple resignations by his cabinet, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a televised statement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation later opened at least 170 investigations into participants in the events, and indicated that many more are likely to be initiated. Members of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government paramilitary group, were indicted on conspiracy charges for their allegedly planning the mission in advance. Dozens more who were involved have been found to be listed in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, most as suspected white supremacists.

The events were widely condemned by political leaders and organizations in the United States and internationally. Mitch McConnell (R–KY), Senate Majority Leader, called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" provoked by the president's "lies" and said that the Senate "will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation". Several social media and technology companies suspended or banned Trump's accounts from their platforms, and many business organizations cut ties with him. A week after the riot, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for "incitement of insurrection", making him the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. Opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans disapproved of the riot and storming, and of Trump's actions prior to, during, and following the event.

Rather than focusing on the lead, at this point I would suggest reviewing where the article can be broken out into sub articles and this should be the first exercise. You are not going to get consensus currently and the current lead is the result of many editors refinement and consensus, and a lone editor will only end up in an edit war with a large number of users. We should first determine which issues would be placed in other articles, then based on that, the lead modified. At the present time I would leave the lead alone until after the second impeachment trial concludes other than minor edits. A wholesale rewriting of the current lead is unnecessary and will result in disruption and edit warring. There is currently no requirement we impose an artificial limit on the article lead and shorten it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Collapsed: unproductive discussion
Octoberwoodland, this is not a rewriting, but a reorganization. There is no edit war, because I'm proposing this here and have no intention of editing it into the article without consensus. Your suggestion that "it's impossible now" is just absurd - anything's possible if people actually sit down and look at this. I'll note that you provided no argument against this reorganization - meaning you are part of the problem as to why it's not possible to make the lead more concise and better organized. I'll repeat - I didn't (intentionally) remove any information - and a simple reorganization to make it flow better and meet WP:LEADLENGTH guidelines should not be something you simply oppose to oppose change. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not for me or you to unilaterally decide to overturn the result of hundreds of editors consensus by a lone editor who disagrees. It's also clear based on the discussion there is no consensus to do what you propose. You are welcome to try it, but the current lead is quite excellent and concise, and I and others will most probably revert and challenge your edits. This is a large and complex issue and having a lead which completely embraces the subject matter of the article is a good thing. If it's not broken don't fix it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Octoberwoodland, excuse me? There has been no discussion on my proposal yet - and I'm not attempting to "overturn the result of hundreds of editors consensus". Again, I did not (intentionally) remove any information from the lead, and I left the wording virtually identical as I could while combining pieces of related information that are currently fragmented/spread across the lead. It is broken - the lead is fragmented, information is duplicated in multiple places, and it could be made more clear and concise by doing what I propose. I'll ask you this bluntly - if you have no actual policy based reason to oppose my proposal, please refrain from attempting to stifle discussion thereof simply because you don't like it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please just drop it and move on and stop trying to ice skate uphill. There is no requirement the lead be butchered to meet your particular view or your opinion as to whether or not the lead is too long. Even the organization and ordering of the current lead is the result of many editors consensus. The question is this, does what you propose with the lead an improvement of Wikipedia? No. Turn the page, next chapter. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Octoberwoodland, I'll ask you again - in what way is this a "butchering" of the lead? And it's not my opinion - the guideline (agreed upon by a project-wide consensus which overrules any local consensus here) is that a lead should virtually always be no more than 4 paragraphs. Yes, my lead improves it by removing duplicate information and by organizing it in a logical manner that makes it easier to read. Again, if you do not have any objection other than "i don't like it", please let others comment here. I will not "stop" just because you, one editor, seems to dislike the proposal for no concrete reason. I'll note that your attempts to "bully" me into stopping are inappropriate conduct on a talk page, and if you continue I intend to seek an admin to intervene in this bullying behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
So if someone disagrees with you it's "inappropriate conduct"? There have been concrete responses, you simply ignore them. Like I said, if what you propose is an improvement to Wikipedia, it will stand. If it's not, it will be opposed. Current consensus of this thread is that it is opposed. 1RR on this article which means any two editors can revert your proposed change. I don't think what you are proposing is an improvement, nor is it supported by consensus and I will challenge it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, it's supported by MOS:LEADLENGTH, which is a project-wide consensus which overrides any local consensus for a longer lead here, unless there is some exceptional instance which WP:IAR would apply. Again, I have no intent to add this without a consensus here - hence why I proposed it here - and thus your comments as to 1RR and such are not only unwelcome but are chilling in that you're attempting to "warn me" against this when I've already said I'm going to wait for a consensus here. I'll note that in the discussion in this section, at least three editors (including myself) have expressed their view that a reorganization is appropriate, while not removing any information, while a few editors have said that it may be a "headache" but have not directly opposed a reorganization. This will be the third time I've asked you - and I don't intend to reply further if you refuse to discuss this - what exactly do you have a problem with my reorganization - what information is missing/inaccurate/etc? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
If a policy or procedure prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Consensus is that a longer lead with such a complex topic is ok. The current lead is excellent and the result of consensus of hundreds of editors. What you propose is not an improvement of the lead. Please remember why we are all here -- to improve Wikipedia. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed this conversation on my watchlist and before reading the thread, I read the lead of the article. I think the current lead does a very good job of summarizing the article and the topic, although the wording can probably be tightened up in a few spots. I do not know when the "four paragraphs" standard was added, and I had thought that six paragraph leads were commonplace for well developed articles on complex and important topics. I think that it is way too soon to cut the lead dramatically. Keep in mind that most people read only the lead of long, detailed articles, and not the entire article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328 nothing was "cut" from the lead, it was simply only reorganized to make sure that people can read it and get the information in a concise and organized manner. If you had read my introduction to this proposal, you may have seen that. If you notice some piece of information that was cut in my proposal, please point it out. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Berchanhimez, My comment is in reply to the section heading "Article lead is too long" and the earliest comment. I am not criticizing your suggestions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328, my apologies if it came across as I felt you were criticizing without a comment - I was a little irritated with the above editor and I appreciate your comments - feel free to move yours (and mine) where you think they best fit, and I'll leave this as a note that my comment in response may not be applicable to wherever you move it (in which case it's my error and forgive me for indenting your comment). I would appreciate your comment on my proposal if you see feit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
If October revolution can have 4 paragraphs, and French Revolution and American War of Independence can have 5, so can this article (4 or 5, preferably 4). It currently has 7. At least one paragraph should be folded into the first paragraph, to make the first paragraph less unsubstantial and inconclusive, while also avoiding repetition of information. There isn't a timetable on this naturally, I agree with Octoberwoodland in everything, but a gradual process of condensing it should begin at some point — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Future move requests for this page should be multi-move requests

A procedural detail: Since this page has several daughter pages, a move request for this page should be a {{multi-move request}}. See WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages.

For example, if there is a request to move this page to 2021 United States Capitol XYZ, the wikitext for this request should look like this: 

{{subst:Requested move|2021 United States Capitol XYZ|reason= ...
|current2 = Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new2 = Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
|current3 = Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new3 = Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
|current4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
|current5 = International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
|new5 = International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ
}}

— Chrisahn (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should take a break on RM requests for at least 30 days. I plan to vote Procedural Close if there are any more. We cannot keep having them over and over again. It's clear there will be no consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on if and when we should have another RM, but if there is one, it should be a multi-move request. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
We just did a multi-move request with the Survey table -- it failed. Refactoring the request with an RM template is no different and will have the same result. We need to let the dust settle around this article until after the impeachment trial, then it may have calmed down enough to make some progress. I appreciate your attempt but we just had a multiple title RM. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. The survey had nothing to do with a multi-move request. A multi-move request means that multiple pages will be moved at once. Please have a look at the daughter pages of this page and WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I got that. So instead of one article which will not get consensus, we are going to propose the same thing with multiple pages which will most probably not gain consensus. Let's try this after the impeachment trial. By that time things will have settled down.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mean to advocate for a new move request here (just that if there is one, it should take into account the daughter pages), but I realized that the second sentence in this section sounded like I did. I changed it. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: don't bother, we don't need the added complexity. Just focus on the name of this article. The subsequent daughter article moves will be non-contentious afterwards. More generally, we have a fairly consistently-employed process and format for move requests; there is no need to re-invent that wheel. See KISS principle. VQuakr (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not re-inventing anything. I'm all for using established processes. That's why I pointed to {{multi-move request}}. A multi-move request would reduce overall complexity, wouldn't it? It would take care of this page and the four daughter pages in one fell swoop. If we have a successful RM for this page that's not a multi-move, we'd still have to start RMs for the daughter pages, right? Sure, they'd be unlikely to be contested, but what if not? And these RMs would be extra work anyway. When I saw {{multi-move request}}, it looked like it's the established process for a case like this, so I think we should use it. But I don't have much experience with RMs, so maybe I'm mistaken. — Chrisahn (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the way to go would be first to move this article and then to multi-move the others as a necessary consequence. Meantime, Storm it is for maybe a month of Sundays, and the discussions here may be seen later as a contest between Tempest in a teapot (AM.Eng) and Storm in a Teacup (Br.Eng.) with a few outliers such as Storm in a wash-hand basin and Storm in a glass of (clean or dirty} water. Qexigator (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
If only the mass media knew about the high drama on this talk page, we'd soon have enough material to write about the 2021 storming of a puddle of muddied water. Looking forward to it. :-) And thanks for linking to that movie! Looks interesting. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The role of the "Proud Boys"

The far-right group Proud Boys have tried to downplay their role in the Capitol riot. The Proud Boys are a paramilitary group with ties to Trump operative Roger Stone. They have long been some of Trump’s most vocal, and violent, supporters, and he has returned the favor, telling them during one of the presidential debates to “stand back and stand by.” - Enrique Tarrio, Proud chairman, "standing by sir", close friend of Roger Stone, arrested by Washington, D.C. police on 4 January 2021

A WSJ Investigation shows that at many of the day’s key moments, "Proud Boys" were at the center and forefront. 7 of their members have been arrested. So far.

  • Eddie Block - the life-streamer
  • Joseph "Joe" Biggs - U.S. Army veteran, coordinating with a radio, led about 100 men on an angry march from the site of Trump’s speech toward — and then into — the Capitol building
  • Dan "Milkshake" Scott - shouting "Take the fucking Capitol"
  • Dominic "Spazzo" Pezzola - was one of the first people to shatter a window at the Capitol
  • Michael Porter
  • Robert Gieswein, spraying the police with some kind of mace
  • Ethan Nordean
  • Nicholas Ochs
  • Gabriela Garcia

Planned coordinated attack...

The rioting at the Capitol was a planned attack, involving Antifa, involving the Capitol police who were caught on camera directing the "rioters" and opening the fencing so they could enter. This was a planned attack to give the powers to be another fake reason to try and impeach President Donald J Trump. President Trump NEVER said to his supporters to storm the Capitol, that is a lie that he incited the riot. He instructed and asked for a peaceful march showing unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.46.247 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortened overlong heading. Qexigator (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I await your reliable sources with bated breath.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Is User talk:173.30.46.247 losing her/his mooring on reality? Please, read → John Earle Sullivan → "Federal authorities had not identified Sullivan as a member of antifa and the FBI had announced on January 8 there was no evidence of antifa involvement in the siege. Black Lives Matters Utah had for months disassociated itself from Sullivan on concerns he might be associated with the Proud Boys." --93.211.212.124 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Emergence of current name 18:34, 6 Jan - 08:01, 7 Jan

Before the next more name change discussion gets going, we could recall that the current name was adopted in the first hours of intensive input to the article, from the time when the article was opened at 18:34 on 6 January‎ as a one-liner: "On January 6, 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election."

  • at 20:17, 6 January the page moved from January 2021 Donald Trump rally to January 2021 United States Capitol protests
  • at 20:24, 6 January a proposal to move to 'January 2021 storming of the United States Capitol' was discussed, and many more discussions about name change followed
  • by midnight,
A request to change the title to '2021 storming of the United States Capitol' was under discussion
The lead had four paragraphs and there were four main sections: 1 Background. 2 Events in District of Columbia. 3 Outside the District of Columbia. 4 Reactions. In 2 there were four subsections: 2.1 "Save America" rally. 2.2 Mob storming of the Capitol Building. 2.3. National Guard and evacuation of Capitol. 2.4 Aftermath.
  • the Talk page had 49 sections, and there was a section 94 for 'Closed discussions re page title'. with a set of collapsed sections.
  • at 08:01, 7 January the page moved to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
  • at 08:06, 7 January at Talk page: 'The RM has been closed with "2021 storming of the United States Capitol". '

Qexigator (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) minor update edit 21:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Coup d'état#Post discussion comment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Coup d'état#Post discussion comment. Beneficii (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is full of unverifiable information

Not a forum to share your views, theories, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article leaves out very important facts, such as the presence of antifa and the Capitol Police inviting people to enter the Capitol, all of which has been captured on video. Where are the sources to prove the allegations that President Trump "was initially pleased" by the breach? He never said that. He always said to remain peaceful. This article should never have been published without verification of information and fair coverage of ALL the facts.

97.124.193.59 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what is in reliable sources.
"The Times reported that Trump was initially pleased as his supporters stormed into the Capitol and that he resisted requests to call in the National Guard to help stop them."[47]
"In one of the ultimate don’t-believe-your-eyes moments of the Trump era, these Republicans have retreated to the ranks of misinformation, claiming it was Black Lives Matter protesters and far-left groups like antifa who stormed the Capitol — in spite of the pro-Trump flags and QAnon symbology in the crowd."[48]
If you don't like what is in Wikipedia, contact the New York Times and the New Yorker and ask them to correct their story. When and if retractions are published we will modify this Wikipedia page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not that I agree with the IP, nor that it's inappropriate, but if we're saying "The Times reported" something (and I'm presuming it's the NYT), why aren't we citing the NYT article in which it was reported? Citing a "report of a report" just increases the chance of it being inaccurate/unverifiable at its base - and I don't particularly think we should be saying "X said Y" when it's sourced to Z - at most we should be saying "Z said Y". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I assumed that anyone reading my comment would have the ability to go to the source I cited and click on the link to the NYT. Obviously I was misatken, so let me spoon feed it to you:
"As supporters stormed into the Capitol on Wednesday, Mr. Trump was initially pleased, officials said, and disregarded aides pleading with him to intercede.
Unable to get through to him, Mark Meadows, his chief of staff, sought help from Ivanka Trump. Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a longtime friend who has publicly criticized his efforts to invalidate the election results, tried to call Mr. Trump during the violence, but could not get through to him.
The video that Mr. Trump eventually released on Wednesday justified the anger of the rioters even as he told them it was time to go home. Rather than condemn their action, he embraced them. 'We love you,' he said. 'You’re very special.'
Mr. Christie said he believed that Mr. Trump deliberately encouraged the crowd to march on the Capitol as a way to put pressure on Mr. Pence to reject the election results during the congressional count.
'Unfortunately, I think what the president showed yesterday is he believes he’s more important than the system, bigger than the office,' Mr. Christie told the radio show host Brian Kilmeade. 'And I think he’s going to learn that that was a very, very big miscalculation.' "
Source: The New York Times, article by Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, initially published Jan. 7, 2021, Updated Jan. 22, 2021. Title: "Capitol Attack Leads Democrats to Demand That Trump Leave Office: The White House was propelled deeper into crisis as officials resigned in protest and prominent Republicans broke with the president after he incited a mob that assaulted Congress." URL: [ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/trump-leave-office-resignation.html ] Happy? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I never doubted that it could be sourced in this instance, I just found it odd that you chose to link a New Yorker link instead of the actual link itself. I see the actual NYT link is in the article now, so my apologies for not looking at that before commenting. I didn't need spoonfeeding, but had you linked it to begin with (instead of the New Yorker link) it would have helped and avoided this whole thing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
NO presence of antifa and the Capitol! Capitol Police did NOT invite "people" to enter the Capitol! That's "disillusionment and trauma" after "shared psychosis" between Trump and his followership. We’re still witnessing the largest under-reaction to a violent insurrection led by a sitting president in the history of humankind. It’s because the Republican Party/Trump are experts at one thing: Denying the premise of reality and convincing people anti-government is government. But we must provide emotional support for healing, and this includes societal support, such as sources of belonging and dignity. There is important psychological injury that arises from relative — not absolute—socioeconomic deprivation. The emotional bonds he has created facilitate shared psychosis at a massive scale. It is a natural consequence of the conditions we have set up. For healing, three steps are usually recommend: (1) Removal of the offending agent (the influential person with severe symptoms). (2) Dismantling systems of thought control — common in advertising but now also heavily adopted by politics. And (3) fixing the socioeconomic conditions that give rise to poor collective mental health in the first place. --217.234.68.203 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see

Please help me fix the please see template. I’m not sure what happened.—Beneficii (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened either, but I fixed it. Thanks for the notification! — Chrisahn (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft follow on move request to collaborate on

As an effort to move this process forward, I would ask assistance from editors in making a move request on United States Capitol attack as strong as possible. Below is my draft. I think it is clear that attack has some support, and it is the most likely alternative. I suggest that we work together to make it a strong request and allow this exercise in consensus building to come to a close.

A note for whoever closes this move request. Many editors desire a moratorium on move requests. I would suggest this will short circuit the process to build consensus and is not needed. I intend to offer the move request below, with edits from other editors when the current move request closes. A moratorium simply delays the process of building a lasting consensus.Casprings (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft Move Request for 2021 United States Capitol attack

Reasons to use the verb "attack."

1. Attack meets Wikipedia:COMMONNAME better than any other verb. Using a google news search and only looking at the titles, one can see that writers use the term attack in WP:RS news sources more than other words. One note on methodology, I think only searching in the title is the best means to understand what WP:RS are naming the event.

·   attack is used 193,000 times

·   Riot used 67,700 times

·   insurrection used 15,400 times

·   storming used 6,340 times

2. Attack is inherently a neutral word but captures the significance of the event. Attacks can be negative or positive, depending on the circumstances—for example, the Attack on Pearl Harbor versus Art Attack. In sum, attack best meets WP:NPV.

Reasons not to use "storm."

1. As the results show, storm is a terrible choice for Wikipedia:COMMONNAME.

2. Storm is not the right choice for WP:NPV. First, I would note the connection of the word storm to QAnon. QAnon believed that the storm was coming. In that, they believed there would be a violent period of arrests of Democratic leaders. Given that, the use of a related word is out of place. Especially when QAnon supports were so involved in the event and seemed to attempt to capture or harm Congress members and the vice President. Second, I would note the links in the media between the event and Storming of the Bastille. For example, a quote from the New York Times, here.

It's like the Storming of the Bastille as recreated by the cast of National Lampoon's Animal House. These photos will outlive us all

— Ben Sixsmith

Given the historical circumstances positive connections with the stroming of the Bastille, this is is not NPV.

Attack is under attack, not favourite see comment above, Revision as of 16:37, 25 January.[49] Qexigator (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I doubt 100% will support, but I think it is the best candidate to gain enough support. Right now, I am just focused on making a good request. It will go where it goes.Casprings (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Re "As the results show": What results? If you are trying to persuade people to join your point of view, please be as transparent as possible. To what results are you referring here? No one, to my knowledge, has suggested the word "storm" to describe these events, so a comparison to the QAnon slogan "The storm is coming" is, frankly, rather absurd. "Storming" is not the same as "storm." Moncrief (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The ing makes storm its inflected form. I think it is still important, given the number of QAnon supporters who took part in the event.Casprings (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
As we all know, one word can have multiple meanings. Even within the same broad category of leisure activities, for example, we get by just fine with pool being used for swimming as well as billiards. Clearly the QAnon "storm" is referring to a metaphorical storm as in a weather phenomenon, whereas storming means to "move angrily or forcefully in a specified direction." Your concern about QAnoners glorifying or relishing in the title of a Wikipedia article containing "storm" is original research or WP:CRYSTAL unless you can provide evidence and explain why we should make our decisions based on such evidence. Anyway, I'll save the rest of my comments for the next move discussion. Moncrief (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The year should definitely be included with the attack wording. Although it was ambiguous with "storming", there have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE. As such I remain in support of the wording "2021 United States Capitol attack", as I originally put forward in the consensus table. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, for the reason that we have no idea how this attack will be described six months or a year from now. No one calls 9/11 "the 2001 attacks." It's very possible that this event will be referred to in the future by its day and month, rather than its year. It's for this reason, among others, that I think the rush to rename this article is short-sighted. Moncrief (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The article has to have a name, and in lieu of access to a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we must go with the current commonly used names and article naming recommendations that are based on providing a clear, concise, and disambiguated title. If some more appropriate name emerges in the future we can hold a further RM at such a time as that occurs. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
And, for the record, people absolutely do call them the "September 2001" attacks, at least in the UK. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Heck, even in the US things like "2001 attack on the World Trade Center" are FAR from unknown. --Khajidha (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, I would put the year in the title. Though I still don't think it is needed.Casprings (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should prepare the next move request together, but our focus must be on the process, not on particular arguments for certain outcomes. The current RM went off the rails because we kept changing the process during the discussion. Here are some quotes from the essay WP:Settle the process first:

Wikipedia has many established rules to help guide discussions towards more productive outcomes. However, in reality editors regularly start discussions that violate these rules ... When these things happen, it creates process questions that can disrupt the discussion and, if left to fester, ultimately undermine confidence in the result. The longer the problems go unaddressed, the messier the situation becomes and the harder it is to resolve. ... Wikipedia has few technical means to enforce discussion rules, so it ultimately falls on human editors to keep everything in line. When process is settled first, discussions work better.

I think the first part describes quite well what happened with the current RM, and the last sentence tells us what we have to do to avoid repeating this mess: agree on the process before we start the discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the process is to wait until the current request is closed before moving to another request. Given how long this discussion has occurred, why not have a decent request ready to go?Casprings (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I would point out that you are also quoting an essay not policy. Process is fine. The RM will close in a few days and I will likely open a request based on the discussion here.Casprings (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "process is fine", but the process for the current RM has been anything but fine. A new title option was added and removed in the middle of the discussion. A table was added, and closed, and opened again, etc. Quite a mess. It's important that we avoid making such a mess of the discussion again. We must agree on all options and other features before we start a new RM, and we must agree that we will not change the process after the discussion has started. As we have seen in the last two RMs, the initial text of the RM doesn't have much influence on the discussion. The process is much more important. P.S. I know an essay is not a policy. That's why I wrote "quotes from the essay". :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Casprings: I disagree that WP:NOYEAR applies here; I think that per WP:NCE the year should be included, at least until it is clear with historic perspective (something we don't have yet and will not for years) that this event has the lasting significance that some people think it will. But ultimately I think that boils down to a difference of opinion: I do not think there are strong policy arguments either way. What if you invited feedback on inclusion of the year in the draft RM rather than explicitly supporting either inclusion or exclusion of the year in the RM proposal? VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to make the move request "as strong as possible" by adding arguments to the initial text is unlikely to have the intended effect. All arguments have already been put forth in the previous move requests. If there is a new move request, it should simply indicate the requested title and link to the previous move requests Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021 and #Requested move 23 January 2021. I'm pretty sure most users who will comment on the move request have already seen all arguments. No need to repeat them. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

RM has closed and reopened

Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack". According to the consensus table, this was favoured even over the current title, both by ratio and raw "votes". There was also some fairly strong opinion against the current title from an argumentative perspective, and as such it would make sense to me to open another RM on the attack title, and let people voice their opinions on it directly. Before that happens, however, we should probably settle the question of whether to include the year in the proposal.

I continue to support including the year, for the title 2021 United States Capitol attack. To reiterate my argument above; "there have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE."

However, if there is going to be another RM, we should probably ensure that it is worded in the manner that the most editors agree on, so that we don't devolve into additional option wrangling, and the RM can proceed with the name change that is most agreeable and likely to succeed over the current article title. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack". I actually did take this into account when I closed the RM, but still believe that there wasn't sufficient consensus to move forward with that suggested name. I was torn on whether or not to close the RM procedurally, as not moved, or as no consensus. The difference between any of those options is immaterial, in any case. One thing that I'll add is that this RM was procedurally flawed from the start. If there's a rough consensus for a name before another RM is opened on the topic (a straw poll would be helpful, in that respect), I think that it will have a much better chance at success. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I am going to that that review first. There was no policy eval and it is a no consensus at best.Casprings (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no, and will not be for a probably very long time, rough consensus on any of the names, including the current name (storming). This article is not named "storming" because of consensus on storming, but because of a lack of consensus (mass loathing) on "protest" (the second name after "rally"). The RM for "storming" was effectively a referendum on "not protests" and we're in uncharted territory now. The current RM is a normal situation per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and I don't see how it's procedurally flawed from the start. This RM was opened when it looked like there is rough consensus for "riot", but it surprisingly turns out there isn't. Any straw poll would have the results identical to this RM. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is some pretty hard proof as to why the current is inadequate (not nearly a common name) and why people want to change it. An RM doesn't need to be 100% procedurally perfect for a move to be justified. This is a textbook example of NOGOODOPTIONS. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Update: please search for the updated version of the table — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Edited the above, per comments in this section. I also put the above close in move review. If there is consensus to post the above more request, lets do it. Move review takes forever.Casprings (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I decided to revert my closure and relisted the RM. See diff. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Now reopened. Qexigator (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I oppose this draft move request mainly because it may lead someone to believe that attack is the most used descriptor based on a completely invalid set of google searches, when in fact riot is the most used descriptor. See more details on this in my analysis in the above discussion. Another reason among several others, are that it presents "storm" as the current descriptor, when it isn't. The current name is "storming" (gerund; noun), not "storm" (verb, or another noun) — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm super confused by what's going on with this page

Several hours ago, the RM was closed. Now it's opened again, but the date of the RM has changed. I can't follow what's going on, so I can only imagine how someone new to this page might feel. Could an admin provide some clarity to the chaos, perhaps in an obvious location? Moncrief (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's what happened: OhKayeSierra closed the RM, Casprings started a move review, OhKayeSierra reopened the RM and changed the date from 23 to 27. My take on this: Although I supported the RM, I think closing the RM was the right decision. I fully agree with OhKayeSierra here. I don't know why Casprings started a move review. I don't think it's useful. I also don't know why OhKayeSierra changed the date. @OhKayeSierra: Was it just a mistake? Can we just change it back? Or do we have to start with a new date because of the closing and re-opening? I don't know the process for such a case. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. Why would the RM be re-opened just because someone initiated a move review? (My understanding is that happens after there's a decision on the review, not just because someone initiated one.) And the date change thing is odd. Moncrief (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
OhKayeSierra hasn't been around for three hours, so instead of waiting for a clarification, I was WP:BOLD and renamed the section back to "#Requested move 23 January 2021" (but I accidentally wrote "27" in my edit comment). I hope that's OK. If not, please revert my renaming. Whew, what a mess. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You did the right thing to rename. Closing the RM was a mistake. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You're not an admin, and this is just an opinion. I don't think closing it was a mistake. Moncrief (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think closing it was proper but I disagree with the RM closer's result. The result should have been "2021 United States Capitol attack" based on the survey. Let's see if another closer can come to that result. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please don't attack of impersonating an admin Moncrief, I have a right to an opinion, like anyone else. I also agree with Octoberwoodland that moving to the abovementioned title would have been good. Either that or leaving it open, but not closing with a wholly negative result — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
That wasn't even the question proposed in the RM. It was an RM about whether the title should be "Riot" or not. Moncrief (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Octoberwoodland: unlikely. That mess of a table isn't a survey, but even if it was, polling isn't a substitute for discussion. VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Octoberwoodland: Yes, "attack" was mentioned quite often in that mess of an RM, but saying there was consensus for "attack" (and consensus is what's needed in an RM) would be absolutely wrong. I'd like to say it would be akin to WP:OR, but then someone would point out that WP:OR only applies to articles, etc. pp. :-) Closing the RM was fine, and the given rationale was fine. Too bad it has been reverted and we're back in this mess. Let's hope another closer can come to the very reasonable conclusion that this RM for "riot" has no chance of succeeding and should be closed with "no consensus" or "not moved". (And I'm saying this as one of the few who supported it!) — Chrisahn (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
During the (extremly short) move review, the closer gave the following reason: "I simply don't see a consensus to move this article, and I didn't see anything to be gained from leaving the discussion open." Makes perfect sense to me. Well. Too late. :-( — Chrisahn (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This RM is a mess ;) No More Wire Hangers! )) IP75 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Understatement of the year. Moncrief (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry for the delayed response. Internet has been out for the past day, so trying to work around that with my IRL job has been an absolute nightmare to deal with that ate up all of my time yesterday and today. To answer some questions about this RM: I self-reverted my closure because I felt in hindsight that I may have acted in error and went against WP:RMCI with my close, which wasn't my intention at all. When I relisted the RM, I accidentally forgot to change the date back to its original end date when I was trying to un-break the RM so the bot would list it. I seriously appreciate Chrisahn fixing the header for me. Finally, I don't envy the next closer that's going to have to try to navigate this nightmare of an RM to find some semblance of consensus. Whoever wants to take that role on is definitely going to earn a barnstar from me (and a pint, if I were to run into them at a meetup). OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The best option would be to freeze the spirits for at least a week and restart the process, once calm, orderly, and without tables or other "vote-count-forcing" solutions. That is what I have learned in years of following RMs. IMHO. - --Robertiki (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding 6th and 7th death

I think we should edit the page to show there have been 7 deaths from this event after a second Capitol Police officer died by suicide. It is a direct result of the event. What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slusho815 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Already covered in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Domestic reactions. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Trump terrorist attack" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump terrorist attack. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 29#Trump terrorist attack until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2021

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol – No year is necessary to disambiguate. Falls under WP:NOYEAR, while all the debate over what exactly the should be, we could at least attempt to get consensus on fixing the name to something that could work until consensus is reached. BigCheese76 (talk) 14:51, 29 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.

Suicides

Is there any more information on those two suicides? As soon as it is known, it would be good to say what exactly the link is. I don't want to speculate, but I can think of three different ways that the event could conceivably lead to a suicide - and it is also possible that they killed themselves for quite unrelated reasons. It may have to wait for results of an inquest, but if possible the article should clarify. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See PTSD. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, that seems the most likely possibility. Unless for example they were facing charges for some failure, because after all the guy in charge has resigned. Like I say, I don't want to start speculations, it would just be good to have confirmation. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll note that all policies relating to "living" persons also apply to recently-deceased persons and discussion of their death. While it certainly is tragic, unless (until) their deaths are explicitly connected to this event by a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources (i.e. multiple news articles, results of police inquiries, etc all state that they committed suicide as a result of that day), it's inappropriate to discuss adding them to this page. Until then, even saying that two police officers committed suicide on this article is inappropriate in my opinion, and my recommendation is that at a minimum their names be left out, and ideally it reduced to a sentence along the lines of "two police officers who were present have committed suicide in the (appropriate time period) after the breach". I'll be editing out the names for now, and encourage others to consider editing it down further to avoid inappropriate speculation on the connection of their death to this event. I am doing so based on WP:BLP1E (they are only notable for their role in this event), and WP:BLPNAME (When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories) which suggest that the inclusion of their otherwise private names in the article is not necessary or prudent at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree with bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez. Well said. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I also agree. It's natural given the close time proximity to think about this, but I feel that discussion on this talk page is wrong and a violation of BLP. IP75 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft follow-on RM archived

Any reason why that was put away? I think it is still current, and had some good discussion around the phrasing of a new RM request. Chances are either the current RM will end in no consensus to move to the riot article - in which case the follow-on RM would be relevant - or the closer will want to move it to one of the table titles, in which case the discussion in the "follow-on" draft would also be relevant because it discussed the best phrasings. Maybe should be considered a part of the current RM discussion. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The bot archived it due to lack of activity. WWGB (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If it is the one I am thinking of, the premature closing likely killed it. If someone wants to revive it, then it would be fine, but the move discussion above is already dominating the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ali Alexander Quote

This wikipedia article links to an intercept article - https://theintercept.com/2021/01/11/capitol-plot-andy-biggs-paul-gosar/

I would like another of Mr. Alexander's quoted statements added to the page from that article; he wanted to put "maximum pressure" on congress. A longer version of the quote is "putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting." He also uses the word "schemed," in describing his actions, which I find interesting and relevant to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCFMSTB (talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tally of rioters and protesters?

“The news” is now saying there were 40k people at the rally. Can we please get some facts on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Which "news"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If I knew that I wouldn’t be on here trying to get real facts :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What? so you claim the news is saying something, yet can't say who it is?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Subpages abandoned

The domestic reactions talk page still has the same peen issues as the day it was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Not sure why the article states that the "The Associated Press attributed the extremism that fueled the 2021 riot to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns". That may be *an* underlying cause, but not the main reason that Trump supporters stormed the capitol. To attribute it to dissatisfaction over Covid lockdown is misleading.

The AP attributed the storming of the capitol as being "fervent Trump fans" ... "summoned by President Donald Trump to march on Washington in support of his false claim that the November election was stolen and to stop the congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden as the victor."

Source - AP News: [1]

An underlying cause might conceivably be the Covid pandemic lockdown dissatisfaction, but the main and foremost reason behind Trump extremists storming the capitol was (in their mind) "stopping the steal" - which was fueled and reiterated by Trump himself just a short while before he asked them to march to the capitol. He continues the stole election claim even now at this writing. Drlmstanton100 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done I agree and have removed that paragraph. It was odd and out of place, not to mention incomplete. The second paragraph of that AP piece says Experts say it was the culmination of years of increasing radicalization and partisanship, combined with a growing fascination with paramilitary groups and a global pandemic. COVID has surely been a factor, but they wouldn't have shown up to the Capitol if not for years of radicalization, or if Trump had won the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-trump-supporters-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace

NYT News (01/31/2021) Edit Worth Adding - or Not?

QUESTION: Is the following NYT News (01/31/2021) edit worth adding to the main article - or Not?

On January 31, 2021, a detailed overview of the attempt to subvert the election of the United States was published in The New York Times.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Rutenberg, Jim; Becker, Jo; Lipton, Eric; Haberman, Maggie; Martin, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Matthew; Schmidt, Michael S. (January 31, 2021). "77 Days: Trump's Campaign to Subvert the Election - Hours after the United States voted, the president declared the election a fraud — a lie that unleashed a movement that would shatter democratic norms and upend the peaceful transfer of power". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
  2. ^ Rosenberg, Matthew; Rutenberg, Jim (February 1, 2021). "Key Takeaways From Trump's Effort to Overturn the Election - A Times examination of the 77 days between election and inauguration shows how a lie the former president had been grooming for years overwhelmed the Republican Party and stoked the assault on the Capitol". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2021.

Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. It is useful as a source, but it is not so significant as to pass wp:undue. So we can use it, but not in this way, giving it undue prominence.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but not as a stand-alone inclusion in the lead. I read this after you posted it, and found it interesting and informative, and gives a good timeline . I think it should be incorporated into the article as some mention of its overall findings. I imagine we're going to be seeing this around the newscasts today. We'd be amiss if we didn't include its fact finding. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Does it tell us anything we do not yet include?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia Delicate Area (unmentionable, keep it nice section). It is an impressive piece of writing, as if based on insider information, and probably impresses many of its readers. But, so far as concerns improving this article, is it better than a skilfully written hatchet job? Let us assume that everything in the piece, so far as it goes. is indisputably factual and free from spin. All the same, assertions about subversion in this context tend to be one-sided and selective, but two-edged and serving as a memory blocker, in this case regarding the Hillary Clinton email controversy and FISA applications in connection with Comey, Mueller and others, and politically motivated attempts to discredit the election of Trump as President in 2016, before and after the event. Thus, from an editing pov, we could not rename the article 2021 subversion of the United States Capitol without having one similarly named '2016-2019 Subversion of the United States Capitol', or merging these into 'Subversion of the United States Capitol 2016-2021'. Qexigator (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Qexigator, this is just about using the source, not about renaming the article. (Additionally, the source is fine to use as needed throughout the article.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability in lead

Somedifferentstuff I rewrote the 1st paragraph to include notability in the lead WP:MOSLEAD, as it's not soon apparent from reading the long lead what is the significance of the event in broader context (diff). Why don't you think it's an improvement? The biggest problem is the sentence: "The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and five deaths." It's a tautology, that isn't what the event led to – it's what the event was. It's an attempt to stick to the usual form of the first paragraph (the obligatory "the event led to ..."), while not addressing notability. The first paragraph doesn't even state that the attempt failed /it does now actually/. The other changes were more stylistic. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

At this stage, it will suffice to merge the last sentence of the first paragraph into the first, to read
'The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, that led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and five deaths.'
Further changes if any would better wait until the choice of wording for the title is settled. +The wording in the last sentence of the first paragraph stems from EryZ's edit at 23:50, 7 January.[50] Qexigator (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)+00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
done.[51] Qexigator (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Alalch Emis, your changes were not an improvement, but were an example of poor writing (not trying to be harsh). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff I think the current writing of the first paragraph is poor due to multiple tautologies. Nevermind that, mostly style... What about notability in the lead not scattered about in the lower paragraphs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: Thanks for being bold. The consensus is for the current lead to remain as is unless it a major improvement is proposed. The lead paragraph of most highly active articles are usually the result of consensus between many editors (hundreds in the case of this article). You should first propose your suggested improvement to the lead here on the talk page then allow all the editors to review it. If what you propose is an improvement it will be accepted and the reverting editor (as well as any other editors involved) will work your proposed changes into the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we're at that point this way or another. The proposal is in the linked diff. The stated reason for revert was "not an improvement" and "poor writing"; the reverting editor stated here the same reason as in the summary. I don't really aspire to excellent writing, but the operative change here is inclusion of notability as a coherent thought in the upper portion of the lead. (Despite the criticism of poor writing I think it's okay, and that the current first paragraph has writing issues such as defining the storming as a riot and violent attack which is a definition through simile ["a truck is a car and a motor wagon"]; it's also customary for event articles and more fitting here for the paragraph to start with "Event X happened there and then") — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The lead was subsequently changed by some word reordering, and is much better now. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

New study

This is a detailed study of the people involved and may be a useful citation. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Words used

(The excerpts below are for the purpose only of illustrating the variety of descriptors used in this well written and researched article.)
We may assume that the two joint authors of the study, unlike contributors to the discussions on this page, were like-minded enough and well enough experienced in their field to be using their words in a way that, in context, would be commonly understood by peer reviewers, more than the happenstance word usage of most others outside this specialist field.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of improving the Wikipedia article, it is no more possible to ascertain from their article what single word can be deemed !right for the Wikipedia article name than the opinions and preferences stated by contributors to the month-long discussion on this page, whose reasons given for any of the single words discussed tend to cancel each other out.

EXCERPTS "Capitol Rioters...a mob of about 800 stormed the U.S. Capitol.... many people made quick assumptions regarding who the insurrectionists were... a number of the rioters prominently displayed symbols ...the attack on the Capitol was unmistakably an act of political violence, not merely an exercise in vandalism or trespassing amid a disorderly protest that had spiraled out of control. ... a large majority of suspects in the Capitol riot have no connection to existing...violent organizations...most of the insurrectionists do not come from deep-red strongholds. People familiar with America’s political geography might imagine the Capitol rioters as having marinated in places where they are unlikely to encounter anyone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Yet of those arrested for their role in the Capitol riot, more than half came from counties that Biden won; one-sixth came from counties that Trump won with less than 60 percent of the vote.... If you presumed that only the reddest parts of America produce potential insurrectionists, you would be incorrect....We found that 39 percent of suspected insurrectionists came from battleground counties, where Trump received 40 to 60 percent of the vote; 12 percent came from counties where less than 60 percent of the population is white. ... A third of suspected insurrectionists come from such counties; another quarter come from suburban counties of large metro areas...."

Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Their terminology is based on their interpretation of the events: "the attack on the Capitol was unmistakably an act of political violence, not merely an exercise in vandalism or trespassing amid a disorderly protest that had spiraled out of control." They base this conclusion on court documents, yet the people they studied have only been charged with trespassing. Then they express surprise that these subjects don't meet the profile of people who engage in political violence. Other experts might see this as circular reasoning. If the storming is seen as a protest that got out of control, then that explains while people not prone to political violence were involved. TFD (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
In that respect the study has much in common with non-statistically based sources, but statisticians may be able to judge whether the sample is sufficient for the statistical analysis to be acceptable for the purpose of improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The original intent for this "New Study" section created by @Bondegezou: was to discus the use of the article to be cited for some statistics related to the event. That has nothing to do with words used. Then you changed the section to be about the word used which we already have plenty of sections dedicated to that. Not everything has to turn into an opinion about the article name. Let's leave this section to be about the original intent of the the poster. I revert the section name back. We should discuss first if the new section name is needed. Z22 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course, Z22 you and others remain free to discus the use of the article to be cited for some statistics related to the event. Why not go ahead. At the same time it is useful to discuss it for the reasons given above. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
My reason for bringing the study to people's attention was that I thought it was useful in terms of describing who the people involved were in terms of their age, economic status, whether they come from Red or Blue states, connections to known right-wing militia groups etc. It was not because of the words used. While I understand the importance of that debate, this study has no more value than hundreds of others when it comes to answering that question. Bondegezou (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording in impeachment trial documents

While perhaps not all readers will find documents filed in connection with the trial wholly convincing, the outcome of this or the next RM, or the text of the article, may be influenced by the wording used, such as in the House Trial Memorandum.[52]

  • storming

'After storming through the barricades surrounding the building, rioters laid siege to the Capitol itself'

  • attack
Extended content
'Trump incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol'
'Incited by President Trump, his mob attacked the Capitol'
'President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol'
'Rioters attacked law enforcement personnel'
'Some attackers wore gas masks'
'the mob outside the building continued to attack the police and wreak havoc'
'Four rioters died during the attack'
'the President did not take any action at all in response to the attack'
'Trump’s dereliction of duty during the attack'
'The attack that President Trump provoked'
'the insurrectionist attack that President Trump incited'
'President Trump is personally responsible for inciting an armed attack on our seat of government that imperiled the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress and our families, and those who staff and serve the Legislative Branch'
  • insurrection
Extended content
'Trump’s incitement of insurrection against the Republic'
'The insurrectionists assaulted police officers with weapons and chemical agents'
'Capitol Police officers battled insurrectionists'
'he told the insurrectionists'
'the House approved an article of impeachment for incitement of insurrection'
'President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol'
'hundreds of insurrectionists arrived at the Capitol and launched an assault on the building'
'at least six handguns were recovered after the insurrection'
'a crush of insurrectionists'
'dozens of the insurrectionists specifically hunted VicePresident Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi'
'insurrectionists also menaced Members of Congress, their staffs, their families, and Capitol personnel'
'assault by President Trump’s insurrectionist mob'
'insurrectionists desecrated and vandalized the Capitol'
'One insurrectionist paraded the Confederate battle flag'
'Some insurrectionists carried zip ties'
'many insurrectionists who assaulted the Capitol'
'After the insurrection'
'The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer'
'took more than three hours to secure the Capitol after the insurrectionists invaded'
'armed insurrectionists breached the Capitol'
'after insurrectionists had overcome the Capitol perimeter'
'he again validated the insurrection'
'he insisted to reporters days later that his speech prior to the insurrection had been “totally appropriate.” '
'charges that he incited an insurrection'
'provoking an insurrectionary riot against a Joint Session of Congress'
'Trump’s incitement of insurrection disrupted the Joint Session'
'may come to be seen as a rallying point for further insurrection'
'Images of insurrectionists sacking the seat of American democracy'
'a violent insurrection that President Trump incited'
'incite insurrection against Congress and our electoral institutions'
'presidential incitement of insurrection'
'President Trump incited insurrection against the United States government'
  • riot
Extended content
'barely escaped the rioters'
'the riotous mob'
'Rioters wearing Trump paraphernalia'
'Rioters attacked law enforcement personnel'
'rioters laid siege to the Capitol'
'when rioters stormed into the building'
'said one rioter'
'Rioters chanted'
'Rioters ultimately overpowered Capitol Police'
'rioters smashed the entryway'
'they could hear rioters outside in the Speaker’s office'
'Many rioters carried Trump flags'
'Another rioter climbed onto the dais'
'another rioter yelled at police officers'
'Four rioters died during the attack'
'As one rioter explained'
'quell the riotous mob'
'lionized the rioters as patriots'
'insurrectionary riot against a Joint Session of Congress'

Qexigator (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The wording used in the impeachment is irrelevant, as we go by what is common in reliable sources, not what one heavily biased source says. Looking at only one source like this is not helpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Not irrelevant to the discussion here, and relevant to assessing any trends we find in secondary sources that the trial may influence. Qexigator (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It is, in fact, because as you say, we are assessing trends in secondary sources - which the impeachment proceedings is not. It is by definition a primary source, and an incredibly biased one at that as it was passed virtually on party lines (less than 5% of Republicans voted for the article of impeachment). As such, there is no use to analyzing it, because regardless of the outcome of that analysis, it doesn't matter for WP:COMMONNAME or any other purpose with regards to naming this article. It further has nothing to do with trends - as trends in reliable sources may or may not follow the "trend" you've identified here in a singular primary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Berchanhimez: the impeachment documents are a primary source. We should report what they say because they are significant in and of themselves, but they do not assist in determining what is said in Wikipedia's own voice. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is worth any of us pursuing this in an argumentative way. I am aware of the standing editing guidance and practice of Wikipedia about secondary sources etc. But to anyone used to critical scrutiny of official documents, they can tell us much by the how of what they say and by what they don't say. In this case the bias will be readily recognized by any seasoned politician in the trial session, and any acceptably truthful assertion of fact the document may contain will be mixed in the usual way with prejudicial content which others will be free to repeat and publish without fear of defamatory liability. The senators themselves will not be persuaded one way or the other by anything in the document as such, not only because they were themselves witness to the disturbance of their proceedings, but because also their votes one way or the other will depend on their political position, in accordance with their commitment to one or other party line and their faithful allegiance to the constitution and government of the United States as they severally understand it. With that in mind, we can see that (not surprisingly) the document is overloaded with 'insurrection' wording with a fair share of 'riot' wording to go with it. But the main point for the purposes of a decision about retaining 'storming' in the name 'storming of the United States Capitol' is that it shows that when a word is needed for expressing the concept of the entire event that happened at the Capitol that day, then, even in the context of that document, the word chosen is 'stormed'. The other words fail in that respect, no matter how many times they are repeated and counted. Qexigator (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Seemingly conflicting detail: electoral votes being removed

The text states in the section about the Senate adjourning: "Several members of Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's staff carried the boxes of Electoral College votes and documentation out of the chamber to hidden safe rooms within the building" suggesting that the electoral college votes were being kept in the Senate chamber at that time. Then later in the section about the House adjourning: " Staff members removed boxes of sealed electoral vote certificates to prevent them from being damaged or stolen by rioters." suggesting that they were instead being kept in the House chamber.

These two statements are seemingly contradictory. What am I missing here? Were multiple sets being kept around? Were they moved from one chamber to the other? Were half kept in one chamber and half in the other? Or is one of the two mistaken? effeietsanders 08:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

All members of the House and Senate were in the same chambers during the Electoral process, it is a combined effort. If nothing else, the second statement is probably redundant. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: They had called a recess to debate the objections to Arizona (IIRC?) just before the breech happened, which means the House members had gone back to their chamber to debate separately. So all of the documents may not have all been in the same chambers at that exact moment, I do seem to recall some boxes being carried (while watching on TV). What do the sources say for each statement? - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing each source, all of them talk about or imply the certificates were in the Senate. The second sentence should be amended or removed. (If removed, I believe the sources should be reviewed to see which are the best to keep for the first sentence.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_12&oldid=1104085156"