Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

When WP:BLPCRIME does and does not apply

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.

---

Yousef Raz insists on removing the word "insurrection" based on their bad reading of WP:BLPCRIME despite no actual BLP vio existing. There doesn't appear to be consensus for this removal nor support for changing it to "demostrators [sic]", so I'm bringing this up here to avoid an all out edit war. YODADICAE👽 23:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is a specific crime defined in the https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. Not one person has been charged with the crime of insurrection, and not one person is convicted of the crime of insurrection. Documenting anyone committing insurrection or an insurrectionist is not consistent with WP:BLPCRIME.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation and it doesn't accuse any one person of insurrection. This is what RS call it. YODADICAE👽 23:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

But it does accuse people of being insurrection. "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." clearly accuses people of insurrection.

The researchers concluded that these "middle-aged, middle-class insurrectionists" represented clearly accuses people of insurrection.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are summarizing what sources say. If they said magical flying unicorns scaled the walls, we'd also include that. It is not a BLP violation regardless. YODADICAE👽 23:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If it said flying unicorns scaled the walls that would be ok, but if it said flying unicorns were insurrectionists then it would be not consistent with WP:BLPCRIME.

I believe there was a past consensus that outside of quotes, the word "insurrection" was not to be used in this article in any forms to refer to specific or groups of people unless they've been charged with it. Trump's the only one that fits to this date. It was that way for months - I did a control-F search a couple months ago for a related question and found no use outside of quotes and the mention of Trump's article of impeachment. There are now 3 uses outside of those use cases - and all of them can easily be replaced with "rioters" or "protestors" or even just "people". BLP does not apply when only referring to one specific person - it also applies when referring to groups, at least some of the people in such groups may be easily identified. It's clear that many of the people in the group of "rioters" can be identified - thus BLP applies to referring to the group as "insurrectionists". I further think that a discussion should be had before using that label outside quotes/the impeachment article because past discussions here came to a consensus against doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, "insurrectionists" is a POV and loaded word, and doesn't include any more information than "rioters", and as such, we should prefer the less loaded word per longstanding practice on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's literally quoting the source and the Capitol Police: "During the meeting, no entity, including the FBI, provided any intelligence indicating that there would be a coordinated violent attack on the United States Capitol by thousands of well-equipped armed insurrectionists," Sund wrote. and is used entirely in context.YODADICAE👽 23:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not required to duplicate sources exact wording - and in fact in many cases we do not do so precisely to remain neutral and not use loaded language and "puffery" just because a source does. BLP applies to labelling a group of people when some of them are or could be easily identified - which is the case here. If the use of the word is a quote, it needs to be in quotation marks. If it's not, we shouldn't be using the word "insurrection(ists)" in Wikipedia voice per past discussions here and for neutrality. Even if sources call them "insurrectionists", the word "rioters" gives the same exact information without the POV implications inherent in the word "insurrectionists". It's more neutral, and more acceptable. Why are you fighting so hard to call people "insurrectionists" anyway? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME does apply to one people, and I've been taught this by much more experienced users. See here for the use of murder when discussing a person that shot and killed multiple people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings#Category:murder. Also calling people 'rioters' would be incorrect as well, as riot is a crime that none have been convicted of.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In the context you are using this, it isn't correct. I'm aware of our BLP policies and referring to "insurrection" where reliable sources do is not a BLP violation. They do not call them "demostraters" as you incorrectly added to every instance of insurrection. It also does not say that every individual involved participated in insurrection. YODADICAE👽 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Those RS are not held to the BLPCRIME standard that editors of wikipedia are held to. We need to summarize their statements in a neutral perspective that does not accuse people of a crime in which they have not been convicted.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We do and calling insurrection a "demonstration" is not neutral or factual. Your argument has been flawed this entire time because we do not refer only to the individuals involved as insurrectionists in the article, we refer to insurrectionists where appropriate and designated by independent reliable sources, including the US government. They can be insurrectionists by partaking in an insurrection, it is not a sole legal determination based on charges alone. Many of these people were and are being charged with participating in an insurrection. YODADICAE👽 23:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They have not been charged with "insurrection", which is a specific crime. The primary charge has been "unlawful entry" along with various charges specific to weapons/theft/vandalism that occurred. If you're going to claim that people were or are being charged with insurrection, it's time to start providing sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Literally more than a dozen sources in this article refer to them as insurrectionists, participating in an insurrection. Our use of insurrection is not undue nor is it a BLP violation. You're more than capable of clicking the source after each statement here and you'll note the inclusion of the term "insurrection" and "insurrectionist", and has been discussed extensively on this very talk page. The desire to whitewash this article is truly mind boggling. YODADICAE👽 23:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not obligated to repeat exactly what reliable sources say, especially when what they say is using loaded language and puffery. I'm not sure if you've even read those discussions - because there's a longstanding consensus not to use the word "insurrection" or its forms outside of quotes or Trump's impeachment article here - because the term is considered less neutral and more loaded than other terms that would suffice. You are now attempting to use personal attacks by saying people want to "whitewash" something when we've simply been replying to your desire with legitimate policy basis for not using the term - which has been thoroughly discussed as you say and has been used only in quotes/Trump's impeachment article for the longest time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You're repeating opinions. Summarize the facts. Zero people have been charged with the crime of insurrection, so how can there have been an insurrection and how can people be insurrectionist? The answer is easy, there cant.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is literally called an insurrection by the very government who wrote the law. An insurrection does not require specific insurrection charges. YODADICAE👽 23:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not literally called an insurrection by the government who wrote the law. The government does not write laws, people write laws, and the people that wrote the law are likely long dead. So they have no opined on this incident. The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for has not indicted a single person for insurrection, that and the subsequent jury are the only opinions that matter.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is literally called an insurrection (and insurrectionists) by the government, government officials speaking on behalf of the government and 100+ reliable sources. An insurrection does not require charges of insurrection. YODADICAE👽 00:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, if you'd look through past discussions, there's some really nice analysis of sources that show about 40% use exclusively "riot" and related terms, and only maybe 20-25% use exclusively "insurrection" - if you want to pull the "reliable source" argument. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There are more than 100+ reliable sources ranging from The New York Times, AP news, ABC news to The Atlantic calling it "insurrection" and referring to groups as "insurrectionist" and that's not even including the United States government, so no. YODADICAE👽 00:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, and as I've said multiple times now, we aren't obligated to repeat the wording of reliable sources, and we're encouraged not to when their wording is not neutral. Furthermore, the plurality of reliable sources use the term "riot" - and only maybe a quarter use "insurrection" exclusively. So your argument to reliable sources actually works against you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware we aren't obligated to do anything but ignoring that 100+ reliable sources call it an insurrection, and refer to particpants as insurrectionists would violate our POV policy. Here's a brief example of 30 sources - that are well regarded and known to be RS through our own community. YODADICAE👽 00:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You're ignoring that even more sources refuse to use "insurrectionists" and use instead the term "rioters". Again, an even more "in depth" look at sources, that isn't limited by your own bias, was conducted during prior move discussions, and you're ignoring the fact that more sources don't use it than do. We don't just cherrypick sources for your ideology. And no, we aren't encouraged to use "multiple terms" and "mix" them - we should use the best, most neutral term that fits the situation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussions are related to whether the term or a variant should be used in the article title. That is a very different question than whether the term can be used in the article. Your suggestion that a term should be expunged from an article if a plurality of sources don't happen to use it, is bunkum. VQuakr (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The source analysis that was present during the move discussions are relevant here - and not specific to the move discussions. Again, Praxidicae is making a "sources use this a lot" argument - which simply isn't true when looking at all the sources (instead of just ones that support their view). I find it interesting that people in this discussion refuse to look at the past discussions on the term "insurrection" here - they came to clear consensuses against using "insurrection" both in the title and elsewhere - and no new arguments have been provided. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: whether a source uses of the term "insurrection" exclusively is irrelevant. Whether anyone has been specifically charged with the (obscure) crime of insurrection is also irrelevant. Editorially, using a mix of accurate terms throughout the article makes for better reading. Which is, of course, also what RSs do. ...we're encouraged not to when their wording is not neutral is circular reasoning. VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:SAID for a related discussion about why it is more important to avoid loaded language that makes undue implications than to avoid repetition of terms. Terjen (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty tangential. "Riot" and "insurrection" are pretty equally loaded and both are accurate and fine to use in this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's just stick to rioters. Terjen (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah. Let's stick to a mix, consistent with the sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't duplicate wording of RS - we duplicate ideas. We use neutral language to summarize what they say. Saying we use a "mix" just because RS do is an abrogation of our duty under WP:NPOV to summarize neutrally what they say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You have it backwards. As discussed at WP:NPOV we use reliable sources to determine what constitutes neutral content. We don't decide what is neutral, then "correct" the sources to fit that prescription: we build an article based on the sources without editorial bias. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

They aren't equally loaded at all. Both are the same action, insurrection implies much more about motive, and also can have potential positive/negative connotations depending on situation. So you yourself admit that they're "equal" - then let's use the one without any connotations at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we'll continue to use both, consistent with the RSs that form the basis of this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't copy language from reliable sources - we form encyclopedic language based on those sources. The plurality of sources do not use "insurrectionists" because it's a loaded term that's inappropriate - and we don't get to say "because some use a loaded term we must do so as well". Again, this has been fleshed out on this talk page many times before, and without a large-scale RfC that hasn't changed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Except I don't agree with your personal assessment of what is "encyclopedic" or not; there is nothing wrong with the sourced use of the term "insurrection" in this article. I don't view the term as particularly loaded so I don't see it as a NPOV issue, just up to editorial discretion. But if you are presenting it as a NPOV thing, then we WP:WEIGHT the coverage in proportion to the level of coverage in RSs so "insurrection" still gets used. I also don't accept your vague handwave as evidence of clear consensus on this word (a pretty unusual thing) at any point in the past (not that that matters; consensus to exclude the term obviously doesn't exist now). VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You have no problem with Praxidicae's vague references, but you do with mine. Odd. Regardless, there's at least two people (three if you include Yousef Raz, who I feel is likely commenting in bad faith and am not including) saying that "insurrection" shouldn't be used. That's at most a 50/50 split, and at worst a split that doesn't go in favor. There's clearly a consensus against it still - if you think differently, feel free to start an RfC to overturn the multiple past consensuses against doing so in WP voice. And no, DUE does not apply to specific words - it applies to ideas. We word things in WP voice based on neutrality - not use in reliable sources. If all reliable sources are using non-neutral language, that doesn't mean we don't use neutral language to describe the same ideas. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You're the only one waving your arms at some unspecified (but apparently ironclad) previous consensus. DUE applies to viewpoints, which is a more specific concept than "ideas". "The 2021 storming was an insurrection" is indeed a viewpoint. Not sure on what planet you think a "50/50 split" equals "clearly a consensus" to expurgate but I'll assume that's just bluster on your part. It shouldn't come as a shock to you that I don't accept you as an arbiter of what constitutes neutral language. VQuakr (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A BLP violation occurring in quotes (essentially, our amplification of another person's libel), is not ok. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Fortunately, that is not the case here. Referring to the people, as a group, as "insurrectionists" does not violate BLP because no individual is being targeted (directly or indirectly) with the label. @Yousef Raz: this edit is not justifiable on the basis of WP:BLP and should not be repeated. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr: You just said the people that are being referred to "insurrectionists" are not being referred to as "insurrectionists".Yousef Raz (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Try again. VQuakr (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr: You did though. "Referring to the people, as a group, as "insurrectionists" does not violate BLP because no individual is being targeted (directly or indirectly) with the label".... other than the people that you are referring to "insurrectionists" with that label.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You can read more about the difference between an individual and a group at WP:CIR. Something this basic should not be able to fly over any editor's head. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on the rest of this debate, but the immediately above comment is an oversimplification of how BLP applies to groups. See WP:BLPGROUP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed I could have linked WP:BLPGROUP, but as I noted above the key distinguishing factor (as noted at that section) is whether the claims are in practice ascribable to individuals. VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: It doesn't matter if you have a trillion relable sources that call it an insurrection. Those sources are providing their opinion and don't have a BLPCRIME standard to follow.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You really should read VQuakr's link to WP:CIR if you think over a hundred sources are merely presenting their opinion. YODADICAE👽 00:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The jury's opinion is the only opinion that matters. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Straw man. No one is supporting stating that any individual has been convicted of a crime if no conviction exists. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation cannot be correct. For example, terrorism is a crime, but many terrorist groups (as designated by the US) do not have any members who have been tried and convicted of the crime. Your logic would mean that we can't call any of them terrorist groups, or any of the individuals as terrorists. Heck, same would apply to people like Ayman al-Zawahiri. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:That's not an accurate comparison. People are officially designated a terrorist by the Department of State or Treasury. The article should state this person has been designated a terrorist by this authority. Merely sending one of those designated persons a nickel will result in your indictment. If a person is not designated nor been convicted of the crime terrorism crime then an article stating such person is a terrorist would not be consistent with BLPCRIME.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: @VQuakr: @Praxidicae: @Terjen: @Berchanhimez: I have presented this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol Yousef Raz (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae your comment at 23:20, 14 May 2021 that we can call it an insurrection because that is what police called it is contrary to BLPCRIME. In the American and other justice systems, police accuse people of crimes but they are only considered to be guilty when they are convicted by a court. Hence BLPCRIME says, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."

The term insurrection itself presents problems. It was not a crime historically but entered statue law as a condition that allowed governments to suspend civil rights if they believed the state was in danger. The people responsible could then be charged with insurrection. But President Trump never declared a state of insurrection and police have charged no one. The best legal opinion shows that it is very difficult to convict on insurrection. I could not find any cases.

TFD (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling the event an insurrection isn't an issue with BLPCRIME. Saying person XYZ committed insurrection would be an issue. The event is/was an insurrection whether or not anyone is charged with the specific crime of insurrection; one does not automatically follow the other. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

By my understanding of Wikilaw, we're on thin ice here, but haven't technically broken through. As long as we don't attach an insurrection to any identifiable person within this article, it's smooth skating, let RS sink or swim on their own prejudices (real and imagined). Calling generic mobs as a faceless whole a bunch of dirty crooks is like calling an unpublicized federal official a son of an unnamed goat (or similar), harmless beyond making our biases in opinion painfully obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as we use intext attribution for the term, the ice should hold. Labeling a group in wikivoice rubs off on the individual. Terjen (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are certainly acceptable waterwings. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling the event an insurrection isn't an issue with BLPCRIME right, sources don't make individual legal accusations but use a common English language description, some sources also used stronger language including domestic terrorism. It would of course not be appropriate to use the latter description everywhere in the article when few news articles called it as such, other than mentioning that some sources did. More sources support the insurrection term however. You're repeating opinions when sources are reliable and not op-eds or blog posts, their content is not generally treated as opinions and in most cases attribution is also unnecessary. Even for BLPs, it's only a problem when not supported by reliable sources... WP:NPOV for more information, —PaleoNeonate – 04:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context.

To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist.

Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:01, 16 May 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.

Sund phone log citation

Does anyone have a citation for the claim that Sund's phone logs showed no call between Sund and Waters? The referenced line is in the Capitol breach section. I have not been able to find any references that support this claim.

Thelectronicnub (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Deaths

There was only one fatality directly related to the riots, the Babbitt person. Mr. Sicknick died of a stroke that was unrelated to the attacks, no external or internal injuries were found to be the cause. So no police officer died. The other Trump rioters also were not victims of their riot. One died of a drug overdose (Boyland); that doesn't really have much to do with the violent breaching of the Capitol. The other two deaths had little, if anything, to do with the riot; one died of a stroke (Philipps) and did not "participate in the raids." The other died of a heart attack (Greeson); once again, how does this relate to the riots? I suggest a rewrite of the deaths and injuries section, of course, if other users agree. Any ideas? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:599B:F10B:80DF:6CF9 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with complete erasure of these past mistakes. If people prefer the old developing story, they can find prior versions galore in the Edit History. But the current revision should reflect the present overview. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - this article shouldn't be whitewashed at the whims of the right-wing revisionists who swarmed back to it in the past week. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:94A4:1483:1CEE:DDA1 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not right-wing, and I'm not swarming back, I planned my part in these revisions quietly for months before speaking up. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The caption to Sicknick's picture was misleading in stating he died of a stroke without any context. I've changed it to "[Sicknick] was assaulted by rioters. He died of a stroke the next day." . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick should not be scrubbed. Not with the medical examiner’s statement that "all that transpired played a role in his condition". starship.paint (exalt) 10:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Good call, thanks for that. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway I’m not in favour of scrubbing any of the five deaths from the article. I’m open to not counting them as ‘casualties’ if RS agree, however they should be mentioned to at least explain the situation. starship.paint (exalt) 13:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If "all that transpired" meant "sprayed by protestors" or "assaulted by rioters", and "condition" meant "death" or "injury", maybe such desperate grasping could be a reasonable argument for casualtyhood. As is, he belongs in the Reaction section. His body played a sizable post-mortem political role. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, why would we substitute our personal views for those of reliable sources, which count him as one of the five deaths? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the same sources acknowledge he died of natural causes, officially, medically and legally. You're getting hung up on rhetoric. And possibly a desire to punish perceived political enemies. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Good job cleaning out the clump of citations from the infobox! But now that there's only one reference on April 24, isn't it weird that it's one from January 8? Maybe there's a more recent one that counts up three known natural deaths and one accident as four of those casualties? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, the one about what we now know about Sicknick's death (currently footnote 439) is "invoked but never defined", little help? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Done.Terjen (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, regarding "all that transpired played a role in [Sicknick's] condition", this is a direct reference to the storming, and widely reported, from USA to UK to France to Qatar. starship.paint (exalt) 09:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw the same reliable sources say it was a fire extinguisher and pepper spray, too. It wasn't. Neither is this vague glimmer of bullshit. If you want to get suckered again, be my guest. But don't spread it around, confusing innocent people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, do you genuinely believe that Brian Sicknick would have died when he did, had he not been hit with bear spray by the insurrectionists? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The problem was in his basilar artery. Bear spray temporarily irritates one's eyes, nose and throat. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's not shoot the messenger(s). Spinning by making much ado out of the "all that transpired" quote should simply be recognized as editorializing by the media, and we should avoid using it to create a questionable synthesis. Terjen (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The quote isn't editorializing by the media. It's a quote from the chief medical examiner. We do not make much ado about the "all that transpired" quote, we simply state it and move on. There is no synthesis here. starship.paint (exalt) 01:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - even the blog you provided highlighted the "all that transpired" quote. It goes as far as to say having a stressful encounter as a police officer likely played a role in why someone would have two strokes the following day. (note: I'm not saying this additional content or source should be added, the quote itself is sufficient) starship.paint (exalt) 01:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note the synthesis created by our but that "all that transpired played a role in his condition" which modifies the earlier statement saying the autopsy provided no evidence of injury nor allergic reaction. Stop the presses: Having a stressful encounter may have played a role in his strokes. What are we trying to say by including the quote? How could it be paraphrased to avoid the synthesis? Terjen (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - I'm thinking you may have misunderstood something here. The 'no evidence of injury nor allergic reaction' was said by Diaz to WaPo. The 'all that transpired' was also said by Diaz to WaPo. I see no contradiction, and very likely that Diaz saw no contradiction as well. It's possible that the riot affected mental stress on Sicknick. It's also possible that the riot exhausted Sicknick. I don't think either of these would leave injury or allergic reaction, though it would have affected his condition. Therefore there is no modifies the earlier statement. starship.paint (exalt) 12:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: The conjugation "but" in the sentence falls under MOS:EDITORIAL, indicating that the second part contradicts the first, or "calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." Terjen (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - easy, "but" changed to "and also". How about that? starship.paint (exalt) 10:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As the original IP who created this new section, I propose a change to my initial request: remove all fatalities except Sicknick and Babbit. The other three should not be included, their deaths are unfortunate but ultimately unrelated to the attacks; RS confirm their deaths had little to do with the riots. They can be mentioned in the reactions section or somewhere else, but not in the infobox. Their deaths were important for understanding the events, but it should be in the context that the initial assumption about their cause of death was erroneous. I was not aware earlier of the evaluation by the forensic pathologist that prior factors—"all that transpired"—had played a role in Sicknick's death. Thus, it is along reasonable grounds to include Sicknick among the fatalities in the infobox. So Sicknick and Babbit (2 dead) in infobox.

And to make it clear, I am assuredly not a right-winger trying to "whitewash" anything. The deluded IP is under the influence of partisanship and attempting to derail our discussion. I despise both liberalism and conservatism equally, though I am cognizant enough to know both have bad and good parts, albeit incomplete. I simply am trying to help this page reflect the truth better, and would like to work alongside other users to achieve this goal.

Any thoughts on my (new) proposal? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:19FB:2B26:FEB3:C4F8 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I propose resolving the ambiguity in the infobox by relabeling the "Death(s)" field to "Violent Death(s)", allowing us to not count those that died of natural or self-inflicted causes. Terjen (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No. We can't change the number from five until we have a source that unambiguously gives another number, and even then we would probably have to say "x-5; sources vary" or the like. The reason is because of the language in Medical Examiner's report, which states "an unprecedented incident of civil insurrection at the United States Capitol resulted in the deaths of five individuals." If you want the article to state that it resulted in anything other than the deaths of five individuals, you need a source saying so specifically - people's personal opinions about how we should count or define it simply cannot overcome the medical examiner's report unambiguously stating the incident resulted in five deaths. If you believe they counted it wrong or used incorrect criteria, you could send them a letter suggesting a correction; but until / unless they issue one we're stuck with their criteria and their count. --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree on reliable sourcing for violent deaths. The truth usually prevails. Until then, WP:NOTRIGHT. Terjen (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I envy how you can disregard the much more detailed part of that same report that says no signs of injury or allergic reaction were found in this natural death. Or how the same applies to Greeson, Philips and Boyland. But they were somehow still killed by a violent mob of alleged racist terrorists, because news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

To the good 2601, regarding "all that transpired", that wasn't an earlier pathological evaluation, it was cherrypicked from a longer interview with a reporter from and for The Washington Post, by a WaPo editor, over three months after Diaz certified Sicknick's death (which is not a synonym for "condition") as what it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I would argue otherwise, and frankly I would prefer Terjen's proposal. It makes sense that Sicknick died from the stress of the riot, that would stress me out as well. I suggest everyone to look at the 2020–21 United States election protests page infobox, with the short explanation regarding the deaths (perhaps we can do it via a footnote?). 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89CF:B997:98E8:49DD (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) Upon reading the article by Greenwald, I understand your argument, and I even agree. But I've been on Wiki long enough to know that this site isn't always factual. I think we can all agree that footnotes in the infobox, explaining the causes of death, would be beneficial for this article. Anyone else support footnotes in the infobox? I think it's a good compromise. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89CF:B997:98E8:49DD (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The sheer number of edits User:Terjen has made to this article is alarming, given their clear agenda as relates to the topic of USA politics, such as when they attempted to argue that the Boogaloo boys should not be classified as far-right. Where is oversight on this? 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:D20:DD2E:EE0B:A291 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop trying to poison the well. Your opinions on other people's opinions are irrelevant. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89CF:B997:98E8:49DD (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold on! Opening a civilized discussion to challenge a mislabeling is how we do it on Wikipedia. You are welcome to participate in the ongoing debate and voice your position, including responding to my arguments why we shouldn't label the anti-government, anti-authoritarian Boogaloo movement as far right, which we here on Wikipedia define to be "further on the right than the standard political right ... in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary". The shoe doesn't fit: They're reasonably neither left-wing nor right-wing, particularly as defined on wikipedia. Terjen (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The article you linked is filed under the subject "The far-right". It says "extremism experts agree that “boogaloo” ideology overall is, in fact, rightwing." Either you don't read the sources you cite or you're intentionally being intellectually dishonest. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:1457:D16B:CB79:4CBB (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The article showcases various experts clarifying what they mean with "right-wing" in ways substantially inconsistent our definition of far-right here on Wikipedia, such as: "Another clear sign that “boogaloo” boys are rightwing is their decision to show up with guns to guard private businesses"; "“They hold up things like the McVeigh bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building and the armed response to Ruby Ridge as heroic moments in American history,” where citizens stood up to government oppression"; "While some anarchists have embraced “boogaloo” rhetoric, these are primarily are “rightwing anarchists”" - protecting private businesses, celebrating citizens standing up to what they perceive as government oppression, and anti-government anarchism are all a stark contract to the "anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary" far-right. Terjen (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The boogaloo stance seems in line with the general messsage of Rick Derringer and Hulk Hogan's "Real American", which pretty closely aligns with this liberal Canadian stoner's worldview. "Courage is the thing that keeps us free" doesn't resemble authoritarian ultranationalist fearmongering at all, and "fight for the rights of every man" doesn't exclude those of coloured men, gay men, women or trans men. Theocracy is fine, if it's a universally recognized god, like fire. Long story short, getting mistaken for a far-righter hurts my pride, but if mistaken for a boogaloo, I could let it slide. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support and Oppose Support removal of Police Office Sicknick. His death is now not a homicide. He simply died a day and a half after the riots. That doesn't mean it's not tragic. As for the others, it's widely cited and so far no news reports about that they didn't die. Inkfo (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

We all agree they died during the event, just not whether they were casualties of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. This source says "Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes a day after defending the Capitol during the January 6 assault"JMM12345 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

• Oppose. We say what the sources say. If the sources are wrong, so are we. We are not here to correct the fact that the real world does not consider Ashli Babbitt to be the real victim of 1/6, or to whitewash out the toll that it took on others. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I don't care what you think about whitewashing or no whitewashing, your opinions of the riots are irrelevant. I do not oppose keeping the 5 deaths (what you wish), all I ask is that a footnote explaining the circumstances of their death be placed in the infobox. The footnote, of course, being sourced with RS. I am a dynamic IP, so I cannot edit this page; the implication is you pick the sources used for the footnotes. It's a compromise; the 5 deaths stay, a footnote explanation is added. I think we both can agree fully on that. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:6CF4:481D:906D:62D7 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

2601:85:C101:C9D0:6CF4:481D:906D:62D7, nope. If the sources are "wrong", then so are we. That's how it works. If listing Brian Sicknick as a victim hurts the feels of "blue lives matter" insurrectionist "patriots" then that's really not our problem to fix. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, your reply is rather daft, specifically because you bring up blue lives matter, which I don't care in the very least about. I struggle to understand why you brought that up. I don't know if you are intentionally trying to frame the discussion about footnotes around supporting the rioters. The fact that you had to bring up the stupidity of the side you vilify your comment, even when I didn't mention the idiots, makes me question whether you actually read my post. I will try one more time, because, surprisingly, we are actually in agreement.

I never said the sources are wrong. I never said the sources are right. You say that Wikipedia reflects what RS say, full stop. I agree. It is immaterial to me (and to you) if Sicknick is a victim or not. If the RS say so, Wiki puts that down. So... my proposal to add a footnote explaining the cause of death does not affect this. All the victims remain in the infobox, Sicknick included. All that is added is a footnote for each victim, explaining (using RS) the cause of death (using RS). That is it. A minor addition, helping visitors to this page understand the context of their death. See, this is not a "partisan" attempt to make Trumptards into "patriots." See? We are in agreement. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:6CF4:481D:906D:62D7 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with you two on those things. In a section above, JzG brought up a laundry list of things this event has nothing to do with, from Chauvin to Castille to the Reichstag, and he's still absolutely right. As for your proposed reliably sourced and currently up-to-date footnotes, original 2601, I support them as a compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I think the right place to discuss the nuance is in the section on deaths and injuries. Putting an asterisk by things looks like a nod to the fringe narrative of only one victim. I have read some of the coverage on conservative websites, and I think we are being pushed towards a narrative that is not seen in mainstream sources. Maybe you see it differently. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that pepper spray can kill is fringe. Absolutely baseless speculation. So is the idea that insurgents cause amphetamine overdoses. Stop talking to me. You've gone kooky! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I think both you and JzG make some good points, but both of you sometimes express them in a way that makes it hard for others to reach an NPOV consensus. Let's all try to cool down and remember WP:AGF. That last sentence ("gone kooky") is a personal attack. I think you should strike or delete it. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If I did, it would come across like I want him to stop talking to me for no reason. I wouldn't be so rude. I went kooky myself once, it's not terminal, I wish him well. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, not especially, no. It's a violent assault with a chemical weapon designed for use on bears, not humans. It's very much more powerful than pepper spray sold for use in deterring assault - bears are known for being quite a bit bigger than humans.

There's also a matter of consistency. Use of tear gas and other chemical and "less lethal;" weapons by police in Portland and elsewhere has, rightly, been called out in many reports. The idea that you should not be using chemical weapons on people is not exactly controversial. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Even CNN has walked back "that bear shit" line, agree with prosecutors and video that it was regular pepper spray. Just as safe as bear spray, but way more commonly used on humans. Tear gas was never even mentioned, but if that's the next straw you want to grasp at, I'm not surprised. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, again, using chemical weapons on people going about their lawful business has never been a good idea. The Kent State shootings started with tear gas, remember? And that applies even if your lawful business is stopping people trying to overthrow a democratic election. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• More to the point, for people claiming that our source texts are wrong, how do we know that the source texts are wrong? We need a different source. You can't just say "they are wrong" without providing the contradictory sources. The Medical Examiners report cites 5 deaths. Secondary sources discuss the medical examiners report and also report the five deaths. Where is your contradictory source? Another, equally reliable source, would be acceptable. But we can't just alter what the existing sources say just because we personally disagree with them. That's not how Wikipedia works. We can't even say the sources are wrong without sources to say so; that's just you asserting they are wrong. Anyone can assert anything; what you need to do to change the article is provide reliable sources to back up your assertions. --Jayron32 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Sicknick should be removed as well as the chap who died before the riot. The list of deaths for any event should only include people who died as a result of the event, at the event, or in some way that significantly affected the event. There is a bizarre insistence on including what every RS now says was a natural death. It is now abundantly clear that, per RS, the ME's report "cites natural causes in officer’s death, drawing no links to Jan. 6 attack." Hanging on to a single vague, tautological quote from a single source—which in no way draws a link between the riot and Sicknick's death—is absurd and contrafactual. We all now understand that the media blew this one—as well as the OD death misreported as a woman "trampled to death"—but that's not in any way an excuse for continuing to include thoroughly discredited misinformation. The brouhaha over Sicknick's death should be included—as it was a big part of the fallout from the event—but obviously not by including him as a death or casualty of the riot. There is a real credibility issue for Wikipedia here, and it's disturbing that this is even in question. Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose modification of the death count at this time. The alt-right havens are ablaze with efforts to disassociate Sicknick from the Capitol Hill death tally, but a premediated pepper spray attack and an otherwise-healthy man dies 31 hours later is not coincidental. This is still considered by the Capitol Police as an "in the line of duty" death. ValarianB (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of the unrelated deaths of people who happened to be at the protest at some point before they died. There was only one death at the protest, it was of the unarmed protestor. Any attempt to shoehorn other people in the body count is clearly done for POV purposes and is in direct opposition to the goals of Wikipedia. Innican Soufou (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Innican Soufou, s/unarmed protester/mad QAnon conspiracist who was part of an armed mob trying to breach the doors into the Speaker's Lobby and murder Nancy Pelosi/ Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Innican Soufou (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou, no, I don't think it is. casting Babbitt as "unarmed" is to isolate her from the context of an armed mob that caused life-changing injuries to numerous law enforcement personnel in their attempt to prevent the certification of the results of Trump's defeat.

Insurreections have consequences. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is exact the kind of toxic, uninformed, misleading rhetoric I'm talking about. You're free to have those opinions, even if they aren't based in reality. Just be careful about injecting them in a supposed neutral, fact-based platform like this one. Innican Soufou (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG, this comment provides no help to this discussion - it's merely you voicing your opinions on the one person everyone agrees should be listed. I respect that we have different views on a lot of things and I have seen you make very useful comments on this talk page, but this isn't one of them and in fact it's hurtful to this discussion. Please don't use talk page discussions to attempt to force your view onto others or explain your personal viewpoint - especially when it's completely unrelated to the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, alternative hypothesis: trying to portray Ashli Babbitt as the sole, and innocent, victim of the insurrection, is a gross violation of NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not what was said, that's not what you responded with. You responded to two words with what amounts to a rant as to whether she was at fault for her death or not - which is not what's being discussed. You're not helping here with that sort of comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, that's not what I said. What we have here is a small group of people apparently trying to portray four of the five deaths attributed by reliable sources to the insurrection, as somehow unrelated, and, at the same time, portray someone who was in the midst of a terrifying mob storming the Speaker's Corridor, as an innocent victim.

That's WP:SYN and a violation of WP:NPOV. Fixing the errors of reliable sources is not how Wikipedia works. Like the Hitch-Hiker's Guide, we are "definitively inaccurate". The infobox should say five died, as the RS do, and the nuance can be handled in the section on deaths and injuries (some of which were life-changing).

Any proposed "compromise" is between the way the mainstream media represent things (five deaths directly attributed), and the way the right-wing media portray it (one innocent woman shot by police inna George Floyd stylee, and some dudes who died purely coincidentally). The opposite of mainstream is not conservative. The opposite of mainstream is fringe. The narrative on NewsMax, OANN, Breitbart and the rest is a fringe narrative. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. We're not here to split the difference between reality-based coverage and the fantasy world of patriots peacefully protesting the theft of the election that their guy won in a landslide. Context matters here. We can understand the fact that people come here with heads full of Tucker Carlson, but we should not treat that as a reasonable or fact-based worldview. It's like WP:RANDY. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If context matters so much, why do you keep ignoring the context the RS provide around the 5 number, where virtually universally they clarify the number somewhere in the same article as being comprised of 1 shooting, 3 natural causes the day of, and 1 natural causes the next day? You cannot pick and choose which parts of reliable sources you want to use - you either use the entire context of the source or you don't. And no, they don't attribute the deaths to the "insurrection" - they carefully say that the deaths occurred at/around the events - not that they were caused by the events. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I'm not ignoring it. The context belongs ins the section on deaths and injuries, not in the infobox or lede, because the high level summaries in RS do exactly the same. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That's saying "it's okay for us to have incomplete and misleading information in the infobox just because we correct the context later on". No, it's not okay to have incomplete information in an infobox - either it should contain complete information (through the use of footnotes if necessary) or it should not contain the information at all. The high level summaries in RS clarify the natural deaths versus the shooting death - usually in the same sentence but at least in the same paragraph as the first time they say 5 deaths happened. It is not appropriate to advocate for incomplete and misleading information in the infobox just because "it's correct elsewhere on the page". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As the original poster, how about we focus on the compromise of adding footnotes regarding each death in the infobox. Everyone is kept, but an explanation (using RS) of the context of their death is given. Judging from the rhetoric being used in this section, I feel like this is becoming a debate forum on American politics. I think the compromise solution of footnotes will seal the deal. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:49FC:8AF0:F026:E26D (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How about we compromise and only include the death of the person that was directly a result of the protest, which is the subject of the article? Listing deaths of people that weren't a direct result of the protests is misleading. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou, how about we compromise and include all the people whose deaths and life-changing injuries are attributed by reliable sources to the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. That would mean that we only mention the injuries and single death of the unarmed protestor at the hands of capital police. Thank you for agreeing with me. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou, reliable independent sources attribute five deaths and numerous life-changing injuries to the insurrection. To state otherwise is to call into question your understanding of what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. To constantly and obsessively describe insurrectionist Babbitt as "unarmed" indicates a likely bias and motive for failing to follow reliable sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose modification of the death count at this time, as ValarianB said. The current text adequately acknowledges the ambiguities. We can afford to wait until greater clarity emerges before we run off to change it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) Damn it, let me try again, hopefully my proposal doesn't get hijacked by political commentary this time. I'll do it slowly. How about we add footnotes in the infobox explaining (using RS) the context (using RS) of death (using RS) for each of the 5 people (yes all five). I don't give a freaking damn what you think about anything, I don't give a damn what you think about Babbit or Sicknick or the rest. All I am asking, and listen closely guys, is that footnotes for all five are added in the infobox, explaining the reason and cause of death for each one. Strokes, gunshot, overdose, put whatever you like. Do you guys understand this time? A compromise. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:49FC:8AF0:F026:E26D (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think there's a civil way to say this? Innican Soufou (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

He tried five or six gentler wordings already, see above for what good that did. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me like this might overload the infobox, so to speak (in terms of keeping it readable, not in terms of what the software can handle); generally, boxes are good for data that can be expressed concisely. XOR'easter (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The same field had eight unbundled citations for weeks or months until five days ago, it can handle up to five nuggets of truth (some sources say how all five died in one). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If people are worried about having 5 footnotes linked from the infobox, how about we just have one foot note with a list of whatever explaining all five. That said I'm not sure if it's necessary since it seems that this sort of information can and should be dealt with in the article so there's no need for a footnote or five. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That'd be best, a neat bundle. But since the field is specifically for casualties of a human act, and four are known to have not been homicide victims, at least some disclaimer/clarifier/whatever is needed. Even if we went with the one actual casualty, we'd probably need to explain why to some people, for some reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I would be on board with that. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1458:E118:537B:E37A (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2601:85:C101:C9D0:49FC:8AF0:F026:E26D, mainstream sources say that five people died and others suffered life-changing injuries. Sure, there's nuance. Nuance goes in the section on deaths and injuries, not in the infobox. The fact that sedition supporters find the death toll offensive is really not our problem to fix. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I totally understand your point. We really are on the same page here. But I don't think footnotes or further explanation will harm the infobox much. I'll give a few examples. The Invasion of Åland page lists one Swede dead in the infobox, but describes it as suicide. Or the infobox date for the Somali Civil War page, it has a rather large footnote explaining the variation in dating. Or the The Holocaust infobox, the deaths part has a large footnote explaining why 6 million is the displayed number. Or the Strategic bombing during World War II infobox, the deaths for Germany and Japan have a long list of sources and quotes to explain variations in the toll. So the addition of a footnote would have precedence on Wikipedia. Of course, the deaths and injuries section would go into much deeper explanation of the victims' deaths, but a footnote in the infobox, with a summary from RS about the cause of death, would be quite helpful. Personally, I think it would make a small improvement to the page. I, like you, oppose catering to fringe lunatics. And to assuage your fears, I can assure you, from a politically neutral fellow, I do not think footnotes (or just a singular footnote of context with RS) would be catering to the far-right. It would just make the infobox, which is a summary of the events, more complete. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1458:E118:537B:E37A (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Guy, Aquillion, XOR'easter and ValarianB Wikipedia is solely based on reliable sources, the death count we record in this article is based only on those reliable sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  There's a box with ten reliable sources in this very section, explaining how three of the presumed casualties died naturally, and one by a non-violent accident. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • • All those citations only really cover Sicknick. Yes they all quote DC Chief Medical Examiner Dr Francisco Diaz that the manner of Sicknick's death was "natural" after the riot (with no direct evidence of it being brought on by physical or chemical injury) BUT they also clearly go on to say that

      "Diaz’s ruling does not mean Sicknick was not assaulted or that the violent events at the Capitol did not contribute to his death. The medical examiner noted Sicknick was among the officers who engaged the mob and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”"

      We know what had transpired was that a few hours before his collapse Sicknick in the line of duty had to grapple with an aggressive mob of pro-Trump rioters who violently attacked and overran police to force their way into the seat of US government. How much the riot played in his death is not known BUT as Diaz clearly states in all ten reliable sources that all that transpired played a role in his condition.” Officer Sicknick and two other police officers were injured and temporarily blinded “as a result of being sprayed in the face” with an unidentified substance by Khater and Tanios, according to the F.B.I. Capitol Police force said “This does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol.” Ashli Babbitt, was shot to death during the riot. Two others died of complications from heart disease (stress of a mass riot not helping) and one death yes was an amphetamine overdose. But I am no seeing a ruling or statement saying the riot played no part in their deaths. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Sicknick's death leads, but BBC, NYT and AFP (to name three) cover the others, too. By learning they're natural and accidental, we know they weren't caused by rioters (or anyone), by lack of homicide ruling. We don't need a source explicitly saying so, anymore than we need one denying everything else that didn't happen, from dinosaurs to shootouts to bonfires. I get that "all that transpired" can refer exclusively to a brief scuffle or spraying eight hours before collapse, to those predisposed to think so. But it really means all that transpired. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The BBC, NYT and AFB hardly cover the other deaths in any useable detail, no evidence of accidents in any of the citations, agree the was no homicides or being eaten by passing dinosaurs LOL, however what transpired on that day can absolutely not be described as a brief scuffle Much Bigger LOL. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The deaths are clearly part of the story of this violent riot, and need to be covered in this article. It also needs to give weight to the assaults on officers, including Sicknick, sustained in the line of duty. One has found it "very difficult seeing elected officials and other individuals whitewash the events of that day or downplay what happened. Some of the terminology that has been used, like ‘hugs and kisses’ and ‘very fine people’ – very different from what I experienced and what my co-workers experienced on the 6th." ` More on this – Pilkington, Ed (28 April 2021). "US officer beaten by rioters condemns effort to 'whitewash' Capitol attack". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 April 2021.. – looks to be a developing story. . dave souza, talk 17:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any removals or changing the number at this time, support one footnote after the number of deaths which explains that 3 died due to medical issues that were not caused by the riot, one died the next day of a medical issue. As an example footnote: Three people died during the riot due to medical emergencies suffered at the riot, and one police officer died the next day due to strokes. There are other articles with footnotes that explain why people are/are not included in a count - alternatively, some list similarly to "5 total" and then leave it to the prose to describe the manner of death for each - that would potentially also be acceptable. I also support replacing the source currently in the infobox with a more recent source that says there were 5 deaths - because most are correct that sources are still widely using "five". However, what a lot of people don't seem to look at in the sources is that they say 5 people died at the riot, not because of the riot - and I think that labelling deaths as "5" without a footnote implies that they were all caused by the riot. We are supposed to look at reliable sources in their entirety and not just cherry-pick the number 5 out of them without also including the same qualifications the sources do - i.e. intentionally describing 3 of them as natural causes during the riot, and one of them as natural causes after the riot. I think everyone here needs to take a step back and realize that neither extreme (5 without a footnote, or changing that number) is wholly in compliance with NPOV - because both of them ignore one part of the sources. You cannot say that "we take RS that say 5 to cite this" without also saying "we need to provide the same qualifications as the sources do when they say 5". As such, a footnote is the best way to rectify this issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(Original IP) I wholly concur. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C5ED:2AAF:FEC6:B88 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support "I suggest a rewrite of the deaths and injuries section" was the original inquiry. It seems very clear to me that with a new piece of developing news coming to light, that a rewrite of the deaths and injuries section is order. That is not to say that the passing of Sicknick or the other three deaths are not tragic, irrelevant ,or should be scrubbed from the article entirely. Sicknick is certainly relevant and he should be mentioned in the article given his relevance among reliable sources in addition to the fact there is an entire article dedicated to Sicknick in particular. That being said, it's dishonest to say that Sicknick or those three deaths were causalities of the riot. Reliable sources very clearly say that Sicknick died of a stroke the day after the riot at the Capitol. Their causes of death, as the original posts elaborates, were unfortunately natural and unrelated to what occurred on Jan. 6th. Are they irrelevant to the Jan. 6th riot? Absolutely not, and I do not support expunging them from the article entirely due to the plethora of sources mentioning and discussing them. However, the infobox should make it clear who died on that day because of what happened. Stroke, heart attack, or drug overdose should not be counted as deaths caused by the incident. AdvancedScholar (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just because the deaths were not caused directly by any action during the riot, does not mean the mob violence that day did not cause stresses that led to heart attacks and strokes. Just being directly involved in a mob riot/ failed insurrection has real life changing consequences ~ that is why Washington's Chief Medical Examiner Dr Francisco Diaz makes very clear in his decision that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” So no we should not remove the 'natural' deaths, simply because they were not directly caused by any specific action, they were still part of the hostile events that transpired on that day and we simply have zero idea if the deaths would have occurred without the extra stressful anarchy of that day (strong possibility not). The only death I would remove is the drug overdose. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved admin: as purely a point of policy, the most-recent highest-quality sources should be considered to trump earlier sources, even if those older sources are of the same high quality. We have to balance recentism with this, but if the preponderance of the highest-quality sources are now saying something different from what they were saying in January, we should too. —valereee (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree. In the first flush of reporting, media saw police officers injured by assault with fire extinguishers, and a lady who had been carrying a "don't tread on me" flag apparently trampled by the mob. Deaths became the story, with a tendency to ignore serious assaults which plays into the hands of those pretending it was a peaceful demonstration – see "US officer beaten by rioters condemns effort to ‘whitewash’ Capitol attack" in source linked above. The deaths are part of the story, as are the injuries, and need to be assessed in the light of newer high quality sources say. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the point you're making? Please try to be clear, as your most recent post I'm seeing seems to have a POV. I don't know what "The deaths are part of the story, as are the injuries, and need to be assessed in the light of newer high quality sources say. . ." means. Can you clarify what you're getting at? —valereee (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Future historians will be able to summarise these events, at this stage speculation in initial reports is apparently overstated, but we need to cover the 5 deaths and should put it in the context of multiple Police injuries. Reports of 8 January identified five people who died [in] an attempted insurrection, including a Capitol police officer. Causes of death were being investigated, only Babbit's seemed clear. More details are emerging, a "police officer who was attacked by Trump-supporting rioters during the Capitol attack on 6 January has decried the efforts of some politicians and other public figures to 'whitewash' and downplay the insurrection." Our article section looks good but it's difficult to adequately summarise in a few words. The Trump bio had "died as a consequence of the riot"", I changed that to "died in connection with the riot", but was reverted as unsourced. That bio doesn't mention injuries. Can other editors review the bio wording and put forward the best sources? . . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support The sources at one time may have justified 5 deaths in the infobox, but what is backed by news sources sometimes changes as new info comes out. Based on the sources I am reading, it is no longer appropriate to call Officer Brian Sicknick a casualty of the event.JMM12345 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

  JMM12345, sure, because he totally would have died at exactly the same time without the assault. Just as George Floyd would. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't George Floyd where a jury verdict actually said that he was murdered. In this case, we don't know the counterfactual. We don't know when he would have died otherwise. We can only go by the ME report which says that he died of natural causes. It would be totally inappropriate for us to speculate past that.JMM12345 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

• Support The fact that this page has shown 5 deaths for months now is a disgrace. Read WP:NOT and tell me that wikipedia should be regurgitating dubious claims. You can place the blame on the New York Times or any number of other "reliable sources" all you want but it should have been clear to editors of this page from the start that the coverage of this event was ripe for "fog of war" style misinformation, even from the even keeled of newspapers. There is/was no need to quickly re-scribe what they wrote. Books will be written about this event with (hopefully) more evenhandedness. That applies to many issues surrounding this article, but the deaths are the most egregious one right now. This needs to be pulled back. Nweil (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds like you want to disregard mainstream sources and promote fringe views on the basis of your "original research" – WP:NOTFORUM, so are you going to provide good quality sources? . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not promoted any fringe views or original research? Not sure what you are referring to. Nweil (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Core policies require verification from published sources, not unsourced thoughts on the matter, and due weight to mainstream published views. Your rejection of "the New York Times or any number of other 'reliable sources'" and forecasts about future publications don't meet these policies. . .dave souza, talk 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza:The context here is that the New York Times has already been wrong and updated their reporting on this topic. You keep talking about core policies which I am not flouting or disputing. Not including a detail, even if it is printed in the New York Times, is perfectly within policy. In fact, a little perspective goes a long way on such a politically charged topic. As I'm sure you know, this is not the place for propaganda (WP:NOTSCANDAL). Arguably some propaganda was on this site (as in "Sicknick died from fire extinguisher", then "Sicknick died from bear spray") for months. It seems like this should upset you more than it apparently does. Nweil (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nweil: So? No evidence there that Sicknick wasn't a casualty, which he was as defined by NATO (irrespective of the cause of death). It's original research to claim otherwise, without an explicit source and due weight to all the reliable sources saying casualties included five deaths. The article has been kept in line with sources and looks right. Some propaganda you've been following may say otherwise, but it needs to be published in a reliable source before it has any place here. . dave souza, talk 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose not substantially covering the death of Sicknick. His death assumed to result from the storming is significant as it became a reason for the Second impeachment of Donald Trump. The article of impeachment itself stated that Trump supporters ‘injured and killed law enforcement personnel’, with the pretrial memorandum claiming that "the insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher." After the impeachment trial, President Biden issued a statement saying Sicknick lost "his life while protecting the Capitol from a violent, riotous mob."[1] Support clarifying in the infobox which death(s) were violent based on WP:RS, and also attribute the shooting to the police. Use WP:INTEXT rather than wikivoice when reporting the death count in the article. Terjen (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Casualties

The infobox item heading (though it's not in the detailed section) refers to 5 casualties, and a source headed "Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes after Capitol riot, medical examiner says - CBS News' is cited to claim he's not a casualty. Leaving aside that source saying "all that transpired played a role in his condition", it also reports that Capitol Police said it accepted the finding that Sicknick died of natural causes but said "this does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol." So clear;y not a civilian. Casualty (person)#Non-battle casualty "A person who is not a battle casualty, but who is lost to his organization by reason of disease or injury, including persons dying from disease or injury". So, Sicknick was clearly a casualty. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that's original research and quite a stretch. Time to drop the stick. Terjen (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Article Name: Is it time to discuss again?

I wanted to see if there was an appetite to re-attack the article's name. To me, the best way to go about this is to use google news search. First, it contains sources that are generally considered RS. Then I limited the search to only the word in the title for the word we are considering using. That provides a better understanding of how WP:RS are titling articles, not simply what words they used in an article. What I like about Google News, is that it drops older search hits. In that way, it provides a good snapshot of what sources are using now. I would note that because you are using recent sources, the number of hits changes over time. However, as of posting the OP, I got:

• riot used 50,000 times,
• attack is used 59,100 times,
• insurrection is used 9,220 times
• storming is used 3,230 times.

My issue is storming, is that is still the worse choice to meet WP:COMMONNAME. I think we should look at what WP:RS are calling the event now, and change the name to reflect that. It has been a few month. I was thinking now might be the time to attack this again?Casprings (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Google's numbers are wild overestimates in most cases. By navigating to the last page of results, I got the following:

• riot used 246 times
• attack used 239 times
• insurrection used 249 times
• storming used 195 times

There may be reasons to change the name, but they can't be based on COMMONNAME, where we're looking for much more dramatic discrepancies in usage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit lost as to what navigating to the last page of results provides? Why wouldn't just take the total number of recent results? I don't get the logic here. Casprings (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Because Google wildly overestimates. On the last page, you can see how many actual news articles Google was able to find. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, that is completely incorrect. Google caps the number of pages it will actually return for a news search result and cuts them off at around 250 regardless of the search - try searching for Obama, it cuts off at the same place. Or for Attack (on its own, no other words) or Israel. I hope you haven't been using "navigate to the end" in other discussions - search results are useful (not the last word, but they do tell you something.) Navigating to the end is completely meaningless and tells you nothing whatsoever - you should never rely on it for anything, and if you've brought it up in other discussions and people mistakenly paid attention to you, those discussions need to be re-evaluated. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for teaching me that. I brought up a similar point at one other move discussion and it did not influence the decision, so no worries on that front. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The research done by Casprings is too primitive, and this method of rudimentary google searches, as well as the "last page of results" method, has been criticized multiple times. The latter however works for short periods such as a week, but the search must be narrowed down with advanced operators, and multiple people should post their findings. An actual talk subpage involving much more worked-out methods exists for this kind of discussion, here: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. Users who have substantially contributed to prior name discussions should be pinged at some point, if the broader naming discussion is to be restarted. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both pinging past participants and with a more thorough analysis. We cannot simply look at what Google or any other website says for something that's potentially this close. We need to look at each individual article, determine for sure it is a reliable source, and then count the number of times outside of quotes each term is used in each of those articles. Only then can we actually determine what's the common name. With many articles quoting people calling it an "insurrection" but not calling it that themselves, this is the only way to find the true common reliable source name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• As I pointed out above, navigating to the last page of results doesn't tell anything at all. Actual search results tell something, but the number of pages you can navigate to do not tell anything at all when there is a large number of results - in that case, Google truncates the number it will actually show you arbitrarily at around 250 pages. Navigating to the last result tells you nothing whatsover and should never even be brought up. Search results (especially dramatic ones like these, where the differences are entire orders of magnitude) are valuable, even if they have limitations; navigating to the last result means nothing and anyone who is trying to use it to respond to actual search results needs to understand that and stop immediately. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion: It doesn't truncate if you limit the search to a short period and narrow it down to certain domains, so that you get a small number of potential results, which is generally an exhaustive list that fits on one page. That way you can get an accurate overview for that period, but it is suspected that the results somewhat vary from one user to another so they should be pooled from multiple users. Please review the research included in the subpage (Exhibit A specifically), the results have been updated. It can be probably be done for past weeks as well, separately. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral but common names applies. None of these terms is the generally accepted name for the event, and at least two of them are POV, since they contain the allegation of a crime, although no one has been convicted or AFAIK even charged with riot or insurrection. If it was a riot or insurrection, then everyone present would be equally guilty. Per no original research and BLPCRIME, those are calls better left to the courts. TFD (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, numerous people have indeed been charged with crimes, but that's not the point. What matters is what reliable sources call it. Which, for the most part, is variations on insurrection or riot. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

'Attack' has some respectability too, see the PBS tag "U.S. Capitol Attack". But that's it: insurrection, riot, attack, and a smidge of breach. Siege, invasion and all of the other speculative descriptors have long withered away, together with storming. In the past week, storming was only used once, in the titles of articles that appear on Google News... by The Epoch Times. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Dang it Alalch, I really didn't want have to reopen this can of worms, but that does sort of cinch it, doesn't it?! "Storming" has no claim to COMMONNAME anymore. Among the names that are commonly used, "attack" is probably the most NPOV, "insurrection" is probably the most technically accurate. Feoffer (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is also much less common than "attack", and both are much less common than "riot". Riot is the clear plurality common name - even if it's not a majority (which it may be at this point). Insurrection has POV issues, riot has much less (if we believe that it has any at all, which I don't think it does). Unfortunately, even with evidence at that subpage, people will still corrupt move requests if one is made. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The "riot" numbers are tricky because they're not mutually exclusive with others descriptors. To be sure, the attack included a riot, but it also included pipebombs. Feoffer (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Another comment on the results obtained by Casprings: searching intitle:storming "Capitol" mixes up the verb (continuous form) with the noun (gerund); instead of searching merely for storming and separately for Capitol in titles, which produces many titles such as "National Guard soldier charged for storming the US Capitol" (which are completely irrelevant for this discussion as "storming" as a verb in the title in no way indicates that CNN would choose "storming" as a descriptor – which they incidentally generally don't), a search must made such that it is based on the gerund, which is the only type of "storming" apt for a descriptor; this can be done with allintitle: "capitol storming" | "storming of" capitol, and it produces 1,430 instead of 3,230 hits. The same logic applies to attack. Edit: a gramatically relevant search for attack (using allintitle: "capitol attack" | "attack on" capitol) produces 9,670 instead of 59,100 hits. The rudimentary search for attack that produces so many hits includes titles such as "There are hundreds of posts about plans to attack the Capitol. Why hasn't this evidence been used in court?". Does that indicate a news org chose "attack" as a descriptor in that instance? No it doesn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (Cont:) Therefore:

• riot used 53,300 times,
• attack is used 9,670 times,
• insurrection is used 10,600 times
• storming is used 1,430 times.

This means that what Berchanhimez has ascertained regarding 'insurrection' and 'attack', possibly based on Casprings' less-than-valid research, isn't correct - it isn't that 'insurrection' is much less common than 'attack', it is somewhat more common than 'attack'. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG I wrote, "no one has been convicted or AFAIK even charged with riot or insurrection," not that no one has been charged with anything. Both these crimes require that all the persons participating had a common criminal purpose. I don't know if that is true or not, but don't think it is a call that Wikipedia editors should make. The article for example names 18 current and former Republican legislators who were present. Although one of them was charged with "entering a restricted area," neither he nor any of the others have been charged with riot or insurrection. I don't feel confident saying that all of them were gultly of the crimes of riot or insurrection unless they have been at least accused those offenses. TFD (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the points in favor of "attack". It encompasses rioters, insurrectionists, bombers, and whatever else might come up without accusing any particular person of any particular offense. Feoffer (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If we base ourselves on google hits, this is what a "None of these terms is the generally accepted name" argument rests upon, in visual form:

_________________________riot________________________ __insurr.__ __attack__ ┌ current title

█████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ███████████ ██████████ █▄ — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

COMMONNAME says, "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." So we can't just use the most common term, we have to consider all the criteria, which include neutral tone and accuracy. I notice also that the terms used apply to the storming of the Capitol Building. But most demonstrators did not participate and it's not clear that they committed any criminal acts by demonstrating outside the building. TFD (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Of the three terms commonly used by RSes, "insurrection" is likely the most accurate, while "attack" is probably most neutral. "Riot" isn't a bad title and appears to be most common, but for reasons TFD lays out, it's likely the least neutral/accurate of the three -- the main body of the demonstrators didn't become violent, as suggested by "riot'".

I could support any of the three, but I think my preference would be to lean into neutrality -- everyone can agree police were attacked on Jan 6. Feoffer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel "attack" can fail at the same reason you don't think "riot" is preferable - because the main body of the demonstrators didn't attack police. The most neutral is "protests", but I can see and agree with arguments that would not be preferable as it doesn't convey the entry into the building. Of note, however, there were a not insignificant number of riots that took place during the George Floyd protests, with our own article on those stating over 14k arrests - and yet it's not called "riots" - even the more riotous George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul, where $350 million in damage was done to over 1,000 properties and causing two deaths, even those aren't called "riots". I'm not sure if this is because of potential bias among editors, but it seems that our page here, which says only $30 million or so in damage (10% of that of the MSP events linked above), should not be called "attack" or "riots" when it was virtually the same thing. I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that based on consistency with other articles' naming, we should be calling this "protest" - because other articles that had very similar events - where small percentages of people became riotous and caused damage/injury/death - are called "protests". Looking through more articles, it's clear that discussion of the title for this article has been suffering from quite a bit of bias from editors who think this must be called the worst name possible - I think this discussion without a formal requested move is providing some useful information. I worry that a requested move will devolve into the same that all past ones have - editors expressing their clear political motivations behind their !votes and attacking anyone who doesn't accept their suggestions. TLDR: "attack" suffers from the same problem "riot" does - and similar articles are named "protest(s)". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"protests" is a total nonstarter for me -- maybe for a separate article focusing just on other events, but this article covers an attack, not a protest. Feoffer (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, but approximately half of this article doesn't discuss entering the capitol, vandalizing, attacks on people, etc. at all. Further, the attack started as a protest - while there were some people that went determined to go into the building, the same can be said about some people going to the George Floyd protests wanting to loot, vandalize, etc. I think there's something to be said for consistency here - the event, at its core, is an event quite similar to the George Floyd protests - you have a group of people who all thought they were just going to protest, and in the end there was rioting, looting, vandalism, etc. If we can't even consider the consistency aspect of it, by saying it's a nonstarter, what does that say about our ability to carefully and consciously analyze the potential bias Wikipedia and its editors are having with respect to either issue (either the Black Lives Matter movement, being potentially biased towards, or republicans, being potentially biased against)? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, no, this is nothing like the Floyd protests. Those were a spontaneous response to yet another murder of a Black man by police in broad daylight. Here, the insurrection was the result of calculated rhetoric promoting a double lie: first that Trump won the election, and second, that Congress could somehow make Biden not have won it.

It doesn't matter how hard a segment of the media tries to both-sides this, there's no comparison between a reactive protest against injustice and a concerted effort to overthrow an election you lost. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter to the side you hate how hard the news you love tries, this afternoon riot that only seriously injured a few dozen or so was nothing like how insurrections work everywhere they actually happen to other countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly didn't want to open this can of worms again, but even I am persuaded by the documentation from Alalch Emis and others that "storm" is not used by RSes while "attack" and "insurrection" are. Feoffer (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Storming and insurrection are QAnon and Democrat buzzwords, respectively, an attack at least occurred. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Our own article on this event makes clear that while some planned violence/storming/rioting, that was a minority - most people were there for the rally and merely got "roped into it". That's no different than the George Floyd protests, called protests on Wikipedia, or the Kenosha unrest, called "unrest" on Wikipedia. In all of these events, a significant minority of people planned violence before attending the "events", and carried out such violence, which roped other people into it as well in many cases. The rioting in Kenosha and at George Floyd protests was not spontaneous, and that's been shown and in reliable sources in both cases - people showed up to those protests intending to vandalize and destroy property, and in some cases even with intent to potentially shoot/kill people. The only difference is the political viewpoint involved. This is a clear example of the known systemic bias on Wikipedia to be weighted towards "left" viewpoints, which you're not helping with by being so blatantly POV in your opinions, JzG. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You bring up the Kenosha protests, the notable people who planned to show up and start violence as their goal were mostly of the same political persuasion as those who did the same at the U.S. Capitol, unless you're arguing that Kyle Rittenhouse was somehow left-leaning. Which I can't see any evidence of at all. Your attempt at "bothsidesism" needs some better examples if you're going to be taken seriously. --Jayron32 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna say anything, NOTFORUM and all, but since Jayron mentioned, I'll chime in: I also was confused by the Kenosha analogy, because we do in fact have a dedicated article on the Kenosha attack. This mirrors the relationship between this article and its nonviolent ("protest") counterpart Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. There's room in Wikipedia for an entire article just on the non-violent protests of Jan 5-6, if someone wanted to write it. Feoffer (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

An excellent and very doable suggestion. BusterD (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Feoffer, agree completely with this suggestion, and it would eliminate any concern whatsoever about the POV of the word in the title here, because it would be hard to argue that it's POV to state that people "attacked" and "stormed" or "rioted" at a building when that's what they did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This talk page section is already so long and hard to follow as it is. Could we refrain from unhelpful, NOTFORUM essays about one's personal thoughts about the event and media coverage, etc.? At the very least, save it for the naming votes to come. Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(EC) "the attack started as a protest" Reliable sources disagree: Chief Sund: "I'm able to provide you a quick overview of why I think it was a coordinated attack. One, people came specifically with equipment. You're bringing in climbing gear to a demonstration. You're bringing in explosives. You're bringing in chemical spray ... you're coming prepared." Feoffer (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel "attack" can fail at the same reason you don't think "riot" is preferable - because the main body of the demonstrators didn't attack police.

Irrelevant, since the article is about the "2021 VERBing of the United States Capitol", not the "2021 [VERB]ing of the police at the United States Capitol". --Calton | Talk 05:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say that we wait until the first anniversary and see how reliable sources refer to the event as. That might give an insight into what the common name people will use going forward. There is no rush to change it right now. Z22 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For the non-date part of the COMMONNAME (see the date subsection below for the rest), I want to suggest a different approach, to use in tandem (if people want) with the raw searches that most people can't agree on the utility of. Each major media outlet has by now its own standard naming convention for the event. We should catalog the term that's used by each of the top 10 or 20 most well-respected news outlets in the English-speaking world, with an emphasis on the US: the NYT, Washington Post... that whole scene. To me, at this point in the process, that information is more useful than Google searches of who knows what exactly. Moncrief (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We already have this: Exhibit B — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the outlets I mentioned is listed there. Moncrief (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You're free to add them, it's a collaborative effort. Edit: Moncrief: I added NYT and Washpo. Please comment. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm intrigued by your limited prepositional choices, as I'd think some articles would say, for example, "riot in." I also don't understand the "incite_incited..." part of searching for the word "insurrection." But I'm sure you have your reasons, and thank you for making the effort. It looks from that chart like "riot" is leading as the most common name, but I'll dig deeper later. Personally -- and maybe it's just me -- I'd be more interested in the nomenclature over just the past two months rather than the Jan-March period, which we already know was unsettled for naming. Moncrief (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Moncrief: When all the inflected forms of 'incite' aren't eliminated from the search it leads to the inclusion of titles such as "Trump Impeached for Inciting Insurrection - The New York Times", which are false positives as they don't indicate "insurrection" as a chosen descriptor by a nyt editor or journalist. I'll think about "riot in" and other prepositions. Thanks. Edit: A search based on "riot in":

allintitle: "riot in" capitol site:apnews.com OR site:bbc.com OR site:theguardian.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:reuters.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:cnn.com OR site:cnbc.com OR site:npr.org OR site:pbs.org OR site:nbc.com OR site:abc.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:latimes.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:csmonitor.com OR site:wsj.com OR site:ft.com OR site:afp.com OR site:aljazeera.com OR site:bloomberg.com OR site:politico.com OR site:usnews.com OR site:upi.com after:2021-5-9

only produces 1 non-specific result: "Miller, Rosen To Defend Federal Response To Capitol Riot In ... (Congress)" — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Out of date (Sicknick died of natural causes)

Surprised no one hear heard the news yet, but the coroner ruled that the death of Officer Sicknick was unrelated to the riot. I've made some attempt to update the article, but, reasonably, even more information should be removed as it's off topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see the massive discussions above, and revert the related changes you made on the main page. We're working on getting this right, within policy requirements such as using reliable sources and avoiding original research. Terjen (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: Bodney (who just reverted your latest edit) has a different assessment than me about why Sicknick is included in the death count. It's not because "all that transpired played a role in his condition" but because reliable sources still do. Terjen (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I meant to/should have included that more important wiki point. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Also note, Sicknick was a casualty irrespective of natural causes. . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Diaz was unable to say whether the officer had any pre-existing medical conditions. However, he did acknowledge the policeman's role in the events, telling the Washington Post: "All that transpired played a role in his condition.". So yes it did have an impact upon his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

No, Officer Sicknick is not off-topic from this article. We've had a lot of coverage on him, and we should inform readers about what his death really was, instead of censoring it from the article. Same for Greeson, Philips, Boyland. starship.paint (exalt) 12:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• FFS. This again? Yes, yes, the right-wing narrative is that "only Trump supporters were victims". We've seen it from members of the Treason Caucus. But sources say Sicknick was a casualty of the insurrection, and so do we. Anyone who seriously believes he would have died when he did in the absence of the events of that day, I have a nice bridge you might like to buy. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Confirmation bias is strong on both sides. Terjen (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Weapons used"

I've reverted the addition of a substantial "weapons used" section. While I think there should be discussion on whether a section of that nature is appropriate, the specific content seems to clearly be a BLP violation, in addition to being UNDUE. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The mention of pipe bombs and molotovs is redundant (covered elsewhere), as well as lead/metal pipes and chemical irritants (covered in the "Siege of the Capitol" section). Some parts may not be redundant / undue / a BLP violation such as "17 were charged with weapons crimes". — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed the section but, on a closer look, the remainder is still essentially duplicate content. The (re-)addition should probably be reverted altogether. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternative event names in article first sentence

Whatever the article title ends up being for this event, the first sentence should include alternative names that are commonly used for the event, especially event names used in the sources that are cited in the article. Objections to calling the event "riots" or "insurrection", because there is not yet a court finding that there was a riot or insurrection, or on neutrality grounds, is inconsistent with names used in other Wikipedia articles and article section titles. E.g., Stop the steal is used as a section title, although nothing was "stolen". Alternative medicine is an article title, although by definition it is not an "alternative" to anything. If the event has not yet been proven in court to be an actual riot or insurrection, this can be mentioned in the article body. But refraining from calling the event by the names used in daily major news stories is a disservice to our readers. I propose changing the first sentence to be:

The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex, January 6th Insurrection, Capitol riots, or "January 6", refers to an event on January 6, 2021, in which a mob of supporters of Donald Trump breached barricades surrounding the US Capitol, assaulted the Capitol police, broke into the US Capitol, and rioted in an attempt to disrupt or stop a joint session of the US Congress from certification of the election of Joseph Biden as the next president of the United States of America. MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

While we can mention that it has been referred to as a riot or insurrection, we cannot say that it was since we don't actually know that, particularly the latter. Even the term mob, while technically correct because it can mean a crowd, goes against neutral tone. Articles should be dispassionate and non-judgmental no matter how heinous the actions of their subjects. TFD (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

None of these names are sufficiently widely-accepted or widely-used to be bolded in the lead sentence (MOS:BOLDLEAD). We currently are using a descriptive title, which also doesn't need to appear in the lead (MOS:AVOIDBOLD). — Goszei (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would think this would depend on the actual source of the photographs. If they're the product of photojournalism, they're surely copyrighted. If they're a product of the administration or from any sort of government source, they would theoretically be free of any copyright. Which means anyone wanting to post those photographs, or upload them to commons, would have to do a little digging. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

January 6th?

I brought up this topic on the talk page on April 22nd. [2] Almost nobody responded, and the topic was only just archived, so...that's a little weird. I guess I didn't phrase it in an exciting enough way.

Anyway, I want to put "January 6th" on people's radar as being part of a future title, instead of 2021 (I'm not in favor of the date *and* the year). The main word for the action doesn't have a COMMONANME yet, but "January 6" is almost always in the media's naming conventions. Like the September 11 attacks, this event seems so far to be inseparable from its date. (And, no, I don't think it's just because we're still in 2021; other major events of this year aren't definitionally linked in that integral way to their date.) Moncrief (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that this deserves its own subsection, so I've created a new subheading.

I hadn't thought of this at all until Moncrief brought it up, but yeah, "January 6th" -- used with one of the above nouns or just by itself -- might be the most-common factor, so it makes since to include it in the title for instat reader recognition. --Calton | Talk 04:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't call it "January 6th" - they may refer to "the events of January 6th", but that's because it's still super recent. That name will be something to consider maybe 3-4 years from now - especially after Biden leaves office (or is re-elected for a second term) - because by that time, it would be used as a name, not merely as a temporal reference - and it would be done so under a different political and news climate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the article be titled "January 6th." That would be silly. Just that the temporal mention in the name be the date, not the year. Example (and I probably wouldn't vote for this particular iteration): January 6 United States Capitol attack. Don't really get what your Biden stuff is about; it doesn't seem relevant. Moncrief (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The events ARE sometimes referred to with the shorthand "January 6th", but thanks for objecting to a proposal made by precisely no one, ever, including me.

That name will be something to consider maybe 3-4 years from now. No, we're all here, now, discussing how "the events of January 6th" are being talked about, now, considering the name, now, is what we should be doing. Or you could come back in 3-4 years and bring it up then. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The only way that would be acceptable is if "January 6" was a common enough name to be used on its own. 2021 is more concise, and no less precise, than January 6. Furthermore, it's actually more precise to say 2021 - because it did happen in 2021, but it did not happen every January 6. January 6 is a nonstarter unless that name becomes appropriate in years by being the common historical name for the event. That's why I recommended waiting for the next election - by that timeframe, inquiries into this event and trials surrounding it will likely be done. Further, there will be either a new or re-elected president in office, who will likely refer to this event in some way (assuming it doesn't repeat itself) when he (re)takes office. If at that time, it's being referred to as "January 6th", then that would be an appropriate consideration. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This is opinion phrased, rather unnecessarily combatively, as if it were fact. Our purpose is to find the COMMONNAME, whatever it may be. The gravity of the event is not the same, but for naming purposes, the article on 9/11 has never been called "2001 ... attacks", because that doesn't align with the common name. All of this will obviously come to a vote and further debate. I find your tone to be rather outrageous and unhelpful. Moncrief (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"January 6" is nowhere near the common name at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And no one is saying that it is, as we noted above. Moncrief (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moncrief: Our purpose is to find the COMMONNAME, whatever it may be. This is not correct. WP:UCRN (WP:COMMONNAME is a bit of a misnomer) is just one section in WP:TITLE, a policy that contains five main criteria. The purpose of a naming discussion is to best meet those criteria. VQuakr (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The only way that would be acceptable is if "January 6" was a common enough name to be used on its own.

That's nonsense on stilts. The purpose of words in a title is to help the entire title identify the topic of the article, and there is no test -- none -- that demands that individual words or phrases have to uniquely identify the topic. By your logic, Wikipedia can't use "2021" -- which, by by the way is pretty much by definition less precise that "January 6th".

Oh, and just out of curiosity, I Googled "January 6th", The top hit? This article.

Other top Google hits include "Congressional leaders reach deal on Jan. 6 commission, but McCarthy has concerns" from NBC News, and "What Should We Call the Sixth of January?" by Jill Lepore of The New Yorker. Huh, I guess there ARE reliable sources that just refer to "January 6th". --Calton | Talk 05:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Calton, I searched in a private window, the first hit was January 6. But this was second... Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

January 6 definitely should be in title. Feoffer (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've used this or similar phrasing myself, but don't think it should be in the title. It's convenient in certain contexts because, while what happened is disputed, nobody disputes when it happened. If it's truly impossible to get consensus on whether it was a "riot" or an "insurrection" or a "disruptive protest" or an "attempted coup" or something else, this might be the least bad option, but I don't see that as likely. I don't see September 11th as a parallel, that's sui generis. We don't title articles after June 4, December 7, or November 5. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting naming the article after the date. The suggestion is to use the date in the title rather than the year. Or perhaps the date and the year, despite what I said above (this is obviously an evolving discussion). My point is: the date January 6 seems to be integral to the naming of the event as it's described in the wider world. I'm reminded of how we title articles like the 7/7 bombings in London: 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the date because it's so well known, even if "just the year" might have sufficed for disambiguation purposes alone. Moncrief (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh. In that case my objection is slightly different - the Electoral College vote-counting happens on that day every time, and I'm not confident there won't be a repeat incident in the future. Also, putting "January 6, 2021" in the title is too long. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say concern about future events should not be considered in the article naming discussion per WP:CRYSTAL. We have enough considerations to balance without worrying about hypotheticals. VQuakr (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, the whole event seems to identified more as "January 6th" than anything else. If there were a renaming discussion, I would strongly support it. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding to this, it's worth noting that January 6th is also being used in official nomenclature -- the proposed and much-in-the-news January 6, 2021 Commission. Moncrief (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty definitive. Feoffer (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely a name Wikipedia chose for an idea from months ago that may someday be a thing. But "official nomenclature" is a stretch. Do any sources call it that? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The House bill, to be voted on tomorrow, calls it the "National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex."[3] That's a little bit long for a Wikipedia title though. Moncrief (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Long, but way more actual. If that article wanted a common name, "9/11-style commission" is clearly ubiquitous. But that's that one; I see no reason to make this one longer ("January 6 attack" is nice). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Moncrief, this would definitely favor "Attack on the United States Capitol" as opposed to "storming" - consider adding this to the subpage (if you haven't already, I don't have it watched) as a data point for future consideration :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "January 6" should definitely be in the name of the article, no question. At this point I would argue that the WP:COMMONNAME includes January 6 - and of course if this changes to 2021, we can change it back. I also agree that "storming" should be removed in favor of something a little less noble-sounding like attack, in the honor of WP:NPOV. But looking all of the failed name changes before, I'm wondering if we should try to just get this "January 6" change through before changing "storming" to "attack" (or something similar), since this change might have more support. BappleBusiness (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that approach. Moncrief (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: I don't really think people have the appetite for two back-to-back RMs... Elli (talk | contribs) 06:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Totally get that. I was just raising that option in case there wasn't enough consensus for "attack". There seems like there is widespread support for "attack" though, looking through the discussion. BappleBusiness (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"January 6 attack" is it, however we get there. Feoffer (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wouldn't be "January 6 attack" but "January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol", right? We want to be concise but I think we should also recognize that Wikipedia isn't just for the United States. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The name a partisan political commission gives to a recent controversial event is likely tainted from an encyclopedic perspective. Whatever name they come up with should be avoided. A generic "Events of January 6" name would also be misleading because the notability of this event is in the criminal or at least controversial aspect of it. The peaceful rally and peaceful march should not be impugned with the criminal aspects of that day.Nweil (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The formation of the committee may be a partisan issue, but the name is not -- "January 6 commission" is the consensus name, whether people supporting actually having one or not. Feoffer (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support disambiguation page redirecting "January 6th" to this page, and support including "January 6th" in bold face in the article first sentence as an alternative name used for events described in the article. MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  There's no way January 6th is going to be remembered more for this 2021 incident than for being the day on which January 6 falls each year; at least one more word is needed for precision. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Too long?

Thoughts on the article's length? Seems longer to load than most, even as I scroll down, and sometimes I get the 'spinning wheel of death' for a few seconds. Ways to shorten/split? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely too big. The rule of thumb at WP:SIZESPLIT has a threshold of 100kb (we're at 450) or 100,000 characters of prose (we're at 103,000). As for what to split off, my first though is the Aftermath section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)\]

Aftermath has already been split into Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I've shortened the "Law enforcement preparations" subsection as much as I could. I also think a lot of material from the "January 6 Trump rally" subsection to the "Completion of electoral vote count" subsection should be moved to the Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article. Love of Corey (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong photos

Resolved

The photos in this article mischaracterize this violent insurrection. The photos mischaracterize the violent attack on and in the Capitol. The main photo is titled "Protesters gathering", which is the kind of photo repeatedly shown on propaganda media stations to characterize the event as being a mostly peaceful protest outside the Capitol by patriots. Photos of a storm should be of the storm, not of the tranquility outside the storm or while the storm was gathering. The article should feature photos of the event itself, such as frame shots or photos of the event itself, similar to the photos and videos shown in the impeachment trial, or to photos and video frame shots appearing in major news stories. Photos should show the many Trump flags and banners, and other flags, not mainly just American flags.

• Compare any of these images, from a Google image search of the title of our article, with the sanitized photos appearing in our article.
• Compare this PBS photo of the gallows, with the cropped and sanitized photo appearing at the top of our article.
• There should be photos of masses of insurrectionists and rioters pushing down police and barriers outside, climbing the walls in masses, breaking into the doors and windows in masses, confronting police inside in masses, and parading around inside looking for elected officials to stop them from certifying the election, with images of their characteristic flags being carried during all of this, showing both their actions and intent.

MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellents points! Feoffer (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Per you comment, a still has been added to the top of the article showing Hodges being crushed. We could upload the footage of Goodman warning Romney. We should be on the lookout for free images of Goodman diverting the crowd, the crowd wrestling over barricades or shields, etc. Feoffer (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

First, bear in mind that many photos are protected by copyright. Ideally we would have the most iconic images. I don't think the noose is one of the most iconic though. See NBC News for their list of images.[4] Could you recommend any images that we could use? TFD (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have created a new thread below discussing the images in the infobox. — Goszei (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Images in infobox

We should discuss the infobox images, as there has been some recent movement in this area.

• (1) [5] – the fairly long-standing version, which I trimmed down because it seemed excessive
• (2) [6] – the result of my initial trimming
• (3) [7] – a modification made thereafter by another editor
• (4) [8] – another modification on the previous version

I personally favor (2), which I think provides the most-representative set. MBUSHIstory provided a Google search in their thread above, which I think best matches with these images. I am ambivalent about using the gallows image in the infobox, but I lean towards the position that it places too much weight on a more minor aspect of the events.

Feel free to suggest other images/combinations. — Goszei (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Above MBUSHistory objects to the original top image File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol 09 (cropped).jpg, "noting photos of a storm should be of the storm, not of the tranquility outside the storm or while the storm was gathering." This is a valid objection, so it was replaced with the image of Officer Hodges. A second image of people watching Trump speak on a screen is a poor image for infobox because it's hard to see who's on the screen. It was cropped in an attempt to improve clarity but that didn't help much. Probably should find a better image. Feoffer (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here[9] is one depicting 1 - crowd size during the storming, 2- tear gas over an undispersed crowd, and 3 - a Trump banner showing mindset of the crowd. The image of Hodges getting crushed could be below this, so we then would have an overview pic (crowd, tear gas, Trump) with a specific (Hodges) below it. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Commons doesn't have much. Are images presented at the impeachment trial copyright protected, or can they be moved into Commons? MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Images/footage from security cameras or federal personnel are usually fine. Stills from videos can be used with the right fair-use rationale. But it's quite a trick to find good images. Feoffer (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MBUSHIstory that images too early/late in the events aren't suitable for the top image in the infobox ([10] is one of them, as it was taken around 4pm). Unfortunately, Commons doesn't have any good pictures right now that capture both the Capitol dome and the crowd pushing in, which would be ideal. I just placed one (in this revision) that does an OK job at this, however (could be closer up to the building, but it was the best I could find on Commons). — Goszei (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

([11]) is another good candidate for a dome + crowd image. It is currently used later in the article. — Goszei (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just swapped the two, actually. There was a raw version I was looking at ([12]) that had lighting issues, but I realized that the one in the article was retouched and more usable in the infobox. I think the framing of the building is better than the one I swapped down, and it also has a legible Trump flag, unlike the other image ([13]). — Goszei (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support swap by Goszei. Great improvement. MBUSHIstory (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Deaths

As the original IP who raised this issue in the last archive, I'd like to say thank you to all the users who discussed it previously. The infobox now presents the losses in a fair, balanced, and informative way; it wraps up the underlying causes of death while still giving the figure of 5. Good work! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:812C:92E2:42B1:17BA (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Love of Corey (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Insurrectionist" applied to groups and specific people

I undid a recent edit that used a Daily Beast source to justify applying the label "insurrectionist" to Babbit. I am of the opinion that the term "insurrectionist" violates NPOV whether applied to groups as a whole, or to individual people - especially when it is done based on known biased/opinionated sources such as the Daily Beast. I would like others to opine as to what guidelines we should follow when using the word "insurrectionist" in place of a more neutral word such as "rioter" in this article - both as applied to a group of unidentified people, as well as specific individuals. Obviously, we should not change direct quotes from sources when possible - this is about when we use that word in Wikipedia voice. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

While many of the participants were in fact spontaneous rioters, others came to DC explicitly to participate in an regime-changing Storm, a "day of reckoning" long predicted by the Q-cult. Reliable sources indicate Babbitt is one such person who "believed January 6 would be “the storm,” when QAnon mythology holds that Trump would capture and execute his opponents." (wapo). We can bend over backward for neutrality by preferring "rioters" and "attackers" in most cases, but enough is known about Babbit that the article should accurately label her: she wasn't swept up in a spontaneous riot, she flew across the country to participate in "the storm". Feoffer (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact you keep quoting "the storm" seems to be assuming that this was going to be a "storming" regardless. She went to participate in a "storm of support" is more accurate. Yes, she rioted, and attempted to enter the Capitol. But there's a reason the WaPo article doesn't call her an "insurrectionist". We can talk about how brainwashed she was, but that's still inappropriate sourced to a Daily Beast article. Furthermore, I opened this section (rather than just undoing and waiting for you to) to discuss in general the term - and hopefully get some consensus as to when we should and shouldn't be using it. There's clearly a consensus that "insurrection" is more POV than "riot" (and both their associated forms). So let's come to a consensus when it NPOV should be violated because the benefits outweigh the negatives - in general - and then we can discuss whether those apply to Babbit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no such consensus regarding insurrection and riot and what is more or less neutral. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I'm by no means a QAnon expert, but my understanding of the mythos is that "The Storm" was a prophesied violent consolidation of power by Trump and his supporters; Locating "the storm" at the capitol was a much more recent innovation added to the lore possibly as late as the Trump rally of Jan 6.

Though Babbit is no longer living, the officer who shot her is, and thus there are extreme BLP problems with Wikivoice labelling Babbit a "rioter" -- it is generally a crime to deploy live fire against unarmed rioters, while attacker breaking and entering a restricted area housing the seat of government is of course subject to immediate lethal force. Feoffer (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Feoffer, this is quite interesting - we aren't accusing anyone of a crime by labelling the person shot - not explicitly. BLPCRIME doesn't apply here unless we directly accuse the officer of violating the use of force protocols in place. In fact, it's generally allowable for a federal officer to use force to prevent potentially violent unauthorized entry into a federal building - thus it doesn't matter what we call her, because he'd be allowed to use force regardless. Again, though, this is about the use in general - not that specific edit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME doesn't apply here unless we directly accuse the officer Oh that's a big fat no on that. From BLP: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Exclusion of exculpatory information is just as much a BLP violation as inclusion of incriminating allegations. "Shot a rioter" is a hell of a lot worse than "shot a person engaged in insurrection". The officer in question has a name and family and a reputation just like very other living person. The officer has been accused of murder by the Babbit family -- It is a BLP violation to inaccurately/imprecisely claim the officer shot rioter -- Babbit was a trained warrior who came to DC because she expected the overthrowing and execution of Trump's enemies. Feoffer (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant dead Babbitt, not living [redacted], to be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Feoffer, what reliable source can you provide that "the reason he wasn't charged is because Babbit was an insurrectionist"? If you have no RS for that statement, then you do not get to claim "exclusion of exculpatory information". It's not a BLP violation at all - and this is coming from me, who's been shot down for being overzealous with calling BLP in the past. We aren't implying a crime by calling her a rioter - that's absurd. Shooting rioters is, by your own admission, "generally" a crime - but not always - and especially not when they're in the process of unauthorized entry into a federal building as part of a violent mob. Right now you're using the tactic of "crying BLP" to attempt to push a POV rather than discussing the issue at hand - which is NPOV. BLP doesn't apply here - period - if you wish to say it does, feel free to start a discussion on the BLP noticeboard or elsewhere - and I suspect you'll find that the word used to refer to a victim doesn't have any BLP implications. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

When did I say anything about the reason he wasn't charged? I don't believe that. I do believe Babbit's engaging in an attack (not a riot) is exculpatory in the sense of protecting the man's reputation, and we do our readers a disservice by labelling Babbit's actions as merely riotous. I may do as you suggest, I'll think on it and see if I find an other creative solutions to these issues. Feoffer (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

An insurrectionist tries to seize governmental power, not just challenge or nullify it, so it doesn't fit here, regardless of brainwashing, violence, foreknowledge, political leaning or whatever. A matter of NPOV, RS and V. But not BLPCRIME, in this case, because she died. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not up to us to define insurrection, there's RS consensus one occurred. While the precise identities of who is and isn't an insurrectionist are up for debate, it's clear that a police officer shot and killed at least one insurrectionist. She wasn't shot while out on the streets wrestling with cops in riot gear, she was defended while charging at the congress of the united states. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

About a quarter of reliable sources "exclusively" use the phrase "insurrection", and about half of those (if not more) are known biased/opinionated sources per RSP - see the title subpage for more evidence for this. There is no consensus in reliable sources that an "insurrection" occurred. There may be a consensus that some people intended to mount an insurrection, but there is no consensus as you claim in your edit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders" -- while the research above DOES show that some sources prefer "attack" over "insurrection", that doesn't disprove that an insurrection occurred. There are no mainstream RSes denying that a Jan 6 insurrection existed, while there are innumerable reliable sources that say it did. Feoffer (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We have the power of editorial judgment and discretion, entrusted to separate fact from opinion, literal from figurative. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I went by the US government's definition, not my own. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY/OR, then. Our definition is that an insurrection is whatever reliable sources say it is. Feoffer (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Off topic ~Awilley (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
InedibleHulk, nice piece of WP:OR. But hey, what would you prefer? Traitor? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC) I learned this from a news article, Feoffer (by Mick Mulroy, ABC News, citing David Kilcullen, FDD, Google it?). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Dude, did you you seriously try to cite a November 8, 2020 article called "Will there be an American insurgency?" to prove that a January 6,2021 event didn't occur? Thank you for this line of argument, it's been extremely informative in helping me understand where you in the process of learning our policies. I apologize in future if I'm not quite as prompt in responding to your concerns, no hard feelings we were all younger once, just not the optimum investment of time. Feoffer (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Feoffer, someone with 80k+ edits is hardly a novice, and I'd recommend retracting that sort of statement as it could be construed as a personal attack. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC) As you wish :) Feoffer (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Using a definition in reliable sources and determining that the facts meet the definition is WP:SYNTHESIS, and not allowed.

Since insurrection is a criminal offense, it comes under WP:BLPCRIME. No one has been charged or convicted with insurrection and it is a difficult charge to prove. I cannot find any convictions in U.S. history. Hence ]]applies. We need evidence that there is consensus among lawyers that an insurrection occurred, not just random use of the term by journalists, who are not legal experts. Incidentally, the demonstrators did not seek regime change, but came in support of the president. It is up to the president to declare an insurrection is in progress, which he did not do.

TFD (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is a crime, so it does indeed come under WP:BLPCRIME, and we want to be very careful about applying the term to living individuals. The Babbit labelling is special both because her motives are so well-documented and because the officer who fatally ended her assault is being accused of murder by the family creating a special onus on us to be precise and accurate in our terminology. Feoffer (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Feoffer, nope. See WP:RS. If this is described as an insurrection by sources (spoiler: [it absolutely is) then echoing that is not a violation. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to say it's violation, I just meant we have to be careful and actually have sources. Feoffer (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Example: Less than a day before she joined the Trump loyalist protest, Babbitt, an avowed and public Trump supporter as well as a subscriber to a number of alt-right conspiracy theories, had vowed the insurrectionist movement could never be halted. “Nothing will stop us … they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours … dark to light!” she wrote on Twitter. [14]. Completely cool with sticking to sources, obvs. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What part of that suggests she or her group intended to seize governmental power, and not simply join a Trump loyalist protest, like an avowed supporter of the then-sitting president? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

According to your definition, this part: "insurrectionist movement". Feoffer (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a reporter's word choice, describing a movement, contrary to the definition and that reporter's surrounding claims of a person supporting the president. That source is also from the day after. Trump has since been acquitted of inciting an insurrection. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no. I don't believe it's accurate to say Trump was acquitted of inciting an insurrection. Not in the normal sense. Trump has not been charged with the crime and has not seen the inside of any courtroom for his deplorable actions prior to and on the day of this subject's occurrence. He was impeached by the partisan House and (with no testimony allowed) acquitted by a partisan Senate jury. Many members of the Senate announced their verdict prior to the start of impeachment hearings. Indeed, many members raised funds by announcing their verdict prior to the hearings. Impeachment is a purely political exercise designed to protect the republic from corruption, removing the offender from office. If charged in criminal court, Trump could not reasonably claim double jeopardy because he has not yet been tried. BusterD (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So the context in which I said it was clear to you, now everyone, good. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM ~Awilley (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
InedibleHulk, oh, hey, I have no idea why they would want to "hang Mike Pence" or anything. Honestly, we don't have to deny the obvious. It was broadcast live o TV, dude. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC) And "Fuck Donald Trump" is another angry mob's slogan and anthem, broadcast live on TV, dude, freedom of speech, not inciting rape. Even if those people (the Capitol chanters) had hanged Pence, would Babbitt have been an insurrectionist for it? How? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC) InedibleHulk, OK, how many of the people chanting "fuck Donald Trump" invaded the Capitol to try to overthrow an election their candidate lost? In 2016, for example, when Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any winning candidate in history? Free speech does not protect invasion of Federal buildings to prevent the certificaiton fo an election your guy lost. We agree on that, right? It doesn't cover invading the legistature armed with flexicuffs, right? Or smashing don the doors to the Speaker's Lobby? Let's not deny the evidence of the cameras here. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC) JzG, the US president is not elected by a popular vote. Nevertheless, the margin in popular vote spread was greater with the elections of 1824 and 1876. Biden won with a smaller electoral college spread in 2020 than Trump had in 2016.--MONGO (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop with the WP:NOTFORUM. There are an endless number of venues available online for expressing your personal political opinions, but this is not one of them. Unless you're discussing how to improve this article, you're wasting space here. Moncrief (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Moncrief, sure, but I'm interested in the original content question. Are we in violation of policy by characterising the Jan 6 insurrection as an insurrection, as many sources do, on the basis that this implicitly casts Babbitt as an "insurrectionist"? Especially since she will never be tried, let alone convicted, of seditious conspiracy or any related offense? For me, this is an interesting question. Should we take an absolutist view of BLPCRIME - rejected thus far, by consensus - that says we must not describe something in the language of potetnial crimes unless convictions have been handed down, regardless of how sources characterise it. Maybe I am misreading the question?

In my view, there is no policy issue with reflecting what I see as the mainstream view that the Jan 6 insurrection was an insurrection. I think that InedibleHulk disagrees, but I don't think that disagreement enjoys consensus based on policy. What's your view? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a rehash of Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 16, —PaleoNeonate – 09:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say, not one many?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Propose add last lede sentence on disinformation resulting in mass false beliefs about cause and character of January 6 event

Proposed add sentence to end of last lede paragraph -

"As a result of disinformation and lack of corrective information from Trump and his surrogates, Republican leadership, right wing media, and unregulated social media postings, more than half of Republicans falsely think the Jan 6 siege was either peaceful or was staged by antifa members disguised as Trump supporters." ref[15]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MBUSHIstory (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The actual statement used in the poll was "The people who gathered at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 were mostly peaceful, law-abiding Americans." The statement is confusing. A study showed most of the people arrested were mostly peaceful and law-abiding. Also, the demonstration itself was mostly peaceful as most demonstrators did not attack the police or enter the Capitol Building.

I notice too that 19% of Democrats also thought that the Left might be behind the attack. So media brainwashing doesn't entirely explain why most Republicans would believe that.

TFD (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Air Force veteran" or "woman"?

I think much RS ado has been made of Babbitt's veteran status (even in headlines) and think it's pertinent to know whether the only known fatality in an alleged insurrection had sworn a vow to defend her country and constitution and obey the orders of her president. WWGB seems to think "veteran" is an "old job" and nothing more, in context, and the important thing is her gender. Discuss? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It may be, but not for the reasons you state, which seem to be to lead readers to a conclusion (and is this conclusion supported by RS?). This [[16]] might be a reason, the fact that so many were oath breakers. To address another point of yours, she was not under any oath or obligation as she was no longer serving. So whilst we might be able to have some context about this, just saying "and veteran" tells us nothing, and adds nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't be saying "and veteran", we'd continue introducing her as "Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran", unless there's consensus to now just call her a woman. No conclusions then, none now. Let the reader know, that's all, veterans have done a lot of things. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

OK just saying veteran still tells us nothing, it might be more relevant to include what she was at the time of her death, not what she had been.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

When you stop being an active USAF member, you become a veteran for the rest of your life. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And it's not a job, it's not what she did. Like I said it is far more relevant to know what her current job was than what she had done years ago. I really have nothing more to add than that. I see no relevance to this, it tells us nothing about her motives, her actions, or why she was shot. I will let others have their say now, maybe they can find a reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It has not been established that her veteran status was in any way relevant to her storming of the Capitol. It just seems like an attempt to give some pseudo-significance to her presence. If she had been a bus driver we would not be having this discussion, so what difference is it that she was a veteran? WWGB (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Veterans swear oaths bus drivers don't regarding stuff like this. The current cited sources call her a veteran more often than a woman. "Woman" is neither a job nor a more meaningful description. The old description stood longer. The ONUS to replace is yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oaths lapse when you leave the service. At the time of her death, she sold pool supplies. Happy to omit "woman", just call her 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What about "Trump supporter", no thinking about oaths required, relevant? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If sources regularly note her veteran status, I'd say add it. If someone's past so fundamentally contradicts present actions, the media will tend to take note of such as a notable fact of the matter. A former firefighter turned arsonist (phenomenon even has an article), a drug-dealing ex-cop, or a person who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution turned to violent insurrectionist. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with ValarianB here. Since reliable sources obviously deem it relevant, it should be included. Likewise, Inedible Hulk's suggested addition of "Trump Supporter" is likewise something RS deem relevant, and is regularly mentioned alongside her veteran status in ledes within articles about her and the event. I think we should follow suit. I would also suggest "QAnon supporter" with a piped link for QAnon, since this is something likewise brought up with regularity. Unless consensus deems it too unwieldy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

QAnon's already mentioned lower down, don't need redundancy or extra commas. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I get how you think temporarily disrupting Congress to protect the president from a threat is an insurrection, sort of, but when did she turn violent? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to force one's way into an area secured by Capitol police protecting members of Congress and the VP from assault, assassination or abduction is by definition a violent act, yes. ValarianB (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up what you meant, thought I'd missed her injure somebody (or damage something). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would mention that she is an Air Force veteran because sources typically mention that. While I don't know what if any significance it has, it gives additional information. Why say "35-year-old woman," when we could just say person? Also, the fact she pledged allegiance is not mentioned. But whether or not she pledged allegiance, all persons in the country except foreign diplomats and their families owe allegiance. Allegiance means they must obey the law and can be prosecuted if they fail to do so. But that's the case for everyone who participated in the actions, unless there were some Russian diplomats among them. TFD (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Or American presidents. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources regularly report her time in the Air Force, where she once was tasked with protecting the Capitol. I haven't heard any reasons why we should overrule RSes on this point. Feoffer (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Except on this occasion, she was not protecting the Capitol, she was storming it. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING "information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful". WP:RELEVANCE has not been established. WWGB (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You can argue that about anything, which is why we follow the RS. For a strawman: "What is the relevance of her age, sex, or even her name? What would be different if she were a 25 year old male name Ashton?" Your issue lies with the RSes who routinely report Babbitt's past history in the Air Force. Feoffer (talk)

Well, multiple reliable sources also report that she sold pool supplies, lived in San Diego and had married twice. By your logic, we should dump all that in the article too. WWGB (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So, the three headlines you cite, all mention veteran status at the top: "Ashli Babbitt: The US veteran shot dead breaking into the Capitol" "A woman who was fatally shot inside the U.S. Capitol during Wednesday’s insurrection was an Air Force veteran from Ocean Beach, according to multiple reports." "Woman Killed in Capitol Embraced Trump and QAnon: After 14 years in the military, Ashli Babbitt bought a pool supply company and delved into far-right politics." I'm sorry you don't see any relevance between US military experience and being shot dead while charging Capitol police, RSes and others do. Feoffer (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

And I'm sorry that you don't see that her being a veteran is no more relevant than her selling pool supplies. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If she was routinely described in reliable sources as a pool supply salesman, then we would also describe her that way. Determining relevance is a matter of original research that we leave to reliable secondary sources. Jenna Ryan, the woman who took a private jet, is routinely described as a "Texas real estate agent." Often the media latch on to one detail to describe an otherwise obscure person. We don't second guess them. TFD (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WWGB, do you actually WANT to include her pool business? It's possible the article might be improved with mention of her pool supply business and the kind of debt she had gotten into.. Feoffer (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course not! I was using that fact to demonstrate that a lot of information published in reliable sources does not necessarily have a place in this article, especially since it is not Babbitt's biography. My concern with reporting her as a veteran is that it conveys false flag justification for her actions, such as "she was keeping her oath" or "she was protecting the presidency". She was there because she was a frustrated conservative QAnon and Trump supporter, not because of her military background. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include veteran status We can debate what we think is relevant all day long, but in the end we go by what reliable sources think is relevant and the majority of them do emphasize her status as a veteran. There's no need to describe her as a "woman"; we don't do that for other genders. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

So, if we follow reliable sources, we will also publish that she was a twice-married resident of San Diego who sold pool supplies? Those facts are also covered extensively in RSs. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not all details covered by RSs are equally relevant; we judge their importance by how the sources treat them. I would say that "veteran" is prominent enough that it should certainly be covered in the current one-paragraph summary and the other details (marital history, most recent career) could be added if we expand the section.

Let me ask you this: What made you choose "woman" over all those other characteristics, and why did you think it was appropriate to reinsert after it had been challenged? Wouldn't WP:ONUS be on you to achieve consensus for inclusion? –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Babbit's prior violence and backpack

Numerous sources report Babbit's prior violence in connection with the coverage of the Capitol attack. (NTY WSJ Guardian, etc) Similarly, sources note Babbit was wearing a stars-and-stripes backpack at the time she attempted to enter the Speaker's lobby.(eg NBC).

Babbit's prior violence was removed as "well-poisoning" while the backpack was removed as "irrelevant". RSes, however, seem to reflect those details are relevant and useful to understanding the events. Feoffer (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion depends on the level of coverage this has received in accounts of the storming of the Capitol. Quite often when police shoot an kill unarmed person, they will bring up their violent past in order to justify their response. But in this case, the police officer did not know Babbit and the full interaction was recorded. If it becomes an issue of course it should be included but so far it has not. It does however belong in the article about Babbit. TFD (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see the significance of her stars-and-stripes backpack. The NBC coverage is a trivial passing mention to add local color. I am on the left, oppose Trump and his movement, and also own lots of American flag and stars-and-stripes memorabilia. Lots of Americans of all stripes love the red, white and blue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

(EditConflict) Thank you for this comment! I realize where the confusion was. The fabric of the backpack isn't particularly significant more than any other red/white backpack, but it's existence played a causal role in the shooting. The officer "told investigators he heard reports that pipe bombs had been found elsewhere in the area and worried that the rioters might be carrying explosives. Babbitt was wearing a backpack, which allegedly compounded his fears." I've restored the backpack with explicit source on the relevance. Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the lack of significance here - while I respect Feoffer's attempting to add information, it's improper to indiscriminately do so - the backpack has no encyclopedic value whatsoever and shouldn't be added just to add it - and especially shouldn't be readded once people have disagreed on the talk page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it per BRD, it was new info not previously added to the article explaining relevance. Feoffer (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Never mind, I beatchya to it. Helps to have in the history though so I can't absent-mindedly lose the source. Feoffer (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, with the added significance, I still don't think it merits inclusion. We should not begin to ascribe motive for shooting to an officer - that is getting into BLP territory (since Feoffer I know is worried about it) - because attempting to justify it is potentially damaging to him if the family pursues suits/charges against the officer. Iff this is added, I think the relevance of the backpack should be conveyed to the reader using the quotation from the officer if one is available - there's no BLP issue in repeating what the officer said - iff an exact quote is available. If all we have is a summary of his statement(s), then that's not enough in my opinion to justify adding it. Also, absent-mindedly losing a source? Imagine my horror when I was doing my first major addition to an article and then went back the next day to bask in my work and realized holy heck, it didn't save for whatever reason at all. Now I check things after I make edits always because I'm sure there's quite a few sources I lost by not keeping a copy of that edit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

When significant details are included, such as carrying a backpack, then the significance should be explained. Not being aware of the circumstances, I assumed the significance was Babbit's political views. But then it was the stars and stripes, not the stars and bars, so might not have indicated much. Her death and the fact that it is being treated as justifiable homicide are significant and belong in the article, but the rest doesn't. It might make sense to have a separate article about her death. TFD (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that an American flag on a US soldier who was shot and killed while attempting to defend the sitting president from what she perceived as a threat to him (and national security) is seen as less significant than an imaginary unofficial symbol of rebellion against the government would have seemed. Anyway, noting the 2016 incident is probably fine. Calling it "a history" or "of violence" is absurd. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the backpack. Prior history of violence is harder, yes I think it is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Really?! The officer shot her in part because her backpack posed a threat. Feoffer (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Says who? WWGB (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also in what way (did he think it was a bomb?)? We really need a very good source for this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

source Feoffer (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also I would remind users to read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll remind you that "history of violence" means too many things on too many levels to too many people, call it what it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And I am open to suggestions as to how to word it, but I think it is as relevant (which is all I said).Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You also defined "it" as "prior history of violence". I suggest "verbal altercation and vehicular mischief", or "repeated rear-ending and screaming". The longer way sounds less dirty an incident. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And I did not say anything about your wording, but at least one source says " history of confrontational behavior", so how about we go with what RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Deal! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, so does anyone object to this choice of words?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought you had agreed to this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I figured you'd at least source it and note the actual incident, not just attach the phrase alone to a sentence about QAnon. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You could have added the source (and then text was "history of confrontational behavior", and we do not know that this was one incident or a series, but the source says "history" which implies not one incident), so would you care to add it back with the source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't copy or paste. You start a new sourced sentence. I'll describe the incident the source does. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

One source claiming one incident of "alleged and unproven" "violence" is not encyclopedic. This reads like gossip, and is WP:UNDUE considering it has no relevance to the event this article is regarding. I've tried to point this out in edit summaries, but Feoffer (talk · contribs) continues to restore, "per talk". Please explain how this one alleged incident in one person's past had an effect on the day's events in January? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not "one source": WaPo NYT Guardian BI Feoffer (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that more than one source reported this information, but it is still little more than anecdotal gossip. There was a protection order filed by her husband's ex-girlfriend, who claims something happened. No evidence of violence, no "history" of violence, no conviction. Again, not only is this one small detail irrelevant to the events of January 6th (and Ms. Babbitt's death) (WP:UNDUE), but per WP:BLPCRIME, "For individuals who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.". Clearly, this means that this one minor detail about Ms. Babbitt should not be included in this article about the storming (attack/riot/whatever) at the Capitol. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Standard here is DUE (not BLPCRIME) and we have 5+ non-gossip-column RSes on our topic which report on the protection order with inclusion supported by multiple editors. Feoffer (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: Remember the Wikipedia article for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (who died before they could be arrested) explicitly says that they committed murder. However Klebold and Harris died years ago and a report was issued that fingers then. As conviction will never happen in the case of a dead person, do you think it's necessary for an inquest or a report to be issued to say that a dead person had committed a crime? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How is BLPCRIME not a standard? And even if you choose to ignore that, as far as UNDUE/DUE says (specifically WP:PROPORTION), "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Therefore, an individual's 5 year old restraining order (awarded based on hearsay, no conviction) has no relevance to the storming event (the article topic) or her death (which is the only reason she is even named here), and does not need to be detailed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: Firstly BLPCRIME talks about living people. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCRIME. Because Babbit is dead, BLPCRIME wasn't designed for her: BLPCRIME talks about waiting for a conviction but dead people are not prosecuted in the United States. Having said that BLP is not entirely out of the window with the recently deceased.

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deceased_persons,_corporations,_or_groups_of_persons states "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime."

One consideration is the editors can agree on how long BLP keeps applying to Babbit (no more than two years), in regards to how it affects her living family and friends. If you feel this is necessary, this means waiting for an inquest. The Hart family crash was settled by an inquest that determined the two Hart women murdered their children (the women were dead, so prosecution was not possible)

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not an editor supporting inclusion. I'm an editor prefering to include it for what it literally was, if included at all. If it's seen largely as entirely uninformative outside of the context of victim-blaming or redefining violence when "the wrong sort" of conspiracy theorist and rabblerouser comes close enough, its loss is the encyclopedia's gain. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Propose add to last lede paragraph info on rioters videotaping themselves, volume of evidence, and historic size of prosecution efforts

Propose add to body of last lede paragraph -

"Rioters massively uploaded photographs and videotapes of their own activities to social media, resulting in volumes of evidence and one of the largest FBI investigations in US history. MBUSHIstory (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, but do you have a reliable source that we an cite? Terjen (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What do massively, volumes and one of the largest mean? They are weasel words: "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." TFD (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede last sentence, last clause

The last clause in the last sentence of the lede is not supported by the source. The last sentence is -

"Members of the anti-government paramilitary Oath Keepers and neo-fascist Proud Boys groups were charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions in the Capitol, although prosecutors subsequently acknowledged they do not have clear-cut evidence that the groups had any such plans prior to January 6."

The source[17] for the last clause says that in one of the numerous cases, defendant engaged in a general conspiracy to disrupt the certification with violence prior to January 6, but the details of how to implement the plan may not have been known to that defendant until the actual event unfolded -

"“The plan was to unlawfully stop the certification of the Electoral College vote ... and the plan was to be prepared to use violence if necessary,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy said during a hearing this month. But the Oath Keepers “did not know precisely the way in which force and violence might be needed to support this plan,” she said."

I propose keeping all sources, but changing the sentence to -

"Members of the anti-government paramilitary Oath Keepers and neo-fascist Proud Boys groups were charged with a pre-planned conspiracy to unlawfully stop certification of the election with violence." MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor modification: suggest "charged with a pre-planned conspiracy for violent action to unlawfully stop certification of the election." . . dave souza, talk 08:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The source doesn't say anyone has been charged with that, just that a prosecutor made the claim. Ironically, the evidence he used was a message by someone who has not been charged with anything. The source further says that the prosecutors have consistently changed their narrative and failed to back up their statements with evidence. IOW your suggested wording misrepresents the source. TFD (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

More needed on causation, direction, prediction

These points need sourcing, but they should all be in the article. There are likely sources for all this by now in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. There are certainly sources from broadcasters such as MSNBC, which makes the following three points over and over almost every day since Jan 6, using expert sources to state the points.

• Causation - The article mentions the role of social media sites like Parler, but lacks info on public-information failures as underlying causes of the storming event. Facebook algorithms lead users from false statements about the election and other inflammatory topics, to ever more inflammatory false statements. Twitter allowed massive numbers of posts of inflammatory false information, with at best belated tepid disclaimers. Broadcasters on pubic airwaves, like Fox News, did (and continues to do) "news" stories that are no more than inflammatory propaganda, with typical headlines looks something like - "Evidence Found for Massive Election Fraud, says so-and-so", then the story does not mention that there is no such evidence. Then they run similar headlines and stories over and over, sometimes changing the "so-and-so" making the false claim. Any reasonable viewer not anticipating propaganda would be left thinking there was a newsworthy reason for running the stories, and that there is in fact evidence of massive election fraud, and any patriot would think there was cause to try do something about it on January 6. (Fox did the same thing as to Obama's birth certificate, creating years of stories from nothing, and creating Trump.)
• Direction - The article lacks information on overt or implied direction to be violent on January 6. Trump told the Proud Boys, known to be prone to violence, that they should stand back and stand by, told them there was election fraud when there was not, then directed them to attend an event that would be "wild". Trump then stood in front of a crowd including Proud Boys (etc.) and told them to march to the Capitol or they would lose their democracy, then lied that the US President would be physically marching with them. Any reasonable person would expect violence to result from these directions. Our article mentions the direction to the crowd to march, but does not give enough context as to why any rational person would expect violence by some of the crowd members as a result.
• Prediction - The article lacks information that violence was widely anticipated for January 6. The underlying causation allowed for (self-fulfilling) prediction of the event, such as Trump "predicting" it would be "wild", and Bannon overtly saying "all hell is going to break loose tomorrow (January 6)". MBUSHIstory (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Think there's a lot of validity in that, but "Trump then stood in front of a crowd including Proud Boys (etc.) and told them to march to the Capitol" seems at odds with the fact that Proud Boys left the rally before Trump's speech began (and made their way to the barriers around the Capitol before Trump finished speaking), and "then lied that the US President would be physically marching with them" was apparently a metaphor for he'd get driven in the official car to the White House where he would virtually be with them by watching them on television. . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

dave souza is correct that the source in the Wiki timeline article says that 300 members of the Proud Boys were reported to already be at the Capitol before Trump directed the crowd (which may have had other Proud Boys and definitely had numerous people in paramilitary gear) to march to the Capitol. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As a reasonable person (formerly) invited to quite a few events billed as "wild", the only thing I've ever assumed that inherently promised was loud music, mixed genders and plenty of alcohol. Those things can cause a brawl or two, of course, but it's almost always the unreasonable people fighting. That is to say, the ones who show up anywhere someone tells them "the party's at" and fight anyone who tells them to back up, relax or get out. Hard to know why these types exist, but we've all seen them, and no reasonable advice can usually change their minds, semipresidential or otherwise. Not saying all young American men are what sociologists call "the total douchebag", but it's quite possible many in attendance were, in fact, born or raised that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk is correct that the "wild" tweet by itself, with no other context, does not indicate a prediction of violence. We can't make the inference from the context, but we can provide info on the context. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Even when I've been sold the idea that "all hell is going to break loose tomorrow", it predictably turned out to just be more wine, women and song. I think we already provide more-than-ample coverage of Trump uttering "fight" in the crowded political theatre. Other standard pointless ad-babble for a party might be "wicked", "killer" or "dope show"; ignore 'em if you got 'em! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, that demonstrates Trump's expertise in dog whistle politics. Reasonable people see the words as innocuous, the various cults and factions he's been cultivating see the same words as legitimising their inclination to violent assault on the Constitutional governance of the US. For context, a May 2019 study correlated Trump's political rhetoric, especially that aimed at extremist audiences, and incidents of hate crimes, ranging from racially charged instances of vandalism and threats to physical assault and murder. In June 2020, the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church was seen as "promising violence, anticipating it, and sending out a dog-whistle to a white supremacist fan base about their 'Second Amendment rights'." Whether because of the ban on weapons at the January 6 events, or extremists being more talk than action, murders didn't materialise, but violence causing severe injuries came close. There were "peaceful demonstrators", but for them the violence wasn't a deal-breaker. . . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Source of opinion: Burton, Nylah (2 June 2020). "Opinion: Trump just declared war on the American people". The Independent. Retrieved 27 May 2021. dave souza, talk 07:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure the lack of a civil war in the following year completely spoils Burton's prophetic credibility. If she was wrong about that declaration seven times, she can just as easily have misinterpreted the wonky holding of a Bible. Has she even met a white supremacist Trump fan, much less asked what he or she saw in that scene? If not, her guess is no better than what a white supremacist might say "her people" believe. Conflict of interests here, clearly, I take it with a grain of salt. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a published opinion, to be treated cautiously, and of course I would take your opinion with even more salt, subject to dietary considerations. . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, dogwhistling is like gaslighting. The only people who seem to think it's intended are the ones who feel it's used against them. As a man accused of passive aggressive manipulation before, I know better than to outright deny its existence, so let's just say it's possible a political novice like Trump is cunning enough to pull it off, yet somehow stupid enough to blurt out all the uncharming and self-defeating things he's otherwise known for. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Both dogwhistling and gaslighting don't quite fit, but share the point of being techniques of persuasion. As a reality TV star he's got a lot of expertise and ability in such techniques. . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Aye, but as a narcissistic genius raised on pro wrestling, I'm two steps ahead of him and I'm telling you, Dave, the old dog's still wet behind the ears, can't even "work" a slight ramp, an umbrella or the covfefe machine. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia, on second thought, a dog whistle is supposed to be subtle, "without provoking opposition" and "alienating the smallest number possible". I'd say he fell way short of those criteria. Is there political jargon for a candidate who whistles poorly in a way his opposition hears more clearly than his lunatic fringe? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The techniques differ from that. Like creationism, blatant misinformation gets opponents bogged down in explanations while supporters hear what they want to hear. Am sure I've seen an article discussing Trump's usage, but can't find it offhand. As for political jargon, the big lie seems to have some traction.[18][19] With the refinement that belief in the big lie becomes a loyalty test for the party. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump used the tactic of energizing his base, which also antagonized the other side, rather than appeal to the middle, which is more typical in U.S. politics. Hence dog-whistling would be counter-productive: he told his supporters what they wanted to hear and did not care what the other side thought. The more the Resistance attacked him, the more his base loved him. I don't think anything more can be read into it.

The "insurrection" was just a group of angry demonstrators who took advantage of poor security.

TFD (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty to be read into it, but we need systematic analysis in good sources. At this stage, "There is no room for rejecting Trump's Big Lie, as Republicans who do so are ostracized by the party leadership", "Republicans' lack of faith in our current election infrastructure is a direct result of Trump's historic efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 results."[20] As for the poor security, which presidency and administration was responsible for that? . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that CNN is a particularly good source for world history. That should be obvious with your link which begins by admitting that they got the "Big Lie" term from Mein Kampf. It's a big leap to compare Hitler's claim that the Jews betrayed Germany in WWI (which he would use to carry out the Holocaust) with Trump's claim the election was stolen. The historian cited, Timothy Snyder, who has written for CNN although your link doesn't mention that, is highly controversial for promoting the double genocide theory, that Stalin and Hitler were equally guilty. It's controversial because it excuses Hitler for defending the West from Communism, thereby mitigating the Holocaust. While his books are popular, his theories have been ignored in academic literature. Daniel Lazare has an informative article about him in his article, "Timothy Snyder's Lies," published by Jacobin (09.09.2014). Ironically, Snyder draws inspiration from the same historian (Ernst Nolte) who has inspired modern neo-fascism. TFD (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Lot of interesting points and complexities in Lazare's article, won't be able to follow that up in detail. Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election does point to contested usage from both Democrats and Republicans. Doubtless historians will find a lot to analyse in the recent events, will try to watch out for sources. . . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't splitting the peaceful protests and speeches of January 6 off from this page be a superior solution than renaming?

I'm following up on User:Feoffer's suggestion made in a thread above. I have previously opined that "storming" is the better term because it's the most precise descriptive word which has been presented to the actions of those breaking and entering the capitol building on January 6 of this year. Given the good faith enthusiasm and persistence of those who seem to prefer (through pagemove) to emphasize the non-violent behavior of the vast majority of those present on the capitol grounds that day, perhaps another article could be created. Pardon me if I'm ascribing intent, but my suggestion is made to answer reasonable concerns I've seen raised in previous discussions on talk. I would argue that the precise reason many reliable sources use softer words like "riots" and "protests" is because many RSs doesn't want to tar and feather all participants in the events of that day. This doesn't answer naming issues here, but it certainly separates the two discrete events, one largely law-abiding, and one demonstrably not so. Such a splitting might obviate many assertions about pagemoves here, IMHO. It would also serve to avoid painting negatively all 1/6 participants with an overbroad brush, which is a weakness of the current state of affairs. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The evolving events of Jan. 6 are a single subject, and this subject is best treated when not split into it's violent and non-violent aspects, as violence is just another part of the fabric of reality and doesn't qualify things as special and therefore needing special and separate treatment. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you generally, but in the valid example Feoffer gives above, Kenosha unrest and Kenosha unrest shooting were separated for exactly the reasons I've asserted above. I'll quote the closer there: "The main argument in favor of splitting, phrased several different ways, is that there is enough coverage in RS to support the independent notability of the shooting and that the shooting's notability overshadows that of the protests at this point." That appears to be the case here as well. The breaking and entering overshadows the main events of the day and falsely paints peaceful protestors as criminals. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Many reliable sources do use 'riots' but they don't use 'protests' at all to refer to the whole goings-on that day. There's evidence that they don't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but I can't work on that right now and likely can't for the next couple weeks. There's definitely a lot of encyclopedic information out there about the lies leading up to the "Save America Rally", and that rally and march over, that is separate from information about those who entered, vandalized, and rioted at the Capitol building. Reliable sources also do, when referring to people who remained a good distance away from the building itself, refer to the participants as "protestors" as opposed to rioters or "insurrectionists". A split should be heavily considered for both ARTICLESIZE reasons (it'd allow this to be expanded with further information about the events that took place in the building) as well as for encyclopedic reasons. Would need careful watching of both articles to ensure neither turned into a POVFORK and didn't duplicate content between them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes and no. I would't go for a strict 'split' for the reasons Alalch states, but I think we absolutely should make an article focusing primarily on the peaceful protests, summarized as needed in this article. This is particularly the case in light of Sund's testimony that a coordinated, planned, surprise attack began "approximately 20 minutes before [Trump's rally] ended". The vanguard of highly-motivated violent insurrectionists may never have even been at Ellipse. Feoffer (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In the abstract, I agree with you on a daughter article as a good thing, but it may not be viable. That's because I don't think that there's any additional layer of depth not already contained here that "waits" to be included in a daughter article, in order to justify it's existence; conversely, there is no extraneous layer of detail in this article. I don't see how removing anything with regard to the rally etc. could make this article better. So ultimately I don't see a benefit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't excise anything from this article. As to benefits, consensus for an "insurrection"/"attack" title might be one benefit. Agreed that there's no content that particularly "waits" to be included -- we could use a little more info about what Jones, Flynn, Papadopoulos and Stone had to say on Jan 5, but we should do that here. Feoffer (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The events of that day are only article-worthy because of the unprecedented domestic breach of the Capitol and the ensuing violence. While the pre-attack, nonviolent Jan. 6th rally was the largest such protest, and perhaps the only one in which Trump himself spoke (I won't swear on that, but I think it's true), it was also just one of a series that had occurred in D.C. between the election and January 6th. The other rallies don't have their own articles, nor would this one if it had remained nonviolent. (The other protests are described in 2020–21 United States election protests, which could be fleshed out further with nonviolent Jan. 6 details if desired.) While reasonable people can argue that the nonviolent part of the day should be emphasized more in this article, and that this article should have a more neutral title to reflect the totality of the day's experience, it would be a mistake to give the morning Jan. 6th protest rally its own article. (I'm humorously imagining a line at the end of the new article that says, "To read about what happened after 1:37 p.m., see next article.") Splitting this into two articles is not a realistic way to represent reality. Moncrief (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment D'oh! BusterD (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Huh? Moncrief (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. No offense intended. I was visualizing your imagining and it made me feel a bit foolish for my suggestion. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, got it now! No worries. I'm glad I could make you chuckle. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I need to disagree with the premise of your first sentence. The events of the day were article-worthy because for the first time in American History, a group of protestors invited and encouraged by the current President of the United States gathered in the capitol to express their dissatisfaction with the U.S. Congress performing a purely administrative function and approving the output of the Electoral College's vote on December 14. All because they didn't agree with the outcome of the EC's vote. That was unprecedented. I'd like to think wikipedians would have covered such unprecedented activity before any violence broke out. As it turns out, User:Another Believer created this page at 18:34 UTC (2:34pm EST): "On January 6, 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election"(NPR and Washington Post as sources) as events were unfolding. BusterD (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your points are fair enough, but all of Trump's reactions to the election results were unprecedented. It wasn't just a January 6th thing but part of a larger pattern. Perhaps that can be made clearer in other articles like 2020–21 United States election protests. I don't see the need to create a new article specifically about the first half of January 6th for the reasons you specify. Moncrief (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Moncrief, I don't support an article for that one protest, but I think that an article covering the early January protests/rallies/etc in general is likely due - including information about Trump's repeated exaggerations and outright lies, as well as protester activities. That would go on to cover the march to the Capitol, and then summarize (with a hatnote here) the storming thereof. Alternatively, I thank you for saying "reasonable people", because I've been looking for this to summarize more about the non-violent part of the day all along. However, we then run into ARTICLESIZE issues and a potential split for that reason anyway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez We very much have that article already 2020–21 United States election protests#January 2021 — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Alalch Emis. That's a much better example than the one I gave for nonviolent Jan 6 events and earlier. I'm going to edit my answer to include that link instead. Moncrief (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, there's definitely more encyclopedic information about the two days prior than just two short paragraphs - hence why I'm saying it may need to be split out of that article too for ARTICLESIZE and then summarized there and here - would also allow this article to be expanded much further without running into size issues. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If the relevant sections of the protests article (the parent article to the storming article) were expanded, it would be done simply by copying the corresponding portions of this article there. The result would be duplicate content, and that isn't satisfactory. Logically, a "solution" would be to indeed make a second daughter article and do what you propose. But if that article is also to be composed of the same content present here (indubitable), in order not to produce duplicate content, portions of the storming article in it's current state would have to be split elsewhere -- Well, I don't see how moving anything from the background section elsewhere would make this article better (only worse). And this article must be the best it can be and has priority over many other considerations because of it's formal importance rating. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but it's a little complicated, and from where I'm coming from, ultimately - no benefit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lol at protest article cliffhanger! If we make another article just on the protests, it would have to summarize the attack and links to the protests, not just pretend it never happened. Just as: Kenosha unrest summarizes the fatal shooting. Feoffer (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Moncrief, there's really only one event. It started down the National mall and moved to the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think the point people are making is that many of those who were at the rally at the Ellipse didn't end up going to the Capitol. But of course I agree with you in that I think the events of the day are inseparable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article about the event. Moncrief (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM ~Awilley (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moncrief, sure - but at the risk of invoking WMF's former counsel, not everyone who marched into Poland in 1939 went on to murder Jews in person, but history is pretty clear about them being Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Hello, Godwin's law! Berchanhimez is absolutely right that hyperbolic comments like this are unhelpful. I encourage to follow NPOV and NOTFORUM guidelines. If you can't do so, you could get blocked from participating in this talk thread. (It's happened before.) We all have strong personal opinions on Trump etc, but this is not the place for us to air those opinions. Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Moncrief, it's not hyperbole, it's about the continuum between the Reichsparteitag and the Blitzkrieg. The line from the beer hall putsch to the Reichstag fire. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC) JzG, this is absolutely false and you know it. There are two separate events - both notable - Trump's lies and the associated peaceful rally/protests, and Trump's lies that led to what you insist on calling an insurrection, but is more accurately described as a group of people not present at the rally/protest but who stormed the Capitol building. I get that you disagree with Trump and the GOP on a lot of things. I get it. I do too. But you have let it affect your WP editing greatly. It's absolutely not helpful and is not leading to an improvement of the encyclopedia for you to continue violating NOTFORUM and NPOV on talk pages. It's valid to say the events are "inseparable" as Moncrief said - but Moncrief, unlike you, has remained civil and discussed based on WP policies - whereas you have continued editing based on your personal POV/opinions and attempted to derail discussions like this too many times. It's not helpful at all, and I'm going to respectfully request you disengage from this talkpage completely as you haven't been helping this discussion one bit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC) I second that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Berchanhimez, re: more accurately described as a group of people not present at the rally/protest but who stormed the Capitol building... I've not seen that said before, that there was a group of people who did not attend the rally but did storm (or whatever wording) the Capitol. Do you have a source for that? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Muboshgu, it would be more accurately stated as "people present in DC for the purpose of storming the Capitol, not for a peaceful rally/protest". It's well known, and others here have stated (and our article itself does) that the storming was started by people before the rally even ended and people started marching there. No, they didn't breach the building while the rally was ongoing - but the rioting started before the peaceful protestors even left the Eclipse. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Berchanhimez, this article is massive. I do see that some went to the Capitol before Trump finished speaking. I do not doubt that some were there to peacefully protest and others were there to fuck shit up. I do not know how easily we would be able to separate one from the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Off topic ~Awilley (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Muboshgu, I understand that - and that's what this discussion should be about - is whether we can or not. JzG has in this discussion provided no useful commentary based on WP policy - but has yet again (as he's done on this talk page many times before) injected comments violating NOTFORUM that consist solely of his personal opinion and are pushing his immense POV. That is the reason for my request to him to disengage from this talkpage - it's not helping anything that he keeps making comments like this that are nothing more than opinions of his and don't discuss the policy or reasoning behind anything. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Absolutely false"? Bullshit. Other viewpoints certainly exist, but the Trump cult is not a peaceful thing, in any context. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC) JzG, yet another unhelpful comment that adds nothing to the discussion but your personal opinion - and shows that you cannot contribute in this topic area helpfully. I'll ask again - I respectfully request you disengage from the talkpage of this article given that the vast majority (if not all) of your comments here have been woefully unhelpful at best, and damaging to civil discourse at worst. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Berchanhimez, we're discussing whether there is some mythical peaceful protest distinct form the insurrection. Fact is, there isn't. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC) JzG, that's not a "fact", that's your opinion, and in fact most people here that are discussing civilly and in line with policy disagree with you. The fact is there are many people who "protested" Trump's defeat around the country but didn't go to DC - and there's many that went to DC but didn't participate in the riots (or what you're calling an "insurrection"). This comment again, validates my claim that your participation on this talk page is unhelpful at best. Please disengage from the talkpage so we can have valid discussion without having to repeatedly counter your violations of NOTFORUM. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Berchanhimez, so you say. Pretty sure I have more experience of Wikipedia and its sourcing policies than you do. Peaceful Fa? Meh. Maybe not. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC) @JzG, this whole exchange is troubling. It isn't helpful on this talk page to use the term "the Trump cult" to describe Trump supporters or to state as fact that it isn't a peaceful thing, or to say that the idea there was any peaceful protest that day is "mythical". There is no evidence that the majority of Trump supporters aren't peaceful, nor that the majority of those who were at the speeches actually participated in the riot/insurrection/attack/whatever we end up calling it. If you really can't tone down your language or recognize when you're stating opinion, you're going to need to stop editing this page. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you. ~Awilley (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose largely per JzG above. One mob, one event. There is no "peaceful" aspect of the 2021 riots on which to base an article. ValarianB (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. non-violent behavior of the vast majority of those present on the capitol grounds? Like the guy who climbed up on the gallows and inspected the noose? Like the "tourists" who entered through windows and doors broken down by others and stayed "between the stanchions and ropes?" Quoting ValarianB: One mob, one event. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't see this as two sister articles but as mother-daughter articles where the Save America rally is the mother and the storming of the Capitol is the daughter. I disagree with another editor that the demonstrations were only notable because of the attack on the Capitol. A huge rally of Trump supporters to influence the tallying of electoral votes would have been notable on its own. What is unusual is that the storming of the Capitol is significantly more notable than the demonstrations themselves. In practical terms therefore, we would be spinning off the article about the demonstrations. TFD (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

An estimated eight thousand isn't a huge rally by Washington standards (1.8 million at Obama's first, 1 million at his second inauguration, 470,000 at the 2017 Women's March, 250,000 at the March on Washington in 1963). If it hadn't ended with the storming of the Capitol, it would have remained just one of the 2020–21 United States election protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability is based on media coverage, not on numbers. While we can never know what that would have been had the demonstrations been non-violent, there is sufficient coverage to write a detailed, neutral article. The Million Worker March of October 17, 2004, attended by 10,000 people, has its own article, while the October 26, 2002 anti-war protest in Washington attended by 100,000 people was largely ignored by the media and lacks an article. Of course the U.S. media focused almost entirely on presenting the pro-war position up until the actual invasion of Iraq. Just to note, there are articles on the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and the 2017 Women's March. The Smithsonian lists them among the 11 most significant Washington Protests.[21] It also includes the 2002 demonstration. TFD (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the history of the Million Worker March, I'd say that the article was created by someone who was involved in the event, not because there was much media coverage. I found a lot more coverage for the October 26, 2002, anti-Iraq war protest (CBS, NY Times, UPI, CNN, WaPo, ABC) with one brief search. But that rally was one of many in the U.S. and globally, and it's mentioned in Protests against the Iraq War. This rally was also one of many mentioned in United States election protests until it evolved into the unprecedented storming of the Capitol. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC

Language is everything - prefacing the article with the words, "A mob of supporters" while not using the word mob for events that happened across the nation during George Floyd incidents, what happened in both Seattle and Portland shows an inherent bias that should not exist on Wikipedia. Either the other articles should be updated to match this description or the word mob should be removed.

Many clearly expressed a belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory,[522]

This statement is incorrect base on the reference - read the WSJ referenced article and AQnon isn't mentioned. If digging into the WSJ article references it does state that one, just one, individual wrote about QAnon - clean this up or find evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7B90:C1D0:74A6:BE86:DC5A:BE85 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean apart from this "More than a dozen were clear supporters of the conspiracy theory QAnon"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Or this "At least 13 voiced QAnon beliefs" (not my emphasis).Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, source 522 is not the WSJ, its the NYT, maybe that is where your mistake lies, you are looking at the wrong source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source. 13 out of 8,000 isn't many. Do we know the degree of support of QAnon among the demonstrators? TFD (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is out of those arrested, I have made that clear now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That is clearer. I wonder if we should express it as a percentage, since we've done that elsewhere in the paragraph. I'd like to know what percentage actually believed in QAnon, but guess we'll have to wait. TFD (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Move review

Please be aware of the move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_June#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol. Please participate there if you are so inclined. Moncrief (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Attack on POLICE?

Okay, the beginning of this article has clearly been edited to push a pro-police agenda. The article has been edited to portray this as an attack against police, rather than the U.S. or Congress. The facts are that the terrorists breached the Capitol, interrupted Congress, and had intentions to hang members of Congress, all the while the police stood by and watched. The attack was quelled by the National Guard, and not the police, and they were not called until hours after the attack on the nation had begun.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I edited that, and it's only pushing the same idea already in the body and infobox; that at least 138 police were injured, mostly by getting attacked by rioters. If I was pro-police, I'd pretend they weren't hurt. Having your building breached and getting interrupted by someone possibly intending to hang you isn't fun, but it's a world away from being hit with solid objects, pepper spray or electricity. Saying they were the victims of a violent attack also in no way suggests they quelled it. If you want to put the National Guard over as the cops' saviours, I wouldn't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I vaguely see where you are coming from. However, I don't think painting the police as the true victims is going to properly portray the intentions of the attackers, or the damage that could have been done. This attack interrupted Congress. A gallows was erected, and members of Congress very well could have been killed. There is a major difference between getting hit with rocks while wearing body armor and being hanged because you believe in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And nothing happened, so its an accusation. They did however directly attack serving police officers.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe nothing happened, but their intentions were clear. Look at the video footage or read the news. There were insurrectionists in the chambers of Congress. Someone had handcuffs. A gallows had been built. This would definitely have been worse if it went on for another hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Could you please sign your posts.) One demonstator had plastic ties that could be used as handcuffs, but they had been left by Capitol police[22] and he says he picked them up so police could not use them on demonstrators. The gallows was displayed outside and never brought into the building. It was a prop and doubtful it could have worked. Even if it did, it would have taken days to execute all the legislators. Odd too that none of the demonstrators carried guns, although they are easily obtainable. TFD (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Demonstrators, marchers (as advertised) or mob attempting to coerce congress? Oddly enough, FactCheck.org on March 10 debunked "none of the demonstrators carried guns", and says 23 people have been charged with having deadly or dangerous weapons during the assault — including Alberts who was arrested and charged with the federal offense of carrying a fully loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun on Capitol grounds. Similar;y, Rouan, Rick (4 March 2021). "Fact check: Claim about FBI official who said bureau recovered no guns at Capitol riot is missing context". USA TODAY. cites Capitol Breach Cases | USAO-DC | Department of Justice which lists Alberts and two others, charged with "Possession of an unregistered firearm" etc.. There may be others, despite Washington, D.C.’s unusually strict gun laws, which require firearms to be registered with local police.[23] So these laws and restrictions on Capitol grounds perhaps influenced the "marchers". .. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to add, Enrique Tarrio didn't take his high-capacity firearms magazines or a gun to go with them to the rally, as he was busted on on January 4, and banned from going to the events. The police had an active crackdown on gun possession in the run-up to January 6, pour encourager les autres. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. None of the news reports I could find said that the demonstrators were armed and the charges I found related to arms found at their homes or in vehicles near the demonstrations. I suppose since few arrests were made at the time, that there would be no way of knowing if anyone was armed unless they openly carried their weapons or used them. But the point remains. If the 8,000 demonstrators had collectively planned to murder the 535 legislators and install Trump as a dictator, they would have been better prepared. The insurrectionists at the Beer Hall Putsch and the 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt were heavily armed, and even they were doomed to failure. TFD (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear any open carry would have meant immediate arrests and custody until licenses were confirmed for any with licenses, and even Trump enthusiasts might have thought that shooting cops would be bad PR. A lot of it seems to be intimidation rather than intent to murder. Pity the police weren't so confident, a lot would have been spared injuries if they'd just let the "demonstrators" in to talk to Republican senators. While some groups planned various manoeuvres, like most mobs there was no need of a plan, and they probably genuinely thought they could intimidate senators into not certifying 'Biden, leaving Trump as legitimate president because they'd stopped the steal. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) "they would have been better prepared" The bomber certainly came prepared. Alberts, in body armor and gas mask with a loaded weapon, certainly came prepared. Lonnie Coffman came with his own arsenal and bombs The folks who breached the perimeter before the speech was even over seemed pretty prepared. RSes agree was a coordinated attack to affect the transition of power. (Now, the QAnon Shaman, I'll give you, probably never woke up that day imagining anything like what would happen to him. ) Feoffer (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

While is purpose of any demonstration outside a government building is to influence government, that is a right protected by the First Amendment. There are no reliable sources that say that entering the building was planned and no evidence that the person who planted the pipe bombs coordinated with anyone in the demonstrations. The fact we don't know who he was is probably evidence he did not. I don't see why fear of arrest would for open carry would bother these people, especially once they entered the building, since trying to overthrow the government can also get you arrested. It's pretty crazy to think that a country that spends a trillion dollars a year on defense could be overthrown by a few thousand hooligans, even if a few dozen came well prepared. TFD (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Read some of the prosecution submissions. Any lingering questions about whether there was a planned, coordinated attempt at insurrection are resolved after reading a Dec 26 Oathkeeper message that says "wait for the 6th when we are all in DC to insurrection". In another message, the same suspect emphasizes "this isn't a Rally". Feoffer (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. Here is a link to the indictment. There is nothing in either document that alleges the incursion of the Capitol Building was pre-planned. The only specific violence referred to was a plan to attack antifa. (I don't know why they thought antifa would be there.) And although the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and far right groups may have led the incursion, there is no claim that majority of participants had any contact with them before Jan. 6. Ashli Babbitt's social media posts for example have been published and she does not seem to have planned her attendance with anyone. Kelly seems to have believed that Trump would dissolve Congress, thereby stopping the vote and extending his term. (I know it doesn't make sense, but then neither does their belief system.) TFD (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in either document that alleges the incursion of the Capitol Building was pre-planned. Yeah, for that I'd point you to the Norfolk FBI who on Jan 5 correctly reported the Capitol building was a target, with maps of the escape tunnels being shared. Feoffer (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Washington Post article about the Norfolk FBI report and cannot find a copy of the report, so I am relying on an article from NBC News.[24] It says the FBI has said there was no credible evidence of a conspiracy (before the Jan. 6 demonsrations were underway) to breach the Capitol Building and no one has been charged. You would think with over 400 people charged, some evidence would have come to light. No doubt some blogger said "Let's take over the Capitol Building," but then did nothing further. Certainly some said "Let's break windows," but that doesn't mean they planned an incursion. If you look at the much ballyhooed map, which includes the tunnels, it says that 3,500 guards would be on duty. 8,000 largely unarmed people are unlikely to take a building from 3,500 armed and armored police. (They didn't guess that Capitol security would be so incompetent there would only be 500 guards. And note where the map tells demonstrators to go. The plan was to block legislators from entering the Capitol. There wasn't even a plan to breach the Capitol grounds. Note also they planned to assemble in the morning between 6AM and 10AMahead of the afternoon vote. But no one showed up until after 11AM. IOW the plan was not even carried out. TFD (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If there was "credible evidence" available to the FBI in advance, they'd be embarrassed. So they now dismiss the credibility of comments like "Barging into the Capitol through multiple entryways is the surest way to have our bases covered and apprehend these traitors." Don't see where NBC give the planned assembly times, but note that the Ellipse gates opened at 7am, and by 9am there was some sort of crowd to hear the first speech. A Proud Boys contingent left the rally at 10:58 to march toward the Capitol Building, around 12:30 a "fairly calm" crowd of about 300 built up east of the Capitol, and at 12:53 rioters, including Proud Boys, broke through the barriers and onto the Capitol grounds. So, reasonably consistent with a supposed plan to assemble in the morning between 6am and 10am and the Proud Boys' actions looked planned, as did the Oath Keepers moving to the Capitol later, but that's no indication of an overall plan. As for Capitol security being incompetent, think there were reports of instructions to protect the "patriot demonstrators" and not have the show of force that met BLM. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The times were written on the map by whoever prepared it. The Ellipse is 2 miles from the Capitol. The fact remains that the insurrectionists did not show up at the Capitol between 6 and 10 AM which was the plan on the map. And again that plan did not include storming the building or even the grounds of the Capitol. TFD (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't check out the [small print, for me] on the map. That plan didn't happen, there was chatter about breaching the Capitol grounds, surrounding the entire Capitol complex [besieging it], and on ambitious post saying "patriots as can be. We will storm the government buildings, kill cops, kill security guards, kill federal employees and agents, and demand a recount." That's a rant, ending on a note of bathos, not sure it's a good idea to ignore that sort of commenting. Seems odd in the circumstances that the FBI needed a tip-off before they could "hunt for threats of violence or domestic terror plots [on] social media", but that's what FBI Director Christopher Wray said. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

People say things like that on far right blogs all the time. To prove conspiracy you would have to show that there was an agreement between the person who posted the suggestion and the persons who attempted to carry it out. TFD (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I see we're back to pretending an untold number of congresspeople were violently attacked, rather than 138 cops. Which is fine, if you base your history on a few supposed goals rather than on the whole objective result. I still feel actions should take priority over intentions in fact-based recaps, even when intention is clearly known, and this article should be no exception. But since it is the exception, and does prioritize ambition over outcome, I won't insist. Please try to not let this new style spread to established events, like the time Hinckley meant to assassinate Reagan and impress Foster (for example only). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Very Biased Article

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.

---

Be advised that this is an extremely biased account of the events that led to the January 6 riot. The article assumes that the claims of serious election fraud are "false" and ignores all the evidence that supports the claim. It describes Ashli Babbitt as an "insurrectionist," which is obscene. She was a military veteran protesting what she believed was a stolen election. She believed that the Senate should not certify the election results from the states where there was substantial evidence of serious election fraud. That is hardly "insurrection."

If you want to read some of the evidence of serious election fraud, here are some links that document it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-882/164938/20201229165341814_No.%2020-__PetitionForAWritOfCertiorari.pdf

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/peter-navarro-the-immaculate-deception-report-news-conference-transcript

https://bannonswarroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf

https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical-evidence-the-election-is-being-stolen/

https://spectator.us/topic/evidence-actually-rudy-giuliani-voter-fraud/

https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/2020-11-09-complaint-as-filed.pdf

https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/1.-11-10-20-trump-v.-benson-w.d.-mich.-complaint-final.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegriffith1 (talk • contribs)

Most of these are not RS. All are opinions, only. The courts (do we have to really say this again) have rejected the claims, the SC has not supported the claims, the government body that oversees elections has said there was no fraud. So a few voices on the web are not going to change our minds, when the courts have said there is no evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As to Babbit, it does not matter what she thought, all insurectit9inst think they are right, but I agree it was not an insurrection, it was a riot.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It was totally an insurrection. They were attempting to override a democratic election and illegally put the guy they liked back in power because he told them to. 16:58 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Technically, one of those was a petition for a writ of certiorari, two were complaints and one was a transcript of the next one's press conference, not somebody's professionally published opinion. Unreliable for being primary sources, though. Anyway, Mike's not proposing we use any of this to source an edit, just stuff about evidence he said anyone who wants to read about should. Wikipedia is not a forum or directory. That's the main problem here. FYI, Mike, this article doesn't call Babbitt an insurrectionist, that's just here on the Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

what are you asking? What edit do you want to suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

All your sources are from just after the election. While the arguments may have been plausible, the problem is that Trump's side failed to provide evidence to prove them. State secretaries of state, election officials and judges have all rejected them. No academic papers have been published supporting Trump's side. So we have to follow reliable sources that say there was no serious voter fraud. TFD (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Support There is no evidence to back up Trump's claims. 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you supporting, I am unsure what edit has been suggested.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Showing agreement with TFD's statement. 03:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

These two claims can both be true:

1. The claims of serious election fraud are false.

2. Ashli Babbitt was protesting what she believed was a stolen election.

Terjen (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

More so, it is perfectly congruent that one should protest, or rather, revolt upon what one believes to be a stolen election and be an insurrectionist. This is the nature of subversion. The impulse to protect the constitutional order was subverted through agitation, which was programmed on lies, the cult of personality (believing that the leader must be right), and factional hatred (believing that the other side can't be right). — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And we still need RS saying what an editor wants us to say. And we need a clear indication of what changes they wish to make.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 31 May 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.

Related page moves

Given recent page move, should Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol and Template:2021 US Capitol attack also be moved to reflect the title of the parent article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for the #Move review. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. People already went ahead and moved a ton of other pages. What a mess. Fucking garbage. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Y2kcrazyjoker4 as the editor that moved {{2021 US Capitol attack}}. Not sure if you'd like to comment here or explain the rationale for moving it while the move review was still in progress or not. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: meh, that's just how move reviews go. Everything can be moved back if necessary - it's not a huge deal. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea any move review was underway. I merely saw the recent move discussion was closed and the article had been moved. I figured that was the end of it for now. I was wrong. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect needed

Redirect needed from 2021 Capitol insurrection. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Feoffer (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Mock Gallows

For the record, the gallows were clearly labelled as an art piece. Adda'r Yw (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned in an article in Smithsonian Magazine: "The first large item to greet me? A wooden structure on its side with signs affixed to the base. A square piece of plywood read “THIS IS ART.” Graffiti from a variety of hands covered the legs and sides of what I recognized as gallows, sans noose." Terjen (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the press have reported it to be "mock gallows" including this recent Associated Press based article. Perhaps we should include that fact as well. Terjen (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You have no knowledge when and who later put the graffiti on the gallows - photographed with noose, widely published, Please no OR here. SPECIFICO talk 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We should obviously not quote Smithsonian's observation from the day after, assuming that was your concern. RS have said it was a mock gallows. Terjen (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain to me (and more importantly to readers): Apart from a post-hoc observation that the gallows was never used in an execution, in what ways does a "mock" gallows differs from a "gallows"? Feoffer (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mock as in being an imitation of something. It's intended to seem real but is not the real thing. [25][26] Terjen (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as your definition hinges upon the intention of the builder of which we have no sources, we should side with the majority of RSes. There are cases where a minority opinion might beat majority -- I'd support RSes that show the gallows were non-functional rather than merely theoretically 'intended' to not be used. Feoffer (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

These definitions of "mock" are from the cited dictionaries, and don't hinge on us determining the intentions of the builder. We have high-quality RS: Associated Press explicitly says "mock gallows" in their May 28 article. Terjen (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated by RSes that the gallows was somehow "non-functional", we absolutely must mention that; there's a proud tradition of non-functional "guillotines" in political speech. But "art" of gallows can function quite well as an "actual" gallows unless RS are sure it's very carefully constructed to be non-functional. Feoffer (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That RS calls them "mock gallows" is sufficient for us to report them as such. Terjen (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

One source"s passing remark? No. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) RSes refer to them as "gallows", and while at least one source called them "mock". If the minority verbiage is well-substantiated in a way we can explain to readers, we should share that info with our readers. Feoffer (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the original article directly from Associated Press dated May 28, 2021. Terjen (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A single source cherrypicked. The gallows symbolize the insurrectionists' oft-voiced intention to kill VP Pence. Think of the many celebrities who've killed themselves with less substantial apparatus. Look at the sturdy joinery at the beam end. Look at the well-tied nylon noose. I see no qualified opinion this was not lethal. SPECIFICO talk 09:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please no OR here, as a wise editor once said. Terjen (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I am recounting narratives of countless mainstream reports. Have you read widely on this? If so, it's not apparent. SPECIFICO talk 09:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Look at the sturdy joinery at the beam end. Look at the well-tied nylon noose." Please provide a RS for these claims. If you can't, it's OR, obviously. "I see no qualified opinion this was not lethal." Please provide a RS saying this was lethal. If you can't, it's OR, obviously. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In a SKYISBLUE way, of course it could be lethal. You could hang someone in the loop, bash his head against an edge or place him underneath and have some goons sit on it. But it definitely wouldn't have met any state standard for an official execution gallows (missing even a shoddy trapdoor), and quite obviously wasn't lethal or even harmful (beyond stiff mockery) on this relevant day. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to the argument that this was created as a work of speech or was not functional -- but we need an actual source saying one of those things, and we don't have it. Feoffer (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Would the complete absence of sources even implying the gallows performed its function as the usual kind of gallows practically always does be enough to call it "an unused gallows" in Wikipedia's voice? We're allowed to paraphrase, remember, even encouraged (in normaler articles). If you insist no qualifier is best, I understand; let the reader decide whether it served any supposed purpose by the time the afternoon was over. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could take Steve Rose of The Irish Times' word for "mock gallows". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Or trust Chauncey Vega of Salon.com, who's been calling it that since January 8. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not persuaded of quite obviously wasn't lethal or even harmful. It appears constructed of vertical and horizontal 4x4s which would be adequate. But because of its makeshift nature, its constructors can hope for plausible deniability they meant business if events unfolded to their liking. soibangla (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking potential, hypothetical or otherwise imagined harmfulness. As I said, it could be used as a weapon (like any sculpture). But on January 6, the relevant day, it simply wasn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to go with what do the bulk of RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No. We have an up-to-date high-quality reliable source substantiating the use of mock gallows: The May 28 Associated Press article. Currently, gallows is mentioned twice in our article body, cited to lesser sources:

• Snopes page from January 9.
• New York Times photo essay from January 6.
• Washington Post opinion piece from January 15.

We should replace these citations with a reference to the Associated Press article, and change the wording accordingly in the body text. Terjen (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-functional art? Sturdy crossbeam with noose—the "makeshift gallows" looks plenty functional to me, considering that people have been lynched by hanging from tree branches, lamp posts, bridge railings, the balcony of a courthouse. And the storming of the Capitol was an art performance, including the chants of "Hang Mike Pence?" So by the next day the noose was gone (souvenir, evidence?), and the gallows had been adorned with graffiti and a piece of plywood proclaiming. Unable to remove pieces of the structure, I opted for photographs of the graffiti, with Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia referenced in ink amongst notes such as “Where are you Thomas Jefferson?! Revolution 2021!!!,” “hang the thieves,” “hang treason,” and “God Bless the USA.”

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mmmm https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/07/USAT/247dbc80-2689-4c87-bc21-b31a1142185e-XXX_TH__DC_protests697.JPG

If this is genuine its not a real Gallows.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Neither is this but the message is still clear. But back to the "technical merits" of the gallows: the beams are at the end of the platform. I can think of at least a couple of ways that would work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

True, which is why we go by what RS say, and whether it was a mock gallows or real does not affect that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is genuine its not a real Gallows It's not WP:SKYBLUE from the image that the gallows is non-functional. Feoffer (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure I was the one who was talking to you about functionality and blue skies. Still waiting to hear from you on whether AP, The Irish Times and Salon are satisfactory sources. But if you'd rather associate my policy-driven ideas with Slater's arguably more philosophical take on the reality of it all, I'd totally understand why, no rush! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, see what others think, but I think describing it as an "unused gallows" is more provocative than just "gallows", like it implies the gallows were waiting and able to be used. Obviously, we DO want readers to come away knowing that nobody was hung on the gallows. Feoffer (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The gallows are mock in the sense that they would not work. They are too small, too rickety and there's no trap door. Here's an article with an image of the mock gallows with a person standing on it for perspective. It's miniature. It would only be effective against an animal the size of a rabbit or chicken. I think the term we should use to describe them is model. TFD (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"They are too small, too rickety" -- that's what I strongly suspect as well, but I haven't actually found a RS that says that or something similar. Feoffer (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sadly yes, we need an RS and not OR to say this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess until we have that we just have to refer to it as a gallows. We might consider however changing the image. I prefer the one in USA Today,[27] which shows the whole structure with a woman standing on top of it to the albeit very artistic one which only shows the upper part. But of course we would have to ensure that copyright allowed its use. I think though that it is consistent with policy to get a picture that shows the whole structure with people in the frame so that readers can see how large and robust it was. TFD (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a great picture, we absolutely should be on the look out for free versions to add to the article. One of the other things I like about that pic is showing tall trees interposed between the gallows and the Capitol -- anyone who was in a mood to lynch people didn't need any logistical assistance from this artist. Feoffer (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I must sound like a broken record, but here goes: We have an up-to-date high-quality reliable source substantiating the use of the term mock gallows: The May 28 Associated Press article Terjen (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of independent sources saying "mock gallows":

• Washington Post, Jan 7: "Someone erected a mock gallows with a noose."
• salon.com, Jan 8: "Trump's mob also placed nooses on mannequins and constructed a mock gallows near the Capitol entrance."
• Daily Illini, Jan 9: "...culminating in the construction of a mock gallows, complete with a noose made from fluorescent orange nylon rope..."
• ITV, Jan 18: "When insurrectionists erected mock gallows outside of Congress, one name was written at the base: Joe Biden."
• Jacobin, Jan 26: "Some among them constructed a mock gallows, from which was suspended a menacing noose."
• Sky News, Feb 11: "There is the image of a mock gallows that has been erected just outside the Capitol..."
• New Republic, Feb 11: "The Democratic managers pointed out several times that a mock gallows had indeed been erected outside the Capitol"
• Irish Times, May 14: "a Confederate flag and a mock gallows featured in the January storming of the Capitol"
• EA WorldView, May 20: "...a mock gallows set up outside the building."
• And of course, as mentioned above, the AP report from May 29 that has been picked up by hundreds of RS: "...a mock gallows in front of the Capitol..."

So unless someone provides even more reliable sources reporting that the thing was indeed functional, we have to assume it was a mock gallows, and we should say so in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with "mock" now that AP's gone with it and its been so widely picked-up. New Republic is especially helpful in showing widespread usage of mock. Feoffer (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Normally I would say stay with the description that major media used. Unfortunately just calling it a gallows is misleading so I agree that we call it a mock gallows now that we have reliable sources that have come to that obvious conclusion. TFD (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we go with makeshift, as it is not a gallows like those once built by governments, yet it is nevertheless functional. soibangla (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-functional, in theory. You couldn't reliably or suddenly break a human neck with it. You'd need to go slow, like a pervert, or spill blood with the pointy ends when the whole thing falls apart in the struggle. Someone would jump in, probably shoot you. As art, though, it arguably worked. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said, it's only functional if one were hanging chickens or rabbits. It's not sturdy enough to hold the weight of a human body and the drop has to be longer than the person's height. TFD (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If somebody held each leg out about 90 degrees, parallel to the platform, it's theoretically possible (given about five undisturbed minutes). But it'd be easier for a murderer to just use the hammer, saw, rope or nail-studded boards by themselves. Construction is the most absurd form of destruction. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Any "structure consisting of an upright frame with a crosspiece" is a gallows, per Merriam Webster, definition 2. It's a threat, and calling it a mock gallows is whitewashing ("makeshift" does not say it's non-functional, it's still a gallows). Most RS do not use a qualifier. WaPo, NBC,Atlantic, New York Magazine, PBS, National Geographic, The Guardian, Military Times, NY Times. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"makeshift gallows" NBC source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

NBC and Guardian use both "gallows" and "makeshift gallows" in the same article. I'm going with "it's the thought that counts"—journalists don't always way every word they put in their articles (time constraints). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahd what they seem to be saying is "a makeshift gallows designed to indimidate", so maybe we should say that?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we should stick with the preponderance of RS, and personally I think preferably major sources like NY Times, NBC, PBS rather than EA WorldView, Daily Illicit, Jacobin, etc. I don't see that we need to point out that it's a makeshift gallows but I could live with that. "Mock gallows"—no; the sign that showed up after the event, proclaiming the gallows to be a piece of art—no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding another WaPo article with "makeshift gallows." Quote:Someone wrote “BIDEN,” in reference to President-elect Joe Biden, on the wooden structure, with an arrow pointing toward the noose. It was not clear if TheDonald or any similar pro-Trump forum directly coordinated the takeover of the Capitol, or if posters simply shared general advice, promotion and celebration of the idea of thronging to Washington in support of the president. Much of that was included in a popular thread called "PATRIOTS STORM THE CAPITOL / WATCH PARTY." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Makeshift gallows" and just "gallows" live on one semantic pole, and "mock gallows" on another. There is virtually nothing about "makeshift gallows" specifically as opposed to "gallows" that would convey a message that the the artifact could not be used to kill somebody by hanging. The opposite is true for "mock gallows". — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

After having seen the image that TFD shared with a woman for scale, and seeing the recent widespread usage of "mock", it seems entirely appropriate to call it "mock" rather than "makeshift". It certainly could be lethal, but there were already far better gallows-esque objects around in the form of tree branches, balcony railings, etc. Feoffer (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's the desired direction, and if this formulation is supported by RS, editors should be aware that "makeshift gallows" is in no way a euphemism for "mock gallows". Makeshift gallows are still very much gallows, and mock gallows are just mock gallows. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with Space4Time3Continuum2x's suggestion that because definition 2 of gallows in Merriam-Webster includes any structure with an upright frame and crosspiece that we can use the term. While that was the original definition, it is obsolete and today it always refers to an instrument of execution, which is definition 1. We would therefore be falsely implying that the structure could have been used to hang people. We know both from reliable sources and our own original research that is false. Note that we are allowed to use original research to evaluate "article content and sources." I have never come across this type of situation before, so see that it is difficult to decide. TFD (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's worth considering that the artist is almost certainly a living person who shouldn't be accused of making an actual gallows. Despite having read our article, I was deeply shocked at the scale when I saw a woman standing on it -- my first reaction was "what is this, a gallows for ants?". Now that RSes are widely using mock,so should we. Feoffer (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the artistic interpretation/ambiguity, it also had a placard on it saying "Stand with Trump"... ;-) Terjen (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a good example of gallows humor. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, it wasn't a full-sized gallows. A few more images: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] — Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Great finds, we really do need a picture with people for scale. The man kneeling on the platform is particularly effective. Feoffer (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)