Talk:Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Attribution

Resolved

Reminder to User:MJL or someone else to please add split/attribution templates to the top of this page as well as the parent article's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Already on it! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

MJL, Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Move?

Resolved

The parent article was moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack. Should this page be moved to Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Y2kcrazyjoker4. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a section about notable attendees?

Not everyone is going to be charged, at least in the beginning and multiple individuals have raised claims that they attended the rally or have been identified through social media posts, or via friends and family that they attended the rally. Individuals such as UFC Hall of Famer Pat Miletich have been identified and fired but not charged. Or should it be framed as individuals who were not arrested but lost their jobs due to their involvement? Let me know if anyone thinks that would work.Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

USA Today lists all known arrests stemming from Capitol storming

https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/ . Should be useful for editors contributing to this article. Zazpot (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Duckworth comments

• Seligman, Lara; O'Brien, Connor (January 11, 2021). "Duckworth demands Pentagon investigate if troops participated in Capitol 'coup attempt'". Politico. Retrieved January 11, 2021.

This seems like it should be in the article somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Do we need an "other investigations" section? "Investigations on members of Congress" could go there too, as it doesn't relate to criminal investigations so shouldn't be a subsection there. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Yeah, that works. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, though I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the short subsections. If Duckworth's proposal has obviously gone nowhere in a month or so it could probably be removed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Jenna Ryan, hosts a conservative radio show, wants a presidential pardon

• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-realtor-capitol-riot-i-m-glad-i-was-there-n1254563
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jenna-ryan-trump-pardon-capitol-riot-b1788395.html :"“This has taken my company. This has taken my business.” Two days after the riot Ms Ryan, who also hosts a conservative radio show..."

A Texas real estate agent who flew on a private jet from Frisco to join the march in Washington and live-streamed from the attack on the US Capitol is pleading for a presidential pardon. Jenna Ryan. Is this worth including in this article? --217.234.67.181 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, could go in "Notable arrests and charges". WWGB (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashli Babbitt portrayed as martyr across white supremacist groups

I'd like to include something from this ADL blog about Ashli Babbitt's growing portrayal as a martyr across white supremacist groups, and use of her face in flags and memes describing extremist conspiracy theories. What section should I include this in? I work at ADL. https://www.adl.org/blog/far-right-extremists-memorialize-martyr-ashli-babbitt

OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like you do it! --93.211.220.144 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No, self-published personal blogs on Wordpress or Geocities are not RS, blogs affiliated with reliable sources are generally viewed as reliable. Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Naming suspects

Why are we naming non-notable people arrested after the storming? Surely that is a breach of WP:BLPCRIME. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have now removed the names. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll also transfer the consensus notice from the previous article before this one was split out. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The names of people for non-notable crimes like theft or breaking & entering should be left out, but I think the level of criminality/planned terrorism for the first three people mentioned in the arrests section makes them notable, similar to how Kyle Rittenhouse is named in the Kenosha unrest shooting article, or the McMichaels are named in the Ahmaud Arbery article despite having yet to be tried or convicted, or how Dylann Roof was named before he was convicted. There is longstanding precedent on wikipedia that terror attacks and planned terror attacks are notable enough to make its perpetrator notable, and therefore not a BLP violation to include in the article.Shadybabs (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I found the article very hard to follow without the names to differentiate people. Terms like "first male" and "second male" do not help matters. Many of those people received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is definition of notability on Wikipedia:Notability. In many articles they where they are the main subject of the article. I was looking at WP:PERPETRATOR and WP:DELAY for guidance, and think that many more people should be named. --Jarekt (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:PERPETRATOR is about Wikipedia articles about people convicted of crimes. WP:DELAY is about articles about events. Neither has any bearing whatsoever on whether we should mention people who haven't been convicted of crimes in this article. If you think individuals discussed in this article are individually notable you're welcome to create articles about them (and others are welcome to nominate them for deletion or propose redirecting them), but that also wouldn't have any bearing on what we mention in this article. WP:BLPCRIME is the applicable guideline, and it's fairly unambiguous. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ariel Pink dropped by record label

• Yoo, Noah (January 9, 2021). "Ariel Pink Dropped by Record Label Mexican Summer After Attending Pro-Trump White House Rally". Pitchfork. Retrieved January 18, 2021.

Is this worth including in this article? If so, where does it belong? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If it is to be included, it may fit into a modified version of Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Investigations by involved individuals' workplaces. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we'd need an alternative to the "investigations" wording, not just for this but to accurately cover the sentence beginning "The earliest report of participants being fired", which also doesn't refer to an investigation as such. Not sure what the best option would be. It's not hugely pressing though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not needed

This page is hardly needed, it's way to full of WP:RECENTISM. We definitely don't need a full paragraph on every person arrested. When this has died down, this should undergo a extensive re-write and be merged back into the main article. –SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if this were trimmed to the point of merging back into the parent article. You'll probably want to be more specific about what content you'd like to trim, and get some editor feedback here before doing too much unilaterally. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No-Fly List

The second paragraph asserts, without source, that some participants have been placed on the No-Fly List. The one commonly cited example on other websites was debunked by Snopes. Is there any actual cite that this has happened? Funkapus (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

I removed it. Thanks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Relevant Discussion hosted by WikiProject of Current Events

There is a relevant discussion that is related to an event on February 2 that is about this article. You are welcome to join the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Social media crackdown (content moved from 2021 storming of the United States Capitol)

A well-written section was recently added to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol by NSNW, but unfortunately that article is already too long (as discussed e.g. here), so I'd suggest merging it into this article. Here's the content of that section. I guess much of it is already present in this article, but there's probably also some new information and new sources that would be a useful and relevant addition to this article.

In the days following the riots, multiple social media companies and tech giants began suspending or permanently banning several accounts and users that spread or aided the conspiracy theories that led the storming of the Capitol. Facebook, along with Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, permanently suspended President Trump's account's on their platforms. Twitter also suspended Trump allies Michael Flynn, his former national security advisor, along with Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, two attornies who represented Trump in his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Steve Bannon, a political strategist who was a Trump adviser during the early days of the Trump administration, was banned from Twitter when he tweeted that he wanted top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher A. Wray to be beheaded. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's Twitter account was suspended for a month following reports of her calling for the execution of prominent democratic leaders. Mike Lindell, an American inventor and owner of My Pillow, was banned from Twitter after spreading multiple conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Others include conservative protest strategist Ali Alexander, along with Jim Watkins and Ron Watkins, the operators of 8kun (formerly known as 8chan). In total Twitter banned over 70,000 accounts on the basis of spreading misinformation, such as QAnon and other far-right conspiracy theories. Other social media companies, such as Twitch and YouTube, deleted accounts of Trump and his allies, with Twitch banning the PogChamp emote because the subject of the emote spread anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. Google, Apple and Amazon took the social media app Parler off their respective app stores and servers, on the basis that Parler didn't try to fight misinformation on their platform.

— Chrisahn (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Add Congress hearings?

there are going to be multiple Congressional hearings on the attack that should be detailed here. I am aware that there is one right now in the Senate, do we put that in the "investigations by members of Congress' section? Phillip Samuel (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Split 'Criminal charges and prosecutions' sections into separate article Criminal charges brought in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

When seeing this article, it seems like a bulky amount of space in the article's beginning is put to a running timeline of the charges brought against members. I feel like there should be a separate article for criminal charges. One example of this is that the Special Counsel investigation (2017-2019) had its own split article on Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017-2019). Likewise I think splitting the criminal charges into a new article, similarly titled Criminal charges brought in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol would be better organization. Phillip Samuel (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A draft exists at Draft:Criminal charges brought in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Seems reasonable. As long as the names of certain suspects are removed so as to avoid possible WP:BLPCRIME violations. Love of Corey (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

ADL representative's direct editing

@Acroterion:, you added back the contents removed by another editor. I have removed the contents in question, not because the source is unreliable, but because it was added by an employee of Anti-Defamation League to put itself into relevance. Such source advocacy edits that bring the position of the organization they work for into relevance unduly advocates the organization they're promoting. Perhaps you were unaware this was a series of what appears to advocacy edits by the representative of the cited source's publisher. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible alternative sources for the removed content, which would need to be phrased slightly differently: [1] Sources citing ADL on this issue, suggesting its opinions are noteworthy in general, but not actually mentioning this particular report: [2] [3] [4] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Related talkpage discussion (Disputed move of 'Impact and legacy')

This is a notice that I've started a discussion on the move of the 'Impact and legacy' section to this article, from the parent article: Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Disputed move of 'Impact and legacy' — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Disputed addition of 'Casualties'

@Love of Corey: Connected to your rationale here (diff), I'm disputing the addition of the Casualties section (moved from parent article) to this article, because it is outside the subject matter of this article, and therefore is not an improvement to this article at all. In my view, the move from the parent article, leaving a summarized version, is a moderate improvement to that article, but the move to this specific article is a serious detriment to this article, because it's a large addition of nonpertinent content. I understand that you believe that the added content is within the scope of this article, but it isn't quite clear to me why. What's your thinking on that? I have two alternative proposals: (1) that the move be undone entirely, or (2) that this non-summarized version of the 'Casualties' section be merged (perhaps selectively) with the Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack, because most of it is well within the scope of that article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The 2021 United States Capitol attack article is too long. It makes sense to move some of its content elsewhere (see e.g. this discussion). We have several child articles for what happened after the storming (aftermath, law enforcement response, criminal charges, domestic and international reactions), but no child articles for what went on before or during the storming. (We have a timeline article, but that's a different thing.) That seems to be the problem here: the deaths and injuries happened during the storming, not after it, but there's no good place for details about them – the main article is already too detailed, and none of the child articles have the appropriate scope. In the discussion I mentioned, BusterD suggested we should create several new child articles. I was skeptical at first, but now I think this may be a solution for this problem: The main article covers all elements (background, storming, aftermath) without too many detail, and the child articles provide the details. Details about the casualties should be moved to a new child article containing details about the actual storming, i.e. the events of Jan 6 between ca. 1pm and 6pm at and in the Capitol. Question: What's a good title for that article? It can't have the same title as the main article. Maybe we should rename the main article to "Overview of..."? — Chrisahn (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I agree with you conceptually (edit: on the first part, not sure on the "Overview of..." idea yet), but Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack indeed deals with what happened during the storming from the "tactical" perspective... it also deals with prior intelligence and security preps, and the aftermath such as the criticism. But it's actually missing a lot in the "during" department. It has the "Shooting" subsection but it's just an inferior version of the corresponding paragraph from the parent article, and it lacks almost anything on B. Sicknick death, and most glaringly, lacks the 'Injuries' (basically the 'Police injuries') section. This is why I tried to move the content there, but it was reverted. What do you think about this (rev) state of that article? Basically around 75-80% of the 'Casualties' content fits squarely there (Babbitt, Sicknick, Injuries), and the remainder fits in a sense that it's reasonable to cover all the deaths in the same place, for the sake of clarity. On the other hand 0% of said content fits here. — Alalch Emis (talk)

Having it here at aftermath works fine, but maybe isn't ideal since people logically think "aftermath" must refer to effects temporally after an event even though this isn't literally true. As to an additional child article, what about Results of the 2021 United States Capitol attack or Effects of the 2021 United States Capitol attack? VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to also include the deaths of Boyland, Greeson, and Philips in the law enforcement response article, since all of those were from natural causes and not the result of the law enforcement response, nor were any of them part of the first responder brigade. We could definitely include the paragraphs about Babbitt and Sicknick, but where would the other deaths go? Certainly not in the law enforcement response article. Love of Corey (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Love of Corey: How about restoring those three deaths back to original full length in the attack article (the aftermath article is the wrong target), and restoring Casualties (Babbitt, Sicknick, police injuries) in the law enforcement article sans those three deaths? — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Please declare that you've been uninvolved here, i.e. didn't advocate on the core issue, and request a WP:3O on my behalf. I kindly ask you to do it, in order to uphold the procedural requirement that only two editors are involved (it could appear to someone that you're a third involved editor, when you're not really, to my understanding). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. (Although I commented above and thus in a sense there are more than two editors involved, I think this is still in the spirit of WP:3O. Hope it helps!) — Chrisahn (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. 3O didn't happen however because no one responded in 6 days. Based on everything said here, mainly the following, by Love of Corey: We could definitely include the paragraphs about Babbitt and Sicknick, but where would the other deaths go?, I find it the best to (re-) add those paragraphs, and certainly the injuries as well, to the law enforcement article, and restore the detailed version of the deaths of Boyland, Greeson, and Philips in the parent article. (When that is done, maybe the casualties section of the parent article can even get another pass of condensing.) — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Still disagree. I noted that having it at aftermath is fine and noted some other ideas above. VQuakr (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You noted how having this content here is not ideal, while not disputing that having it (75-80% of it) in the law enforcement article is good, which was also practically endorsed by Love of Corey (who said We could definitely include the paragraphs about Babbitt and Sicknick, but where would the other deaths go?). Now, when this content, that is vital to the law enforcement article, has been restored there, that article is much more complete, is much less weird (almost no coverage of death of B. Sicknick in it, and no coverage of police injuries), and is better. On the other hand, this article was never made better through the addition of casualties. No one has even tried to argue yet that it has been made better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Other alternatives exist and were proposed. This is a collaborative project; you don't get to overrule multiple other editors just because you think one option is best. Further discussion, RfC, or drafting of the proposed split all would have been acceptable choices. Bulldozing everyone else is not one of those choices. VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought about an RfC, and think it's a bad idea, because this dispute has failed to garner literally any participation of other editors, despite reasonable attempts (Chrisahn's post in parent article talk, and 3O attempt). The issue is almost of a technical nature... I mean, the actual contents of the disputed content is not the issue, only it's location, so it's hard to imagine for me how drafting would help here. I'm sorry I didn't respond to your new daughter article idea (Effects or Results). I was thinking what to comment on it and wasn't sure, and I'm still unsure. Having casualties, physical damage, costs incurred by the government and the National Guard, all in one place seems relatively appealing. Still - not having police injuries, death of B. Sicknick (a summary, there's a separate article on that) and death of Ashli Babbitt in the law enforcement article seems suboptimal. So I don't think that the newly created Results article would be a sufficiently superior target for a sufficient volume of the most-detailed versions of relevant pieces of content. Edit: it would be the best target, by a sufficiently large margin, only for the non-summarized version of 'Damage and theft' (inlc. 'Technology theft and cybersecurity concerns') from parent article, and for deaths of Boyland, Greeson, and Philips. I can't decide if that would justify creating another article - leaning not. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

3O was never going to get a result; there are 4 editors in this section (3 at the time you made the request). You are welcome to pursue further discussion, but not to just do whatever you think is best regardless of the discussion to date. Your assessment that the section "failed to garner literally any participation" is categorically false. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr:Sorry, but your parsing of events is incorrect. There were two involved editors (me and Love of Corey) at the time of the 3O request. Chrisahn has commented but has not taken a position in the dispute and did not involve himself in true sense of the term (you may disagree, but at least he agrees). It is indicative that the 3O request was not rejected for the reason of "more than 2 involved", but became stale. About your last sentence, you quoted me out of context: I said "...other editors", which clearly means other than those who have been involved in the ongoing discussion (which has since included also yourself). I did not make any misrepresentations in my last reply. The 3O request was absolutely genuine, and I honestly believed it would help. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn:'s reply was substantial and touched on several options. After his post it was unlikely this would be picked up for 3O. That 3O ignored it until it became stale a la pocket veto rather than explicitly saying "more than 2" isn't relevant. What exactly do you think I am parsing incorrectly? The order of events was:

• my suggestions on 7/25
• my reiteration of concerns on 7/27
• you ignored the discussion and made mainspace changes anyways
• you continued to ignore me and say the discussion "failed to garner literally any participation of other editors". VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

ETA - to be clear, I'm not accusing you of bad faith with the 3O request. The idea that Chrisahn's comment didn't break the spirit of 3O is well within the bounds of IAR if nothing else. I think it was something of a long shot and personally would have gone with RFC, but it only becomes problematic when you are also ignoring the actual content of Chrisahn's comment in this discussion. And much more problematic when you also ignore my comments and proceed with an substantial edit without support from anyone on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above conduct-related comment and I don't think it's relevant.

I'm pinging two uninvolved editors who I think are capable mediators @MelanieN and Mikehawk10: can you (either or both) lend any guidance here? I'd like this content dispute to be resolved (because this is an important article, and the tag is ugly), and I'm compelled not to simply drop the issue, when so few editors have weighed in thus far; RfC on the other hand doesn't feel promising. Should this undergo dispute resolution? Also pinging a few editors who have contributed to the 'Casualties' section since it's been added to this article @RexSueciae, Tuckerlieberman, and StarchildSF: please share your thoughts. Please keep in mind that the content at dispute here (not in substance, just organization-wise) is also included in the Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack (however a single paragraph dealing with the deaths Boyland, Greeson, and Philips isn't included there). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. I don't have a strong opinion about where to put the "casualties" content. I believe others are saying here that 2 deaths were law-enforcement-related and 3 weren't. OK, so "Law enforcement response to..." gets details on 2 deaths, "Aftermath of..." gets details on 3 deaths, and the parent "2021...attack" article gets a brief acknowledgement of a total of 5 deaths with excerpts from and/or 'main article' links to the articles with the respective details. Would that be a reasonable solution? The parent "2021...attack" article could have a brief sentence essentially saying some deaths were law-enforcement related and others weren't which would provide framing for the reader to understand why they are being directed to two different articles for more information. Just a suggestion, just because I was pinged. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also responding to the ping. I don't have a strong preference about where the information is kept, either, as long as it's available somewhere -- I may be biased, since I researched significant portions of it, but I believe that the information on, for example, officers out for months on medical leave is important. Is it important enough to be included in the main article? I admit that I was a little bit surprised when I noticed that some of the detailed casualties information had migrated from the main article to the Aftermath article. To me, "Aftermath" would cover things like officer suicides but would not cover things like police officers remaining out of work on medical leave for months, because "Aftermath" seems to imply something like a further development of the original event, not effects inextricably bound up in the original event itsself. A suicide as a result of trauma sustained during the attack fits this bill. So I'd organize it something like this: in the main article, describe the deaths / injuries in detail (including injuries with lingering effects), and concisely mention mental health effects and suicides; go in-depth with mental health effects and suicides in the aftermath section; and concisely mention mental health effects and suicides in the "law enforcement response" article (with links in the main article and response article to the aftermath article, See more, whatever). I hope what I've said makes sense. But again, I wouldn't object to another approach, so long as it's easy and natural to access all the information in question. RexSueciae (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Justice for J6 rally

I see there's some content here related to the Justice for J6 rally. Especially since this article is quite long, might be worth moving some content over. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: the time Babbitt was shot. How could someone have written an article on this subject and left out such an important detail? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers into #Lawsuits

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

---

The lawsuit seems to have only received routine coverage in reliable sources and is unlikely to generate any lasting effects. As such, it's best covered (and, indeed, is already covered in appropriate depth) in the relevant section of the Aftermath article. (Pinging RfD participants User:DemonDays64, User:J947, User:Thryduulf, User:SMcCandlish, User:Snood1205 and closer User:Tavix, as well as creator User:Diver65 and User:Love of Corey, who redirected it in March.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical this proposal is a good idea. The case is still in-progress and will be for several years, so "unlikely to generate any lasting effects" is not a prediction WP is in a position to make. The case has sufficient coverage to pass WP:N. If you think otherwise, you know where WP:AFD is. If it does get merged, be sure to move various legal and other categories from the article to the redirect. PS: I now recall that this RfD discussion already considered and rejected this redirect/merge idea. I was okay with the idea at the time, but it did not prevail and nothing has changed in the interim other than we can probably find more sources now than we could then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I do indeed know where AfD is, but I also know that merging's a good WP:ATD, in this case especially so because, as you say, there's a possibility of additional coverage that would indicate notability in future. (The RfD was also linked above, though the small text may have made that easy to miss.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• I support the merge because the article is short and unlikely to be expanded in the foreseeable future, and if expansion will have become possible, it will be easy to split the article out, if it will seem like a good idea then. Now it doesn't seem normal to have this very short article, despite notability (see WP:N -- This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.; WP:MERGEREASON -- Short text). — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• I support the merge as well. I think that this is probably the best compromise and most likely to gain consensus. I do share the concern of SMcCandlish; however, I think that if this does get more coverage (which I do think is a very distinct possibility), we can always WP:SPLIT it out. snood1205 14:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wouldn't a better target be the more specific page, Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election. It's hard to see where the case was listed, but perhaps Mississippi. Klbrain (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's no reason it can't be mentioned in both articles, but I think this article is a preferable target for the redirect as the lawsuit relates specifically to the riot/attack/insurrection/whatever you want to call it, whereas the Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election article is, according to its first sentence, mostly concerned with lawsuits around "election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2022 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

wondering if AP News should still be considered a reliable source for coverage of this event

I notice the phrase "an officer was also killed." is still present at https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-police-elections-7051411972c58cfbbf079876ce527ab4 even though no officers died that day. It elaborates:

Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation publicly. He died at a hospital.

The death of Brian Sicknick article now presently reports on how media incorrectly reported this for weeks.

In light of this failure to report the truth, where do we begin approaching whether or not to label AP News as an unreliable source for reporting this event? HearthHOTS (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend writing to the AP and asking that they change that article. The AP has since made clear that Sicknick was not killed at the event, right? If so, how can we call it unreliable? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying the views of the Encyclopedia Britannica regarding January 6th and adding Christopher Wray's testimony

Changes for: January 6 United States Capitol attack#Analysis and terminology

We know much more now than we did in the period immediately after the attack.

I am correcting the description of how the Encyclopedia Britannica describes the events to accord with their current text. The previous text in Wikipedia read, "According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, 'the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d'état.'" The Wikipedia text did not address that the events were also considered domestic terrorism by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. The current Encyclopædia Britannica article on the United States Capitol attack of 2021, opens with this text:

United States Capitol attack of 2021, storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, by a mob of supporters of Republican Pres. Donald J. Trump. The attack disrupted a joint session of Congress convened to certify the results of the presidential election of 2020, which Trump had lost to his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law-enforcement agencies also considered it an act of domestic terrorism.

I also noted that the encyclopedia also classifies the attack under its domestic terrorism topic. Finally, I added Christopher Wray's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

someone needs to monitor closely changes to this document.

this document has a high probability of being doctered via wikipedia posters/secret vips that have clearence that's wiki secret based on a past election that was secret. Someone out there watch over this possible threat, thank you! 172.56.105.131 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Giuliani expulsion from NYSBA inquiry

Why was this removed? It seems like a notable event. I think this was removed before the article was split, but I just noticed it. --Numberguy6 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering this too. It was in the last version before the split. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it is a notable event, and the final results of Giuliani's disbarment trial should be included, once it fully runs its course.

It appears just his license is suspended now (temporary disbarment) and the the trial isn't quite over yet, but when it is, then the results should be added.

Perhaps link to Suspension of law license part of the article on Rudy Giuliani.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Harry Dunn, capitol police officer

The hot link for officer Harry Dunn points to a Wikipedia article for a British football player. I think there is no Wikipedia page for this policeman. I'll leave fixing it to someone who knows how to make it an empty link. Scryer~enwiki (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)