Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22

Incorrect Number of Deaths on J6

Can someone explain why Brian Sicknick is listed as having died on J6? The "Death of Brian Sicknick" Wikipedia article is clear that he died from natural causes (i.e., two strokes) that occurred the day AFTER the attack. Is there any reason why the number of people who died on J6 should be incorrect in the "January 6 United States Capitol Attack" Wikipedia article? Seems a bit ridiculous. 73.230.160.102 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that he died on January 6. As I'm sure you know, the medical examiner ruled that "all that transpired played a role in his condition." – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Not so; it says that he died on January 6 because it says "during the attack." The attack occurred and ended on January 6. Let's get this right; seems a reasonable idea, no? 8.20.65.4 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about this as well; are you referring to the language in the infobox? Dumuzid (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes; it reads, "Death(s) 5 deaths during the attack (1 from gunshot, 1 from drug overdose, 3 from natural causes)." This is simply incorrect. Brian Sicknick's death should be referenced (if referenced at all) the same way the suicides are referenced. Otherwise, it's just wrong. In other words, the correct number of deaths on J6, i.e., during the attacks, is four.
I think this article should have the correct number of during-the-attacks deaths, no? 8.20.65.4 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree that it could be stated more clearly. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This video does a much better job of concretizing the facts than I could possibly do: https://rumble.com/v247niq-the-enduring-media-lies-surrounding-january-6th-2-years-later-system-update.html 8.20.65.4 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
...and you lost me. All the best nonetheless. Dumuzid (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed the infobox from 5 deaths during the attack to 5 deaths from the attack. I will not be clicking on any Rumble links. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
But that just isn't true. Is there a goal beyond expressing facts and doing so clearly? The statement in the infobox should read "4 deaths from the attack." Why would you not want it to be clear and correct? 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
What isn't true about that? As the medical examiner said, the attack played a role in his strokes and death. How is not including Sicknick accurate? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Muboshgu; I gave you the video made by Glenn Greenwald. It explains it better than I can. But you state that you won't watch it. Can you please explain to me how you'd like the information disseminated to you? I'm happy to do it; I just want to make sure that you'll look at what I provide you . Please help me out; I just want it to be correct and clear. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald is a crank opinion columnist whose opinion has no bearing here, so I'm definitely not watching it. Stick with reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I will provide you with the information directly. If you don't look at the information, however, perhaps another editor should decide what the infobox says. (This is just about facts; I don't want to get into POV or opinion stuff. And I don't want to get into source-slurring.)
The only goal here is to present clear and correct facts. I assume that is your sole goal. And if it is not, please just be candid about it. 73.230.160.102 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Source 1:
"The [United States Capitol Police] accepts the findings from the District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner that Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes."
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/medical-examiner-finds-uscp-officer-brian-sicknick-died-natural-causes 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Source 2:
"Sicknick, who passed within a few hours after the Capitol incident, had two strokes at the base of his brain stem brought on by a blood clot, according to an autopsy. The top medical examiner in Washington has found that U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick passed away naturally on January 7, one day after the incident, following two strokes.
Sicknick, 42, claimed that a blood clot was to blame for the strokes at the base of the brain stem, according to the autopsy, according to Chief Medical Examiner Francisco Diaz. The official conclusion said that the death was “natural” and was brought on by “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts related to acute basilar artery thrombosis.”
The autopsy, according to Diaz, showed no proof that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemical irritants, as reported by The Washington Post. He also said there was no proof of any internal or exterior injuries. His condition was affected by everything that happened, Diaz told the publication."
leedaily.com/2023/01/07/brian-sicknick-autopsy-report/ 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a proposed re-wording or edit? Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
"Deaths
4 protesters (1 from gunshot, 1 from drug overdose, and 2 from natural causes)" 8.20.65.4 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I would personally oppose this, based mostly on the medical examiner's maddeningly vague assertion that The medical examiner noted Sicknick was among the officers who engaged the mob and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition” (as quoted by The Washington Post). Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I suppose; but, we should go with facts in this case. There's a clear cause and a clear method of death in the official autopsy report. The "all that transpired played a role in his condition" is not part of that report. It was a statement to the press. We can rely on the facts, no? 8.20.65.4 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The fact that "natural causes" was ruled does not foreclose involvement of the events of January 6, say from increased stress. It simply means that the examiner found no acute injury contributing to Officer Sicknick's demise. For the time being, I am comfortable with the wording as is. Perhaps others feel differently. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The statement to the press was a fact as well. We will of course be interest to see the results of the wrongful death suit filed against Trump in Sicknick's death. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Dumuzid; there is no proof of involvement -- just non-foreclosure of an unproven link between J6 and Brian's death. Therefore, including the death as being from the attack would be conjecture -- not fact. There'd have to be evidence that J6 was involved. There is none; therefore, the autopsy findings must control.
I think part of the issue here is that the original reports always tied Brian's death to the attacks -- first, by misreporting of blunt-force trauma by fire extinguisher and then, second, by misreporting of a chemical attack. These original reports (both erroneous) shouldn't upstage the official autopsy report. Let's just go with the facts presented by the coroner in the report. If we don't, we're stating something as fact that we don't know to be fact. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Can you show that the other natural causes deaths would not have occurred but for the events of January 6? Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
We must start out by asking ourselves, "Is it a fact that Brian died due to events on January 6?" The autopsy clearly tells us no. And the autopsy is the official, scientific, and controlling document here.
The autopsy states that Brian's death was natural (i.e., it can be ascribed to disease alone, in this case, acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis). The autopsy also tells us that Brian's death was not hastened by an injury. This is because if it were hastened by an injury, the medical examiner could not have labeled it a natural manner of death per their own policy. (Please see Sources 3 and 4 below.)
We can't just ascribe a death to something if we can't prove it -- especially when the scientific, official evidence tells us that it is not so. Otherwise, what exactly are we doing? 8.20.65.4 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Would you agree with me that there were other deaths attributed to natural causes and associated with January 6? Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
You make a really good point.
I only know of the two protesters who died during the protest from natural causes. So it seems reasonable to reference them; that is, they'd count as during-the-protest deaths -- just like the two unnatural protester deaths (one from drug overdose and one from an officer-involved shooting). The analysis there is when the deaths happened, i.e., during the protest, and not how they happened.
With an after-the-fact death; there would need to be a factual, clear, and direct relationship to the protest. And that's the problem; no such relationship exists. In fact, the autopsy states that there was no relationship. That's why I'm thinking it'd be fair to have the infobox read "Deaths: 4 protesters (1 from officer-involved shooting, 1 from drug overdose, and 2 from indirect health reasons occurring whilst protesting)."
The only important thing here is to express facts. Let's work together to get it right.
What do you think? 8.20.65.4 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Would you be ok with the language below?
"Deaths: 4 protesters (1 from officer-involved shooting, 1 from drug overdose, and 2 from indirect health reasons occurring whilst protesting)." 8.20.65.4 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources seem to me to draw a connection, which strikes me as good enough to use the wording we have now. That said, reasonable minds can differ, and if you can convince a consensus that I am wrong, I will not complain! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Source 3:
"[Dr. Diaz] said that [District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner] attributes death to natural causes when it can be ascribed to disease alone and that “if death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.”
nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/politics/brian-sicknick-death.html 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Source 4:
FOIA-obtained email from Deputy Medical Examiner (of DC), Sasha Breland, M.D, sent at 3:30:51 PM on Monday, April 19, 2021:
"Good afternoon Det. [Joshua] Branson [MPD],
The cause and death for Mr. Sicknick (OCME case 21-00132) were certified as the following this afternoon:
--[Cause of Death]: Acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis
--[Manner of Death]: Natural
This information was conveyed to the decedent's month and girlfriend earlier this afternoon.
~ Dr. Breland" 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Sources 3 and 4 below (both reliable) expressly explain the lack of any connection. I don't know what else to say. Can you please look at Sources 3 and 4 below just one more time, please? The term the medical examiner used is a term of art, i.e, "natural." And that term of art means "not hastened by an injury."
(BTW, what is the connection you're relying on? Does it supersede the autopsy? If so, why?) 8.20.65.4 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Source 4 is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which is not ideal for reasons explained at the link. Source 3, I cannot read as I'm out of free NY Times views, but that bit you quoted doesn't say that his death is unrelated to the January 6 attack. They do not expressly explain the lack of any connection to January 6 as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree - all the deaths are clearly connected to Jan 6 and are described as such in RS. Andre🚐 17:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Andre, but that's not so. We have the autopsy report. (What would you say if the autopsy report stated that J6 was related? Would you dismiss it like you're dismissing the actual autopsy report? Be honest about it; that's fair to ask, no?) 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Muboshgu, you're working backwards. We'd only include it as a death if it were proven to be related. You're attempting to say that we must include it because it doesn't say that it is unrelated. Logic doesn't work that way. You're confused because you feel like correcting this would be removing something. But it isn't. Correcting it is just a de novo review of facts. The status quote ante of the inbox has no inherent dignity or veracity. All that matters is getting it right.
The express lack of connection (again -- not the correct evidentiary criterion) is the term "natural" in the FOIA-obtained email used by the DC OME. The term "natural" -- as used by the DC OME -- means "a death not hastened by an injury."
What's going on here? We don't capriciously assign deaths to causes or people.
I assume you want the inbox to tell the truth. The FOIA-obtained email is a primary source. And a primary source can be a reliable source. The analyst begins after identifying the type of source. Here, the email is clear. And it is written by an official directly tied to the government agency that (1) performed the autopsy and (2) published the official autopsy report.
Please, Muboshgu, honestly and candidly tell what you would think if the FOIA-obtained email said the death was related. Be honest with yourself. The readers of this article deserve that. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
You're doing too much. Look at reliable secondary sources.[1] "A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people had lost their lives in connection with the Jan. 6 attack." Andre🚐 19:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
We are not here to decide what the truth is, we reflect, given due weight, what is in reliable sources. Even if we flagrantly disagree with what reliable sources put forth, in this case reporting that the medical examiner indicated the death was exacerbated by the day's events, it's irrelevant. WE are not a reliable source; WE don't get to insert your own original research, opinion, or feelings about what's in the sources. We can make as many semantic arguments as we want, but that's just POV pushing. The box should stay at 5 from the event, because that's what reliable the sources say. This is not a forum for discussing our thoughts and opinions. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Before you appeal to what the readers of the article deserve, consider that the readers of the article can see the 3 deaths-by-natural-causes listed under the casualties of a single day event and will probably be able to deduce that the timings of these may vary and were not likely to be complete coincidence. I agree that listing the after-the-fact death the way it is now doesn't have all the information at surface level, but infoboxes aren't meant to be entire articles. Wikipedia readers are not sheep, they can think for themselves and if the exact count of deaths is that important to them, they are capable of doing their own research to find the minute details, and they probably will. If the events of January 6th resulted in X deaths, we can safely say there were X casualties. The timing isn't really that important. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. IP 12.11.127.253 is It is verifiable that reliable sources connect Sicknick's death to January 6. The "truth" about whether or not he would have died on January 7 had he called in sick the prior day is irrelevant. Sticking with the letter of the FOIA-obtained email and not going beyond that is an error. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. I can understand where OP is coming from but this incident is a strange confluence of primary sources vs. secondary sources vs. vague interpretations of such. If they truly believe they could have consensus backing them, I would suggest that the user proposing these changes read up on the process of, and open, a request for comment. Particularly since either version of the page would not be anathema to WP policy or guidelines (unless I've missed something), this is ultimately a matter of interpretation and, therefore, consensus. I personally believe that such an RFC would have merit but I don't myself see the grand importance of this little number enough to initiate one. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

Protest at the capital It was not an attack 24.61.110.184 (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see overview of previous move discussions at the top of this page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The protest was at The Ellipse. The attack was at the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

United States Government: United States Capital Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police, United States Secret Service, D.C. National Guard.

Rebels: Trump Supporters, Anarchists, Miscellaneous Civilians. 97.126.115.19 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Anarchists? Do you have a source for that? Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Because for what it's worth, the National Anarchist Movement group that was present on that day is a white supremacist nationalist organization, definitely not adherents of anarchism. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW oppose. — Czello 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

January 6 United States Capitol attack → 2021 United States coup d'état attempt – I think we should label this event for what it was: an attempted coup. The sitting president was trying to overthrow the constitutional provision and prevent his term from terminating when constitutionally mandated. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC) GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2023 (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.

Failed attempt to assassinate

User:Slatersteven, what does "hang Mike Pence" mean? They didn't breach just to change the results, they would have attacked and killed the active members in both houses in order to do so. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It might mean "Look at us, we are shouty". Nor do I agree that did not break just to change the results, in fact, I am unsure they really knew what they wanted beyond being gobby. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
But the threats were serious enough that did in fact break in and they probably would have done so to kill. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you both have a point. I do think the mob was out of control and would have done harm to Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and various other members if they had gotten their hands on them. However, I do not think an angry mob tearing someone apart from their anger is quite the same thing as an assassination, and I would not characterize January 6 as a failed assassination attempt. Are there sources that characterize it as such? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm with ONUnicorn here. While it's fine in a colloquial sense to call it an "assassination attempt," I don't think it's in WP:BLUESKY territory, and so would like to see it represented in the sources. As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This PBS article days after the attack reported that Federal investigators were not calling it assassination attempt. But this Guardian article from June of 2022 states that Mike Pence's life was in danger as he was 40ft from the mob as reveled by the Committee investigation into the attack. If danger means threat then the whole "hang Mike Pence" chant was more than just talk. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you have an RS that says it was a failed assassination? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Again WikiCleanerMan, I think you're very much correct in a general sense, but for me, I don't think the dots are quite connected in a Wikipedia sourcing way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Newsweek "Impeachment Manager Says Trump Tried to 'Assassinate' Pence". That is the first half of the headline. NY Mag EARLY AND OFTEN JUNE 10, 2022 Trump Wanted Mike Pence Hanged, Liz Cheney Says. The Jan 6 Committee is reliable enough since they specified that the mob intended to kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. Since they didn't, that means they failed to do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
NBC Jan. 6 rioter who talked of shooting Nancy Pelosi is sentenced to 60 days. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
60 days, for attmepted murder? Seriously? None of those sources say it was an assassination, they all say "X said it was", and no the jan 6th committee did not say it was, one member did. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
So until you find an RS that says this was an assassination, attempt I will stop replying here as my objection stands, and will do so until I say it does not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Prosecutors called her comments about killing Pelosi “among the most graphic statements uttered by any rioter on Capitol grounds that day,” but acknowledged there was no evidence she intended to carry it out. I'm pretty sure attempted assassination of the Speaker of the House would merit more than a 60 day sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Bancroft pleaded guilty in September to a misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. That is not attempted murder. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It is worth noting that, effectively, the news media only ever used one picture of the gallows, that being the forced-perspective one that wikipedia uses as the topic image for this page. If you search for any other picture of the gallows, you'll see that it is about 9 feet tall total and has a sign on it that says "This is art". I make no claims as to whether it should be regarded as art, rather the observation I am making is that it was not large enough to hang a toddler on, let alone Mike Pence. Furthermore there did not appear to be a trap door, and the noose was improperly tied. It would have been impossible to kill anyone with the miniature gallows except by beating them to death with the wooden timbers. Hunter12396 (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Lots of people kill themselves by hanging from a height of less than 9 feet with a rope that is not tied in a proper noose.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Completely biased and false

Useless soapboxing, as usual. — Czello 19:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

This page is biased from start to finish. Full footage from Jan 6th 2021 has come out, and it puts the lie to the claim that there was an "attack" on the U.S. Capitol. Pages like this one, full of lies and hateful bias, are the reason I will NEVER contribute to Wikipedia. 76.147.231.116 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

And I will NEVER go back to Mardi Gras in New Orleans, but that's just for fear that someone will remember my last attendance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
It's a big joke to you Dumuzid. Your Wiki Power must be intoxicating. Tom Donnelly (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I’d delete this discussion as “don’t feed the extremely obvious troll” but this discussion is hilarious Dronebogus (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have no "Wiki Power," but if I did, I doubt it would be anywhere near as intoxicating as that last Mardi Gras. Word to the wise: even one drink called a "hand grenade" is probably too many. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Should add something like a part about conspiracy theories or false narratives promoted by people like Tucker Carlson in Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. HurricaneKappa (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Tell that to the cops. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Will someone just archive this already? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:32, 7 March 2023 (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.

January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol violence controversy

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: The rename discussion has not yet been archived.

This article should be renamed to: "January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol violence controversy" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it should not. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Why not? Please discuss, not just dismiss. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
See the numerous previous move discussions this article has undergone. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I discussed it above, and then you tried to make a new section down here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This section is added for clarity. There are a lot of people commenting on this talk page who obviously would like to discuss this Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of "attack" in title

Release of 40,000 hours of capital security footage early in 2023 establish that this event was an "occupation" or a "trespass" or an "illegal protest", but certainly not an "attack". WmDKing (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the cops who were beaten would disagree. Also please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Tucker Carlson is not a reliable source. Once it is published and reviewed by reliable sources, it may be worth reconsidering, but common consensus is that it was an attack.
Couruu (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Those 40,000 house of capital security footage mean nothing until reliable sources evaluate it and come to a conclusion. --Jayron32 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The title with attack is the current consensus after 18 move requests. If one wishes to change it one can request a move.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This is completely full of false narratives that is biased towards one side. 74.36.63.55 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
yes, biased towards what RS say, and the reality of people smashing down doors. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32 "facts don't exist unless the new york times say they do"
-wikipedia policy 87.1.18.129 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
No, not just the NYT. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
You can't show hours of security footage of an indicted bank robber doing regular withdrawals from his bank prior to the robbery, and say "See, he's just making regular withdrawals. No threats whatsoever. This was just a withdrawal controversy."
Why not go all the way and call it the "January 6 self-guided tourist visit"? HandsomeFella (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations,

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3800:583B:5523:977C:B620:CBE0 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering.

But later they found sufficient evidence to prosecute Oath Keepers and Proud Boys for seditious conspiracy, and secure convictions for the former, while the PB trial is ongoing. soibangla (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
And? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Whether or not the attack was premeditated, it was an attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
In the context of the competing political narratives being bantered about in the news media and on social media, calling those events an "attack" surely is too POV.
It would be better to call the article "January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol violence controversy"
- There was some violence
- It is a controversy largely because there was some violence
- It did occur on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol
Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No. We do not create WP:FALSEBALANCE in articles and will not be watering down "attack" into "controversy". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Hasn't the national discussion about these events expanded well beyond the mere events of the day, into a far broader discussion? I think "controversy" is well suited to illustrate what's being discussed now, including allegations of withheld evidence, the released videos, FBI embeds, Pelosi's failure to act, selective prosecutions, etc, etc. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
(1) There may have been FBI agents embedded with those right wing terrorists, but there is no evidence that they instigated anything, and (2) Pelosi did not "fail to act", as activating the National Guard is on POTUS, not the Speaker of the House. My only understanding of the "national discussion expanding" from January 6 is whether or not to charge Trump with crimes relating to inciting the attack. Whatever is being discussed in the echo chambers of Truth Social, 8kun, Telegram, etc. are not significant viewpoints. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I did not say "National Guard" you did. This person https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/officers-and-organizations/sergeant-at-arms is under he direct authority of the Speaker of the House. There was more than enough warning from the FBI for Pelosi to have instructed the House Sergeant at Arms to have beefed up security. And who exactly was it that authorized the shooting of Ashli Babbitt? It's points of discussion like these, which rightly require the term "controversy" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If Ashlii Babbitt had complied, she'd still be alive. That's all the engaging in this conversation I'm going to do. Stay off the Q forums. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Your understanding of the relationship between the Speaker and the House Sergeant at Arms and their respective responsibilities is incorrect. Why do you assume the man who shot Babbitt required prior authorization beyond his normal sworn duties? Do you think he had to call Pelosi for permission first? I am aware that many are trying really really hard to pin the blame on her and whitewash history, and I suppose this will continue long after all of us are dead, but for the time being Wikipedia will not be an arm of Tucker Carlson, talk radio and trash blogs. soibangla (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, Pelosi is not responsible for security at the Capitol, so why bring her name up at all? The Capitol Police Board is responsible. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

proposals to rename article

I'm attempting, in good faith, to gather proposals to rename the article, so please stop closing/archiving my comments (see wp:own). My current proposal is that this article should be renamed to: "January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol violence controversy". Does anyone else have any other proposals today? Please give this section some time to breathe, so we might more fully develop ideas and discuss some suggestions.Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Its being discussed here [[2]] having multple threads on (in essence) the same subject just con fuses matters. Wait till that one has run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The "remove the 'attack' from title" discussion was started 17 days ago, which already had enough time to breathe, and the consensus is a firm "no" because the rationales are primarily based on unreliable sources and false understanding of facts. Therefore I sincerely ask you to drop the stick and move on. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If you're going to re-propose this you'll need a justification that hasn't been rejected in every other discussion on the matter. Presently you're looking at another WP:SNOW close. — Czello 13:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not wedded to the goal of removing "attack" as an end result. My proposal is more focused on adding "controversy" than it is on removing "attack". Were it up to me, I would change "attack" to "violence"; but with either variant, I would like to see "controversy" added at the end, such as "January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol violence controversy" or "January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack controversy". Changing "January 6" to "January 6, 2021" is important, because the slang shorthand of "January 6" is tantamount to a partisan branding slogan wielded by those who think this particular attack is so singularly important, that everyone should always be acutely aware of a shorthand name for it. The shorthand name should be explained in the article, not be the official title of the article. It's not encyclopedic for us to take sides in a partisan propaganda branding battle. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
OK I will treat this as a new proposal,
We're not ready to vote yet, as evidenced by the fact it's not yet clear what's being proposed regarding "controversy" or why. Let's discuss "controversy" for a reasonable amount, before you try to vote my discussion out of existence. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
You haven't explained what you mean by 'controversy.' Bkatcher (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I have chosen to vote based on your proposal, we do not need a name change nor do I think we need more discussion on this. So unless you can prevent some genuine evidence there is some kind of controversy about what happened, the current title seems accurate. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Some relevant data points are that Ashli Babbitt's mother was at Capitol Hill yesterday (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/kevin-mccarthy-met-ashli-babbitts-mom-ahead-gop-visit-jan-6-prisoners-rcna76419) meeting with the Speaker of the House; and apparently (same link), there is an investigation going on as to the pretrial detention conditions of the still detained, but not yet tried, arrestees arising from the events of that day. Also, there still is a dispute brewing regarding Ray Epps's role in the events and why he's not been prosecuted (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ray-epps-lawyer-demands-retraction-and-apology-from-tucker-carlson-a-day-after-fox-news-host-renewed-attack-on-his-client/) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylYF6-sZkgM). From my perspective, it appears that there is indeed some ongoing controversy as it relates to getting to a full factual accounting of the events of that day. And if you give me a few days to search, I'm sure I can add more links, etc. to this discussion. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but it seems to be none of this disputes there was an assault, that people were injured, and jailed, This is not enough to rename the whole article. At best it might be enough to include some of these "controversies", or maybe have a whole new article on Controversies surrounding the Jan 6th capital riot or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for making a positive suggestion. Please let me look into this for a bit, so I can carefully think about your point and do some searching for relevant news. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
While I am searching and thinking, perhaps we could consider this as a name:
"January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol protestors attack and controversies"
or
"January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol protestors attack and arrests"
Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
As already have Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

January 6 newly released video.

A cut-and-run comment by an IP editor has led to eighteen days of tit-for-tat arguing of the topic, with little to no actual aims at article editing. Zaathras (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

This post needs to be fact checked according to newly released January 6 video on Tucker Carlson Tonight aired March 6, 2023.the There is a lot of disinformation in your article that needs to be corrected/updated as soon as possible. 69.14.41.220 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

When reliable sources report on the video, it will be reflected in the article. Tucker Carlson himself is not a reliable source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
In other words, if the Washington Post reports on the exact same video, then the video can be referenced on Wikipedia. But because Tucker Carlson is the one reporting on the video, it can't be used. Noctis83 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is an accurate description per Wikipedia policies. Feel free to have a look at the sourcing policy and/or the list of perennially discussed sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The video is the source. Please keep this in mind. Brentleyland (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The video is a primary source, which is subject to manipulation, as we saw on Tucker's show. This is why we need reliable secondary coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
But the video released by Tucker did show that the video released by the J6 committee turned out to be manipulated as well. Matt Smith (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Insofar as the committee didn't show footage where nothing was happening? I suppose that's a form of manipulation, but reliable sources have weighed in on the committee footage in ways they have not regarding Mr. Carlson's. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I mean the J6 committee only released video which can depict Trump supporters as dangerous rioters and invaders, and they did not release video which show that Trump supporters who entered the Capitol were largely peaceful and some of them were even guided/leaded by the Capitol police to a certain places.
As for the "reliable sources" you mentioned, do they have apparent political bias towards Trump and his allies? Matt Smith (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
He's more reliable than you, the lying democrats and wikipedia 63.79.131.80 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The Epoch Times, a highly credible source, has seriously questioned the mainstream media's (MSM) and Big Tech's false, Left-biased [just like Wikipedia has degenerated into; it's no longer neutral at ALL as one can clearly see since Wikipedia constantly takes the Leftist line on anything related to the proven (e.g., watch the honest, accurate, evidence-based, fair, and balanced documentary, "2000 Mules") criminally-stolen 11/3/2020 election] narrative on J6 as an "insurrection." Clearly, as we can ALL see for ourselves, it was NOT an insurrection. It was, at most, a riot of a tiny, tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of MAGA Americans there peacefully protesting (which IS THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT) the criminally-stolen 11/3/2020 election, and this riot was largely fomented by criminal Antifa members (as we KNOW from their prior social media posts) and law-breaking federal agent, Ray Epps. Meanwhile, hundreds of innocent Americans have been and are illegally held in horrible prisons in the D.C. area, in complete and despicable violation of their Amendment V, VI, VIII, and IX rights by the law-breaking (i.e., she made numerous false statements to law enforcement and the American people on purpose to very wrongfully and illegally deny the Constitutional and civil rights of these falsely-imprisoned people), should-be-prosecuted, Nancy Pelosi, and all those who illegally aided and abetted her in her crimes. The J6 "prisoners" deserve a fair, speedy, and public trial, as they ALL have a LEGAL right to under Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution, but they are being illegally denied this. Those stealing their Constitutional and civil rights need to be arrested, prosecuted, tried, and held fully accountable for their deliberate, serious, and repeated violations of the law, including the U.S. Constitution. Also, Ray Epps admitted to and bragged about fomenting many aspects of the J6 riot, and there is video, audio, text, and other documentary EVIDENCE AND PROOF of this. Despite Mr. Epps' later false claims to the sham, Left-biased, Democrat-stacked, lying-MSM-and-Big-Tech-pandering-to, partisan, completely-non-credible, lying "UNselect J6 subcommittee" [OF and FOR LIARS] that he was kidding, his actual ACTIONS (which speak louder than his false, later, self-serving words/lies) PROVE he was very much responsible for inciting many aspects of the riot, and he needs to also be prosecuted, brought to justice, and held fully accountable for his many crimes, lies, and false official statements. Lover of Truth and Honesty (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The Epoch Times is not a credible source. Per WP:EPOCHTIMES: The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact. Everything else you've written is nonsense. Ray Epps was never a federal agent. He's one of yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Millions of people witnessed what happened at the Capitol between approx. 1:00 PM and 6:00 PM on 1/6/21. And that's just what we saw on television, let alone the footage close to the building, and inside. That footage shows a full assault on and inside the Capitol, with over 100 Capitol Police injured in the process. If you had 40,000 hours of Capitol Police drinking tea, eating croissants, and playing bocce with the protesters, it still wouldn't negate the footage of the violent assault, for which a very precise, documented timeline exists. Tomada36 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This topic is one of Carlson's favorite misinformation/conspiracy theory topics. If it's from him, you can't trust it. He's doing this to please Trump's deluded followers. "Video that Carlson didn’t air shows police and rioters engaged in hours of violent combat that resulted in the injury of hundreds of police officers." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No article will contain any purported findings from selectively edited videos presented by Tucker Carlson unless they are fully corroborated by reliable sources. Should we presume you have not heard of the recent Dominion court filing? Fox News hasn't reported on it, after all, but the rest of the world has. soibangla (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This narrative is now blowing up in everyone's faces and rightly so. The selectively edited videos were those presented at the predetermined conclusion ("Trump should be barred from running for President again b/c Russia Collusion fell flat etc. and we couldn't remove him") committee. Carlson is presenting footage withheld from the public. This was an affront to the common sense of the public. Thought Trump asked for the National Guard to be present and Nancy refused. Gee I wonder why?--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
There were over 40,000 hours of video. Over the last two nights, Carlson has presented about five minutes of it. With 40,000 hours, it's not particularly difficult to cherrypick five minutes to manufacture a false narrative, including segments of lone rioters briefly looking at stuff in empty hallways to depict them as peaceful sightseers, and police supposedly "escorting" Jake Angeli when they're actually using the de-escalation methods they've been trained in to avoid exacerbating a riot in which they are outnumbered. They knew he was on camera, they knew he would be quickly identified and apprehended, so just let him do whatever he wants instead of risking, say, getting smashed in the head with a fire extinguisher. Most of this footage surely entails security video from likely hundreds of cameras spread across the vast Capitol complex and has no investigative value, so publicly releasing it is of no value to the public (except perhaps to those who want to surveil the entire Capitol for a future incursion). There's still lots of video publicly available that clearly shows what happened. But if people want to watch hour after hour of empty spaces, have at it. You are repeating a zombie myth that Trump called in the Guard but Pelosi blocked it. The truth is that days earlier Trump talked to aides about deploying the Guard, but did not do it, and his interest was not to protect the Capitol, but to protect his supporters from any counterattack by the ubiquitous antifa, and while he sat in the White House watching the event unfold on TV, Pelosi and Hoyer were calling the Pentagon and the governors of Virginia and Maryland asking them to deploy the Guard. It was captured on video, it's not hard to find with a minute of googling. If This narrative is now blowing up in everyone's faces and rightly so, it's Tucker's face people should be looking at. His little stunt was farcically amateurish. soibangla (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Fox and Carlson have admitted to lying, why should we believe them when they have edited down 40,000 to 5? I could take one of the above comments and edit it down to say " This post needs to be fact checked according to newly released January 6 video on Tucker Carlson Tonight aired March 6, 2023. There is a lot of information in your article". See how east it is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
And we should believe the originally scaled down 40,000 hours to the ludicrously miniscule X% released to the media initially? (This of course negating the original material released?) That initially released material was, I am sure, not cherry picked to skew a narrative? And after four years of incessant - ultimately disproven - theories imposed to the public with the intent of "impeach/remove/smear/discredit the b-word" Trump? Some people can see their hands in front of their faces. Why does The Boy Who Cried Wolf come to mind when expecting to believe a discredited side? Anyhow, I am staying away from politics.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
What ultimately disproven theories? It was an attack. Members of the Oath Keepers were found guilty of seditious conspiracy.[3] The Proud Boys trial is ongoing. We can't help it if you don't accept the reality in front of your face, to borrow your expression. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
We can start with the fact that the FBI was caught doctoring evidence provided in discovery to conceal the fact that FBI agents were in the crowd. -- Frotz(talk) 19:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Doctoring evidence?[citation needed] That the FBI had agents embedded with right wing terrorists just means they were doing their job. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Here you go: https://bfy.tw/TxJq. -- Frotz(talk) 19:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
When exactly have Fox and Carlson "admitted to lying"? The J6 committee edited down 40,000 hours to X, too. By the same logic, are we going to say the J6 committee lied and is not to be believed? Matt Smith (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Fox News host Tucker Carlson tells interviewer: ‘I lie’, The Guardian. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
That's what I call a misleading, taken-out-of-context heading, and I'm not surprised it's from The Guardian. Carlson was describing to the interviewer dire situations in which he is really cornered or something. He did not say he would lie on his talk shows or in everyday life. Also, that news was published 1.5 year ago and was not about the J6 video footage we're talking about. Fox and Carlson have never "admitted to lying" about the J6 video footage. Matt Smith (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
It is our community consensus to reject Fox News talk show as our reliable source, You are free to fork your own encyclopedia to spread your own truth though. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Be careful not to sidetrack. We are not arguing whether Fox News talk show is reliable. Instead, we are checking someone's claim about Fox and Carlson "have admitted to lying" is true or false. Matt Smith (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Admitted to lying, on the air, to their viewers? Well of course not, Fox is being sued for $4 billion, they're not about to confess and destroy their entire business model. But have you compared what they said in private messages to what they said on air? The messages show they knew they were lying. soibangla (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
You mean the suit over defamation of voting equipment vendors? -- Frotz(talk) 19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
No, because it's not the same logic. There isn't an equivalent (parallel) argument between (1) asserting that a violent attack on the Capitol occurred, and showing footage that supports the assertion, and (2) asserting that a violent attack did not occur, and showing footage that does not contradict the assertion from (1). We don't know what was happening when Tucker Carlson's footage was recorded. It certainly appears to be calm in those locations, at those times. But nothing in his footage - or anything else that he could air - can contradict the multiple hours of footage that captures the violent assault on the Capitol from multiple angles, and multiple points of attack. Tomada36 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Not only did Trump not request the National Guard, Nancy Pelosi was not responsible for adding security, whether it was National Guard or additional Capitol Police, despite what you've been told by your sources, whatever and whoever they may be. Capitol Police is overseen by the Capitol Police Board, which consists of House and Senate sergeants-at-arms. However, several Congressional committees also oversee Capitol Police, including the House & Senate Appropriations Committees, the House Administration Committee, and the Senate Rules Committee. Pelosi was neither a Chairperson or Administrator of any committee that supervised the Capitol Police on 1/6/21. The President of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society also confirmed that the Speaker of the House does not oversee security of the U.S. Capitol, nor does the Speaker of the House oversee the Capitol Police Board. Tomada36 (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Fox new and Carlson admit lying

[[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]] Do we need more? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No. We do not need any more unhelpful or noncrucial articles like those.
The first source, The Independent one, is just another example of using misleading, taken-out-of-context heading like I described above.
The second source is, in my opinion, a typical criticism made by a left-wing outlet against a right-wing rival. We can also see that type of criticism made by a right-wing outlet against a left-wing rival. Anyway, the source was published in 2020 and did not say Fox News and Carlson admit lying. Please avoid exaggerating.
The third and the fourth sources are old news which reported the same Carlson's interview, although their headings provided context and are better than The Guardian and The Independent's.
All the four sources did not say Fox News admits lying or admits Carlson lies. As for Carlson's remarks in the old interview, I already explained enough above. Please desist from taking a sentence out of its context. Matt Smith (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
OK More then [[8]] [[9]] [[10]], want some more? We can keep on finding RS that says fox and Carlson have admitted to lying all day long. The simple fact is they are not reliable enough to be used to say anything about Jan 6th. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Please, there is no need to continue debating on Carlson's credibility. Matt Smith is a veteran editor on Chinese Wikipedia. He is fully aware of how Wikipedia's RS policy works, so this "Carlson doesn't admit he lies about J6" argument is a deliberate abuse of article talk page. This discussion should be closed immediately, unless we have better source on this story. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
"a deliberate abuse of article talk page"? I ask you not to denigrate an editor's reputation like that again. Matt Smith (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If you have issues with a users conduct take it here wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: I think the comment you removed actually looked reasonable. The comment author provided his opinion on why he thinks the status of the article is leaning towards a certain political ideology, and he also provided his suggestion on how the issue he claimed could be balanced. A comment like that one does show an intention to improve the article and is not like a worthless forum post. Is there a particular reason that you thought his comment is a forum post? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly characterizing the article as intentionally politically biased or endorsing any ip users who do the same. This is entirely false and I consider it distuptive. If you insist on promoting this argument, I suggest a topic ban for you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Do not try to threaten me with your nonsense conclusion. Never did I repeatedly do it as you falsely claimed, and what the specific IP user brought up is well within the talk range of this page. If you continue to behave in a way which damages my reputation or threatens me, I'll report your conduct to wp:ani as suggested by someone above. Matt Smith (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2023 (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.

Mentioning Carlson video in article intro

The content has been moved to a subsection and user:Dumuzid insists no consensus is shown after concerns of editors are addressed. Editors previously showing concerns include user:Muboshgu, user:Sameboat. Please express your concern, if any, to the following content. Otherwise consensus can be shown to have been reached and I will add the material back.

"Capitol Security Footage On March 6, 2023, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, after granted access to more than 40,000 hours of Capitol security footage by House Speaker Kevin Mccarthy, aired exclusive footage of Jacob Chansley being escorted by capitol police officers during the riot. He also aired footage of officer Brian Sicknick walking and guiding Trump supporters out of the building as he wore a helmet.

These footages caused huge controversies. US Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger accused Carlson's program as cherry-picking "calmer moments" of their 41,000 hours of video. GOP Senators denounced the alternative view of the attack presented by Tucker Carlson as "mostly peaceful chaos"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlwl0623 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the content's irrelevance, it's not written very well. Arkadios 200 (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


I don't have a specific opinion either way about whether the Carlson footage is mentioned in the article, but it doesn't feel to me like it's worth mentioning in the summary of the article. Arkadios 200 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why, is it a major part of our article? Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a major part of this at all. It could merit a mention in a subsection somewhere, or Tucker's page maybe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's not a major part of the events or the analysis thereof. Arkadios 200 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
It points to something very significant, that the full videos likely contain exculpatory details which could benefit the defendants. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
That's your WP:OR. Nothing exculpatory has been released. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If there were exculpatory details, why didn't Tucker show them? Is he part of the deep state conspiracy too? Dumuzid (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I have created a sub-section under Aftermath and moved the content over there. Wlwl0623 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Wlwl0623: Please explain why you cited random sources (dx(dot)doi(dot)org) that did not represent what you wrote.[11] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, why include Ben Shapiro? What expertise does he have that relates to this matter? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Ben Shapiro does not have less expertise on this matter than GOP Senators originally included in this segment.
Ben Shapiro is a highly regarded political commentator and Daily Wire is a credible media source. This material points out different views from different perspectives. Are you suggesting all politcal comments and analysis should be excluded in historical articles? Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The Daily Wire is not credible. Shapiro is a provocateur with no knowledge about this topic. I object to including his "analysis" here. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your objection. It has been noted. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As a quick follow up, Daily Wire reference has been removed. Thank you for your input again Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Going forward, for your reference, instead of fully reverting the whole section, it's better if you address the sentences you object to. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As I just mentioned on your talk page, please see WP:ONUS. It falls to you to show consensus for disputed content, not the other way around. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly stated, the controversy is around what the video suggests, instead of the authenticity of the video clips themselves. The disputed content is resolved and removed. I see no reason for your revert. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
It appears to me that I and at least a couple other editors disagree with the inclusion of your content. Maybe I am wrong about the head count! If so, please show me. If I am right, then you need to convince people that your addition is an improvement to the article. As it stands, I don't see it that way. But I am just one old guy with thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually I respectively disagree.
The other editors' concerns, regarding the "contradiction" sentence and "Daily Wire" inclusion, have all been addressed. Corresponding statements have been removed and the current material (which you just removed) are not controversial. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Please carefully read through the comments from the other editors, and also read through what was in the article before my addition. The concerns include
- location of the material
- Daily Wire
- "contradiction" statement
All of which have been addressed. If you agree, please kindly revert back your latest revert. Otherwise, please explain Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see below in an attempt to condense conversation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Being "controversial" is not a problem, the issue is that it is from Tucker Carlson, a definitively unreliable source. To add text from an unreliable source, you at least need a very good consensus first, not add it first then we sort it out later. You got the order wrong. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
If CNN reports such videos aired by Tucker Carlson, does this make this material trustworthy? Wlwl0623 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As @Soibangla: has stated so tirelessly, Carlson was cherrypicking a small portion of all the security videos. This is just trivial noise and Wikipedia does not collect info indiscriminately. The controversy might be big among right-wingers right now, but not a worthy addition to the article, unless it has escalated so much to actually overturn the verdicts of those convicted. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I respectfully disagree with your judgement that this is "trivial noise". This has actually caused huge news coverage, from both left-wing and right-wing media outlets.
And apparently "unless it has escalated so much to actually overturn the verdicts of those convicted" is not this page's standard, based on what is in "Domestic reactions" and "International reactions".
I'm not hoping to convince you to agree to add this content but I do hope you realize you are practicing certain sort of double standards here.
Cheers. Wlwl0623 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Wlwl0623, you have now breached WP:3RR. Please stop before you are subject to some sort of sanction. It's time to persuade rather than brute force your preferred version. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The authenticity of the video clips and hence the latest material I added are not controversial. Please explain your reason of reverting. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe! If you can show me that you have a consensus, I will happily self-revert. But as it stands, it seems to me that (at least for the moment) you are a party of one. As I say, I could be wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are you suggesting if no one replies here anymore, no consensus can be shown? Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
That would be a lack of consensus, yes. Wikipedia runs as a democracy, though with something more than a strict majority needed. Again, this is at WP:ONUS. Just because something appears in a source does not mean it has to be in the article. The community makes that editorial decision. If it were in fact just you and me, then you don't have a right to include your content. You would have to show that enough other people agree with you that my concerns are overridden. So yes, as of now, I don't think you have consensus. But you are welcome to try to persuade me or anyone else, and over time, consensus can change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Please carefully read through the edit history. This is not "my content" by any means. This content has been in the intro of this article, which raised the concern by Arkadios 200. I moved the content, added material, removed those new material following WP:RSP. So the original concern has been addressed. I respectively think you did not read the article prior to this edit war. Wlwl0623 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Then others will undoubtedly chime in supporting the content, and my qualms can be ignored. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Blocking content based on your personal interpretation of consensus is convenient and troublesome in my view but this is the nature of Wiki mechanism. Your faith in the neutrality of Wiki editor, especially those who reply here, however, is a bit suprising. I do want to point out people tend to deem sources they don't like "untrustworthy", which I'm sure you will agree.
With all that said, operating on Wiki, I do respect whatever consensus our community reaches and the corresponding rules, such as WP:RSP.
I'm not saying I'm correct but I do hope we can all become more open minded. Last statement, of course, is just a general comment : ) Wlwl0623 (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:RSP. The Wikipedia community has decided The Daily Wire is not trustworthy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As I explained in the edit history, there has been glitch when I copied reference here, which I originally added, to the page. I have fixed the reference and it's correct now. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Even with the links fixed, it is still our community consensus to not cite Fox News (political or scientific subjects) or Daily Wire because these are not reliable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
For Fox News, "Although a significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News". The material cited here is reported from Fox News without their viewpoints stated. Many other media, such as CNN and NBC, have covered this issue and validated the existence of such video clips. The controversy is around what the video suggests, instead of whether they are authentic. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there could be anything more controversial in Fox News coverage than Tucker Carlson's take on January 6. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, an editor placed the following in the lead, which I also don't believe warrants a mention, and have no idea where it belongs in this article. So, it would be nice to see what others think. -Teammm talk? 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"On March 6, 2023, Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired exclusive footage of Jacob Chansley being escorted by capitol police officers during the riot. He also aired footage of officer Brian Sicknick walking and guiding Trump supporters out of the building as he wore a helmet, contradicting a popular narrative that he died of a head injury.[1] These footages caused huge controversies. GOP Senators denounced the alternative view of the attack presented by Tucker Carlson as "mostly peaceful chaos".[2] Ben Shapiro from Daily Wire said "the video raised questions about the way the riots have been portrayed in the media" on his podcast.[3]"

Proposed edit is unsuitable for the article body due to use of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS and unreliable Daily Wire. I wouldn't be opposed to a version of this existing somewhere in the article body that was sourced to RSs and used Wikivoice more cautiously. VQuakr (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
It is not following Wikipedia's objective tone. BTW, "he wore a helmet, contradicting a popular narrative that he died of a head injury" doesn't make any sense. Does it mean you cannot die of head injuries with a helmet?!? I haven't done any research into the officer's death, but I do know that you can most assuredly die due to head injuries, even if you wore a helmet. Imagine a world with no motorcycle deaths, no falling deaths, no beating deaths, no any kind of head-impact deaths just because of the almighty helmet. That'd be nice! It's like wearing a seat-belt when hit by a train at high speed: yeeess... it might help a tad... but not as much as you'd hope. To be clear, helmets are invaluable help when protecting the head, generally speaking, and I urge everybody to wear them whenever appropriate, but they do have limits.WikiUser70176 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The contradiction comes from the news report and timeline. It was reported that he suffered from head injury after being attacked on the terrace. And the video showed him walking inside the building afterwards. And the main page of this officer already clarified that there were no injuries to Sicknick Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
You can walk with fatal closed head injury for days, if not weeks. Excerpt from Traumatic brain injury. "A large percentage of the people killed by brain trauma do not die right away but rather days to weeks after the event". This is from a peer-reviewed article. WikiUser70176 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I have brought the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#January 6 United States Capitol attack‎ because unfortunately this needs administrative action. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
First of the lede is a summary of our article, so unless this takes up a significant part of our article it should not be in the lede. Secondly, it is far from Neutral, as these would need to not be stated in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Without reliable sources attesting to the veracity of highly selective video clips from Tucker Carlson, this content does not merit even a passing mention in the article. Just no way. soibangla (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose.I agree with soibangla that Carlson is not even worth mentioning anywhere in the page because he is factually incorrect. We have plenty of evidence that Carlson cherry-picked his videos: we have Jan 6th Committee testimonies, we have witness testimonies, we have jailed participants, we have police and FBI testimonies, we have thousands of picture and first-hand videos. All testimonies under oath attest to the violence of the attack. Should we balance all that evidence with the opinion of a TV host? Further, not only that Carlson is peddling a lie, but by giving that lie platform, we lower the credibility of Wikipedia. Lastly, enabling this high-impact lie is dangerous: it's like mentioning homeopathic remedies on the leukemia page. We don't mention what snake oil peddlers sell for leukemia because we don't want people to turn to "alternative" remedies and die; here, Carlson is peddling "alternative" history. Just as dangerous. I say we stick with the rock solid evidence that can be corroborated by other reliable sources. WikiUser70176 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A judge agreed with Carlson lawyers that he can't be literally believed: Here are some quotes from the dismissal document [12]https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/: " Mr. Carlson’s statements on the December 10, 2018, episode of his show are constitutionally protected opinion commentary on matters of public importance and are not reasonably understood as being factual." p.8 "Fox persuasively argues, given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes." (p.5). "This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky’s, Inc. v.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)). Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. 600 W. 115th Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 603 N.E.2d 930, 936 (1992). Whether the Court frames Mr.Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable." p.11-12. His own lawyers argue he can't be believed because he doesn't state facts. And the judge agrees with them. But Wikipedia should consider him a reliable source?! I surely hope not. P.S. The judge is a Trump-appointee. You cannot have it both ways: agree you lie in court and then cry 'political bias' when not belived by [ahem]: "any reasonable viewer". WikiUser70176 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
If Carlson states anything, we can safely assume that he is lying. If he has video footage as "prrof", it is propably doctored. Fox News controversies already covers Faux News habitual use of photo manipulation. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (2023-03-06). "Tucker Carlson releases exclusive Jan. 6 footage, says politicians, media lied about Sicknick, 'QAnon Shaman'". Fox News. Retrieved 2023-03-09.
  2. ^ Wong, Scott; Brown-Kaiser, Liz; Kapur, Sahil; Thorp V, Frank (March 7, 2023). "'Bulls---': GOP senators rebuke Tucker Carlson for downplaying Jan. 6 as 'mostly peaceful' - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the Fox News host's portrayal a "mistake," while Sen. Kevin Cramer said it was "just a lie" to compare Jan. 6 to a peaceful protest". NBC News. Archived from the original on March 7, 2023. Retrieved March 7, 2023.
  3. ^ "New Jan. 6 Video Changes Narrative, Brings Knives Out For Tucker Carlson, Says Ben Shapiro". The Daily Wire. Retrieved 2023-03-09.

Credit where it's due:

I am surprised to find no mention of Status Coup, an independent outlet that recorded a LOT of the raw footage the mainstream news used. Funny how we can cite other outlets but not a genuine, on the ground outlet? [13]https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2021/02/04/youtube-is-taking-down-raw-footage-from-the-capitol-riot-as-it-tries-to-crack-down-on-misinformation/ Apeholder (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Why, what would this tell us about the events? Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"1.06" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 1.06 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § 1.06 until a consensus is reached. signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Commentary by Evans and Payne

I added comments from historians Richard J. Evans [14] and Stanley G. Payne [15]. I feel that given their preeminence in the historical field, knowledge of fascism/far-right groups, and their work on Democracies that failed like the Weimar Republic and the Second Spanish Republic it would worth adding them to the discussion of historians. Thoughts? 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are historians of notability, so I think their comments fit well in the "Historians' perspectives" subsection. Considering that the majority of the mainstream media are not friendly to Trump, we're not likely to see those media interviewing them. The two sources you provided appear to be organized publications rather than some obscured blogs, and Wikipedia policies do not automatically reject sources which haven't been marked as reliable. Therefore, it's fine to me to use them as sources. Matt Smith (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I think a couple per contra voices are called for, and I don't mind this inclusion, but the sourcing gives me qualms. I suppose I have less issues with The American Conservative, but I am eager to hear others' thoughts. I certainly understand the argument that the publications are simply carrying the statements of notable historians, but that doesn't totally allay my qualms. Of course, if consensus is against me, so be it! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there any thing to say they are not RS? Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, shows what I know: I was clearly thinking of some other publication than the New Statesman in question. I withdraw my qualms on that one. Still have some lesser qualms on The American Conservative (whose reliability has never been agreed upon, so far as I can tell), but count me in the "okay with inclusion" camp. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Evans seems fine. Payne strikes me as overcoverage if the viewpoint hasn't been reported in a better (less advocacy) source than The American Conservative. VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Evans is trivial, doesn't state anything substantive. It's about wordplay. Payne comes off as ignorant and facile, also not adding substantive insight. Both UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I oppose adding this content because both historians’ remarks date to January 2021, the same month as the insurrection itself. That was before a whole series of criminal indictments and convictions, as well as the January 6 Select Committee report - all of which gave much more evidence about the attack. If there are later-in-time commentary from historians, then perhaps we should discuss that. Neutralitytalk 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Paxton and most of the other historical articles takes place on or during the week of January 6th. Do you think they should also be removed? Also I really don’t see how one could say Evan’s article is “trivial”. Finally I don’t really think there has been much new evidence from the committee that would change Payne’s assessment or make it less valid. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that art and literature is being to emerge about the attack, when do other editors think it would be appropriate to add an "in popular culture" section, thanks? Ex: Tell Me What You See, Paul Chan's painting exhibition, etc Kentuckian in NY (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

To avoid simply being a list, I personally would want to see secondary sources about January 6 in media. Something more meta than just an instance where the event is mentioned or referenced. So, if we have something, say, about "January 6's influence on music" or "How the art world is processing January 6" or something, then it would be more to consider. As ever though, I am just a single opinionated old guy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I think for influences, that's valid. What I'm talking about are actual works of art 100% about the attack — say a novel set in the Capitol on that day or paintings depicting the horror, etc, thanks. Kentuckian in NY (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Wasn’t footage of it used for Star Trek Strange New Worlds? Would that warrant mention? 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, but if it were, I personally don't see why not. Kentuckian in NY (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Not unless RS discuss it as a significant use of such depiction. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
MOS:POPCULT would be the relevant part of the Manual of Style that concerns such a section. Essentially, sources have to exist that show how an entry in a "In popular culture" section would be relevant to the article and how it's impactful in some way and not just a trivial mention. Merely existing and being verifiable isn't enough to warrant inclusion, any entry in such a section needs sources showing that the entry has actually had an impact in popular culture. - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead currently says this: ...and said "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." In the same speech, he said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Democrats point to the first phrase; Republicans, the second; that is the only reason why I imagine it was included—as a characterization of the diferent modes of thinking about the riot and Trump's place in it. However, it tells us very little about why Trump said these things, does not give context to the greater speech, and unnecessarily tries to juxtapose the 'bad' with the 'good', I guess? I would've deleted it, but, necessarily, it would've been reverted and I would've brought it here anyway. Should it be deleted? Cessaune [talk] 00:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Should it be deleted? No. This is what he said, and we know what happened after. We can't "know" why Trump said these things, but we reflect RS coverage. What "context" is missing? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Why is it important that he said these things? It belongs in the article, but why do we need to talk about these things in the lead? Cessaune [talk] 00:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Why is it important that Trump said "fight like hell" and "march to the Capitol" before they marched to the Capitol and "fought like hell"? Isn't the answer self-evident? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I replied to your comment before reading Dumuzid's comments below. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No, it should not be deleted. Widely reported and seems pretty important given the events of the day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Again, why are these things important enough for the lead? Cessaune [talk] 00:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Because they were remarks given by the President of the United States in which at different times he said "fight like hell" and make your voice heard "peacefully" which were followed by a sacking of the Capitol. Unless you believe the speech Trump gave is completely unrelated to the events that followed? Dumuzid (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
They were important remarks, of course, but why are those specific remarks notable enough for the lead? Cessaune [talk] 00:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're not going to get anywhere with this. Suffice it to say, if you can establish a consensus for your changes, I will not quibble. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Dumuzid, Muboshgu, and Zaathras. These are relevant and informative. Andre🚐 01:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Not really seeing the point of raising this. The argument of whether Trump incited an insurrection against the American government or (in his opinion) merely told them to protest and be peaceful is kind of the entire crux of the events of Jan 6. The lede summarizes the body, so we introduce the basic for vs. against of his words, then expand in January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Donald_Trump's_speech. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. The issue here is that we aren't really introducing the basic for vs. against of his words. It's more like Trump said this, then this. Introducing a for vs. against would be to actully characterize why these two phrases are important, which has not been done. What's important is not the fact that he said these things, but that the fact that he said these things allows for argument over his role in the riot, and argument over how that role applies to criminal charges, impeachment, etc. Cessaune [talk] 01:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds an awful lot like WP:SYNTH Andre🚐 01:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
My bad. I just did exactly the thing I despise. Here you go:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fight-like-hell-speech-extremely-calming-1270504/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-us-capitol-remarks-221518bc174f9bc3dd6e108e653ed08d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/12/07/trump-jan6-riot-lawsuit/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-says-trump-may-urging-protests-jan-6-rcna63538
Cessaune [talk] 01:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I mean, IMO we're already driving that point home with the text as-is, aren't we? Zaathras (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Cessaune, I honestly don't really understand your point here (which is doubtless my fault). It seems to me there's a current consensus to keep the remarks in the lead; perhaps there's something you might propose adding as context? Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Include both in order to balance both sides and best maintain NPOV? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE Andre🚐 21:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Would you kindly elaborate how this would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Because the events of J6 are largely held by reliable sources to be a violent insurrection, perpetrated by his followers, whom he (Trump) called to act. The view that Trump merely wanted peaceful protests is a minor point of view, bordering on dismissible fringe. Zaathras (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:DUE; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. It's easy to name Trump and his supporters as prominent adherents of this point of view, and I would consider this POV to be a significant minority. Could I recommend phrasing akin to: "Though some believe that Trump insisted for peaceful protests, citing his urge for protestors to 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'", and then disprove it using evidenced presented with the seven-part plan as described by the J6 committee? While the idea is fringe, it's prominent enough to be included despite it being disproved by reliable sources, which should go in conjunction with the fringe belief within the article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
That framing would not be NPOV. It would need to be something like "...Republicans falsely claimed that Trump, Giuliani et al had only called for peaceful protests and that the insurrection was a peaceful tourist visit to the Capitol..." Also, "though some..." wording is problematic and considered weasel. Better to avoid such phrasing. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleting both does the same thing. Cessaune [talk] 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but by my lights, it leaves out relevant and widely-remarked upon facts. That would result in a weaker article, I think, but reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but the sentences would still exist in the article. My point is not that the sentences aren't important, but that, in their current state, it isn't clear why they are important. I'm having a hard time coming up with a wording that explains why the sentences are important while staying non-specific enough to be leadworthy. Cessaune [talk] 23:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
That's entirely fair, and this one is mostly just an editorial judgment call. I don't think there's really an objective case to be made one way or the other. So, I still think these belong in the lead, but should consensus decide otherwise, no worries. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I would leave both in the lead - even though his speech was much more about "go and fight," with only one passing reference thrown in to "peacefully". The results - that is, the actions of hundreds of his listeners - show pretty clearly which part they were listening to. But there were also listeners who did NOT storm the Capitol - who walked there and chanted or milled around outside. Quoting both parts of his speech seems appropriate, since some listeners focused on the "go and fight" instructions while some apparently decided to focus on "peacefully". -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

First sentence is factually incorrect.

Assertion of incorrectness has been refuted by multiple editors. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

"following the defeat of U.S. President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election" This is a false statement. This was prior to the defeat of Trump. The certification is the end point of the election. Trump had not yet been defeated

The rest of the article is obviously terrible but lets start at the first statement made 2600:6C40:0:204E:E93B:B808:67BF:9C28 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Both correct and incorrect, the votes were in and had been counted. This was an attempt to stop the votes from being ratified by Congress. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if he was not officially declared as the winner by congress. Biden had clearly been shown to have won a day or two after the election. Most senate Republicans accepted his win around then. There is no reason to change. Virtually everyone outside of some Trump supporters knew Biden was the winner. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Read the sentence again. "The defeat of U.S. President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election" occurred on Nov. 3, 2020. That is technically and factually correct. The counting of electoral votes which occurred on January 6–7, 2021 is the certification of the president-elect into president. But the defeat happened on Nov. 3rd. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 18:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
No, this is factually wrong. Certification is part of the election.
There is no debate here, it is just blatantly false information. Obviously the overall bias of the article is not going to be fixed, but you could at least get the first sentence to be technically true. Its frankly kind of pathetic and makes wiki look bad 2600:6C40:0:204E:E93B:B808:67BF:9C28 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2023 (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.

See also: Business Plot

This is a highly questionable historical incident, and it should either be removed from the 'See also', or given a rather less assured description than "A 1933 plan to overthrow the U.S. government". Pharos (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree especially since historians think General Butler seriously exaggerated or question how serious the idea was. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
That link does not belong here because no element of that alleged "plot" came to fruition, and there was no public action, let alone overtly criminal and in many case violent actions by over 1000 people, with over 600 convicted, including at least 14 convictions for seditious conspiracy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Deaths from Natural Causes

Hello, I was just wondering why the deaths from natural causes are included. How could natural causes be attributed to this event? Perhaps further clarification and/or rewording is required. For example, if someone goes to a concert and dies of a heart attack, we don't say that the concert killed him. 2600:4040:5584:1A00:B42D:5FBE:E1A9:E6F2 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what a "contributing factor" is? Concertgoers are not subjected to four hours of non-stop physical combat, beatings, death threats, and attack with strong chemical agents. The Capitol police are heroes who prevented Pence and Pelosi from being killed, threats motivated by Trump's stolen election big lie. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Let's remember to try and stay objective in our analysis here so as to prevent any misinformation from circulating. Regarding your post, concertgoers are indeed often subjected to four hours of non-stop physical combat - and that would be called a mosh pit. Regardless, if their deaths were the result of strong chemical agents, then that would not be a natural cause, correct? Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the deaths were from X chemical or, as you alternatively suggested, being beaten to death. Let's now move onto the source listed, number 22, in which it states "...The medical examiner listed the manner of Sicknick’s death as 'natural,' which they defined as a term 'used when a disease alone causes death. 'If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural'.” Thus, based on the current sources, we can probably improve the article by concluding here that "natural causes" is misleading. Maybe we can all agree on a better way to phrase it? 2600:4040:5584:1A00:B42D:5FBE:E1A9:E6F2 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The article, as I read it, is fairly neutral, giving official causes of death and the like. If there were a concert which was associated with an unusually high number of deaths and injuries, I certainly think we would mention them similarly. But reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, certainly. But even at a concert that had a large amount of deaths, they certainly would not be listed as "natural" if the deaths were from things such as stampedes, overdoses, etc. 2600:4040:5584:1A00:B42D:5FBE:E1A9:E6F2 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The article is far from neutral. For example, attributing officers’ suicides after the event to the event itself is nothing short of preposterous. Also, how are drug overdoses related to the event? Were those people violently drugged during the event? This is exceptionally lame.
Also, the assertion that this event was part of a seven-step Trump plan for overthrowing the election is very interesting, but on what is it based? Suspicion? Theories, or actual written evidence?
Please do not claim objectivity when obviously biased assessments like these glare from such a poorly founded article. 70.160.60.194 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
There are numerous reliable sources cited in the article that support the content. Zaathras (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the current wording and phrasing can do better in informing readers that the "seven-part plan" is the J6 committee's own speculation. There is no evidence showing that Trump has ever drafted or drawn up such a plan. The notion of "seven-part plan" is completely made up and sounds to me like a conspiracy theory. I would say wording and phrasing such as "According to the opinion of" is better than just "According to" and "Cheney supposed" is better than "Cheney said". Matt Smith (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
There was an initial assumption in the media that all these deaths were direct results of the demonstrations. But now we know better, they should not be in the info-box. I noticed too that 9/11, over 30,000 U.S. veterans have died from suicide, but they are not listed under war casualties. Of course if some, if not most, their experience indirectly contributed to their deaths, as may have been the case here. TFD (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see why everyone (including me) is confused. I think if it stated something like "5 deaths from the attack (1 gunshot, 1 overdose, 3 post-attack (or post-incident, whatever) natural causes); 4 officer suicides within 7 months." then that would make it clear. Otherwise it kind of sounds like 3 people died of natural causes during that day. I think that's all the issue is. 2600:4040:5584:1A00:B42D:5FBE:E1A9:E6F2 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems that as with most incidents which re reported factually, only deaths that took place on that day or that were a result of physical injuries from that event or that were reported on the Death Certificate should be included.
Statements like "Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event" although could be considered "factual" are inflationary when compared to normal reporting of "facts" -jim 10:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs)
Probably best to remove the field in the info-box. Death fields are more typical for military battles, where deaths are expected. The details of course can be explained in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe this a matter of the definition of Manner of death. That article should be expanded to cover under which circumstances if any a death by "natural causes" might also have a human component. I imagine this has been at issue in numerous US lawsuits quite unrelated to January 6, and there must be some case law on it.--Pharos (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Fauxsurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fauxsurrection has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9 § Fauxsurrection until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"1/6 rioters climb stairways with ropes" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 1/6 rioters climb stairways with ropes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9 § 1/6 rioters climb stairways with ropes until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"1/6 rioters climb stairways with makeshift ladders" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 1/6 rioters climb stairways with makeshift ladders has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9 § 1/6 rioters climb stairways with makeshift ladders until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Does “Attack” sound as dumb to you as it does to me?

WP:DENY apparent sockpuppet.

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.

For all the ignorant, fear-mongering, I’d think that wiki would keep this straight.

I was a big supporter and contributer to Wikipedia; no more. Get your history checked ReaperOneGolf (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The title was chosen through the standard WP:Requested move process based on usage in reliable sources and adherence to WP:NPOV.
And its a bit bold to claim to be a "big supporter and contributer [sic]" to Wikipeidia when you have made no edits part from opening this talk section. Estar8806 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should retitle it? And Different account - I thought this was an open forum. Were you there at the white house on January 6th? Probably not. neither was I. Therefore you know as much as I do now, as much as they have told you, and how your brain processes that information. With me man? Ok - Let’s learn from it, not argue with one other.
I simply refuse to acknowledge this as an “attack” as it’s being portrayed. Let me expand: I understand “attack” is a broad word, but in its context, it’s quite obviously “horrible, barbaric displays of violence, and has been referred to over and over as “violence”; even so far as “extreme violence”. Now person to person, soldier to whatever trade you do or don’t do for a living, it seems you don’t understand what being “attacked” physically is. I say physically (not just people but also the Government property, NEITHER OF WHICH I CONDONE) because that’s what the media has been portraying ever since the initial videos and reports from the incident.Call yourself more evolved if you will. Either way I would choose a different word, and I would also suggest you see the many factions that exist in this new global “United States”. Each region, and culture has a different agenda, and nothing is black and white. I believe, personally, that Jan 6th was/is used as propaganda, whatever your ethical and moral principles are, good luck in life. 2603:8081:73F:87ED:796F:5267:B84E:274F (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to refuse to acknowledge this as an attack. You're entitled to your opinion, nobody is trying to prevent you from having it. However, Wikipedia isn't only written to serve your interests. There are three fundamental principles WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:No original research, all of which must be adhered to.
And of course, if you want to start a WP:Requested move to change the title of this article I implore you to do so. However, in doing so, take care to follow the three principles I've mentioned above and the other WP:CRITERIA used in article titling. Cheers!
P.S. If the "they" you're referring to is Reliable sources, I imagine you won't like it here. Estar8806 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This isn't an "open forum." Please stop using it as a soapbox for your personal views. If you have a suggestion based on a consensus of reliable sources, please state it and the sources. Otherwise, please read WP:FORUM. Acroterion (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
To attack is to direct violence towards a target (person, place, object). How do you suggest that this event fails to meet that definition? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:59, 13 May 2023 (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.

"5 deaths from the attack" in infobox

I have trouble rationalizing this. How can a "death from natural causes" or "death from drug overdose" be a "death from the attack"? These are contradictions. I feel like this wording needs to be adjusted. Maybe "direct" and "indirect" deaths? Ergzay (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

See above. I've questioned this logic for a long time. But it's supported by reliable sources, so the chance of it changing is slim to none. I don't think a death count is necessary, but... Cessaune [talk] 05:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The sentence in the article currently reads "Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes." As stated, the sentence is factually untrue. Far more than five people died "shortly before, during, or following the event". Literally millions of people have died following the event. One would imagine that countless people died "shortly before" the event. How is it of any relevance if someone died before the event? For any given day, such as Christmas Day 2022, it would be true that millions of people died "either shortly before, during, or following the event." It's a poorly written sentence, that is factually incorrect. The only reason this incorrect sentence remains in this article is because certain power users control the article through the padlock feature of wikipedia.14.203.194.178 (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but RS link them, unlike the other millions of deaths. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
They key point being, the central assertion of the sentence is untrue. Due to the weasel words "shortly before, during, or following the event" the number of deaths satisfying these conditions, is in the millions, not 5. You need to use more precise language to express whatever point it is that you are trying to make, unless untrue statements are acceptable in wikipedia articles provided "RS" or some other jargon.14.203.194.178 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
" "These Are The Five People Who Died Amid The Capitol Riot"" So we are reflecting what RS say. But maybe change it form "from" to "amid". Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I get that it's refelcting RS but to describe a natural death as a death from the attack just seems... I don't know. I don't really have a policy-based argument for this, but I think we should simply do away with the hypernymic shortly before, during, or following the event, and the similar infobox phrase deaths from the attack. Cessaune [talk] 01:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Excessively long

In my opinion, this page is excessively long, too detailed; suffice it to say that, in terms of bytes, it's almost as long as (difference of 1,153 bytes) the page dedicated to the Italian state ("Italy"). JackkBrown (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you think should be removed? 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@3Kingdoms: I don't know, but considering that there are also other pages that are quite long on the same subject, I would recommend thinning something on the page about the attack on Capitol (i.e. this page); I think very few people have read it all. JackkBrown (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

domestic terrorism

Why is this attack described in the Terrorism article, but not in the Infobox Civil Conflict? Doesn't the FBI and Congressional Research Service's description of this attack make it terroristic? Parham wiki (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

AKAIK none of the participants were charged with domestic terrorism. Prosecutors asked for a domestic terrorism enhancement in sentencing one defendant, Guy Reffitt, but it was rejected by the judge. Prosecutors had specifically singled him out, saying he was "in a class all by himself."
The other problem is that USC definitions of terrorism are broader than accepted in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This article does in fact point out various agencies and politicians of both parties who have called it "terrorism" in the "Analysis and terminology" section. It's a little weird "riot" and "insurrection" and "seditious conspiracy" are used in the lead but not "terrorism", even if only to note it's a disputed label. -- Beland (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Just thought it worth noting that the Department of Justice has asked, in their sentencing memo regarding the Oath Keepers, for an upward departure based on terrorism. The document is here and the relevant section is on p. 56. Obviously, the court need not agree with this suggestion, but I thought it was something to keep an eye on. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a brief update to the above: it's obviously not usable until it appears in a reliable source (which I expect will be shortly), but the judge has granted a sentence enhancement in the case of E. Stewart Rhodes for terrorism. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC notice

Hello! There is an open RfC pertaining to this topic at the Trump talk page. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Cessaune [talk] 19:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus list

Have y'all ever thought of implementing a consensus list, similar to this one on the Donald Trump talk page? One that sets local rules for discussion and delineates prior consensus? I think this page would greatly benefit. Cessaune [talk] 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Changes yet to be made.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Repeated complaint without citing any reliable source but an attempt to spread the same conspiracy theory. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that we have proof and video and confessions from some involved with Jan. 6th, when will what really took place that day and who was really responsable for the set up hoax be printed? How much longer before the Truth is posted? 2603:6010:793F:CC00:199E:5CC1:7B7:30DD (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I am going to be super nice and ask, what are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2023 (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.

Biased Information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Same old nonconstructive complaints. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This whole article is biased information and does not give the true facts without prejudice. Use caution and critical thinking while reading. 170.75.133.180 (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there ever a time when caution and critical thinking should not be used? Dumuzid (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2023 (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.

Number of deaths?

I'm sure there's been an RfC on this, and I don't want to rehash anything that's been discussed ad naseum (would appreciate a link to any previous RfC's), but I'm very curious on how we landed on "5" for number of deaths. My understanding that is only one person died as a direct result of incidents occuring on the day in question. I think the other deaths being called out here were indirect and occurred later.

To make an analogy, what we've basically done here is to say that someone who survived a horrific train crash, but later committed suicide due to depression from the crash, was essentially a victim of the crash. I see there's some logic there, but I don't think that's how we (i.e. WP) or traditional sources usually count "deaths". Has anyone proposed bifurcating the infobox such that the 5 deaths were split in to "directly caused by" and "indirectly attributed to" categories? NickCT (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree completely, but this has been discussed a few times, most recently at #"5 deaths from the attack" in infobox and here. As some sources link those deaths the current consensus (unfortunately) means we list it as 5. I do support your proposal to split them, however. — Czello (music) 14:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Czello: - Interesting. Thank you. I guess my hangup here is that when I see "Deaths" in an infobox related to an event, my instant assumption is that the deaths listed are directly and almost entirely attributable to the event in question. Including folks like Mr. Greeson, who seems to have just happened to have had a heart attack at the event, seems odd.
I think we tried to clarify this by calling out "natural causes", but it doesn't seem super clear to me.
I may try to RfC this to see if we can come up with a clearer breakdown. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing information

All information in this article does not reflect anything that happened except what democrats say happened. Capital Police escorted protestors through the halls of the Capital. FBI planned and coordinated with protestors to climb the walls of the Capital. Trump requested the National Guard to be deployed on 1/4/20 with a follow up on 1/5/20 of this request, the motion was blocked by Pelosi. 2601:601:8000:D390:4C5B:AF81:6C21:7662 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources for this because it's nonsense. Pelosi didn't "block" the National Guard and couldn't because she wasn't commander-in-chief. Trump was. FBI did not instigate the attack, MAGA did. Just asinine conspiracy theorizing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
FYI, there are no reliable sources for this because the reliable sources do not report this, not because it's nonsense. I have seen the video evidence of the Capital Police escort and the FBI parts.
Also, Boogaloo movement, which was involved in the instigation and the storming into the Capitol[16], is anti-Trump and is not MAGA. But even this fact has been neglected or downplayed by the reliable sources. Matt Smith (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
And you are fully aware that Wikipedia only includes info from reliable source and Wikipedia does not collect info indiscriminately. This is not the first time you did this, but you keep returning to reinforce the anon when they come to flock a dead discussion over and over again. You MUST stop using the talk page to push unreliable source. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You're making a false accusation that I push unreliable source into Wikipedia. The only source I provided above is Reuters, which is reliable.
As for the videos evidence, I did not provide them because I knew they haven't been reported by reliable sources. I was just informing User:Muboshgu that I have watched them and it's not "nonsense". I never said I want them to be included in the article. Matt Smith (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk page is not a forum for you to complain about the reliable source covering things you dislike or not covering things you prefer. If you know an info which would never be included in the article, just keep quiet. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
It's also not a place for you to stop editors from reminding others to be more careful of what they say in the talk page. In this case, I thought it's inappropriate for one to jump into a conclusion and claim something is nonsense simply because he/she hasn't seen related information. To be more precise, I think saying "There are no reliable sources for this" is sufficient and "because it's nonsense." is unnecessary. Editors being more careful of their remarks can prevent unnecessary arguments from happening and is better for the talk page. Matt Smith (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
And I have seen videos of the rioters attacking police, this is why we do not allow wp:orto be used. Nor am I sure what the boogies being anti-rump has to do with the OP points. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Pelosi was offered the aid of the National Guard prior the rally, by President Trump, and she refused.
It was her job to secure the Capitol, which she didn’t do, knowing thousands of people would be present. 149.106.48.82 (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Fact check: False – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump talked about deployment but never ordered it, and he wanted it not to protect the Capitol but to protect his guys from antifa, which was not there. Pelosi, Hoyer and Schumer called the Pentagon and governors of VA and MD to deploy the guard while the attack was in progress. There's video of it, look for it. soibangla (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is a waste of time, isn't constructive, and does nothing to improve the article. This talk page isn't a discussion forum. Propose specific text to include or change, citing reliable sources to support the proposal, or stop complaining. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC

Should Historian Stanley G. Payne's comments on January 6 (Stanley Payne on Weaponizing the Past - The American Conservative,What is fascism? And is Donald Trump a fascist? - Vox,The F-Word by Stanley G. Payne | Articles | First Things) be included in the section "Historians' perspectives"? 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

For reference there was some previous discussion, currently archived at Commentary by Evans and Payne. VQuakr (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: @Neutrality, SPECIFICO, Dumuzid, Matt Smith, and Slatersteven. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Also to since there seems to be some confusion. This RFC is about Payne being mentioned in general not the specific wording I used for the initial edit. Will happily change if people have a better suggestion for it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support for now. 3Kingdoms demonstrates that the comments are reliably sourced and meet significant coverage. Don't see a good reason not to include this coverage as of yet, so Supporting pending developments. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I don't really have a lot new to bring here, and I don't think inclusion would be any sort of disaster, I just think the combination of sourcing and immediacy to the event make it a very small net negative. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Those sources from immediately after the insurrection lack the perspectives gained by subsequent events, revelations, and RS publications and authors stronger and more appropriate than those periodicals. Ths RfC is narrowly framed, so it's a strong no to this proposal. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Payne's article in First Things was written almost 2 years after the riot. Also except for Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon Meacham all the sources from historians were written shortly after, around the same time as Payne. Do you oppose those ones being here as well?3Kingdoms (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, this seems like a double standard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel that given Payne's status as a historian combined with his research into Fascism and the fall of democracies, his commentary on the event is warranted as much as all the other historians already included. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Considering the included perspectives we have so far, I don't have a reason to exclude the perspective of a known historian. Paxton's perspective was made during the same time frame, so it's fair to include Payne's. We also don't pick sources based on their political stances. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SPECIFICO. These characterizations lack the context gained with time, but, since that isn't really enough of a negative, they simply aren't that great of sources. They don't really add much insight into anything. There are so many other better RSs that could be included in this article. Cessaune [talk] 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    If I may, what about the sources do you find not great? For me Payne’s reputation and area of expertise makes his inclusion worth it. Also do you believe that one’s also from the immediate aftermath should be removed since time has passed? 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don't necessarily mean that anything from the immediate aftermath should be removed. Sure, Payne's important, but it's really the prose I don't like. We also have other relevant Payne stuff in the article already. My oppose is weak, but it's an oppose all the same. Cessaune [talk] 13:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    When you say “other Payne stuff” is he mentioned in another part of the page? I did a quick glance here and searched his name but didn’t see anything here. Sorry if there is a mix up. Cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that we had included other Payne paragraphs somewhere in the article. Cessaune [talk] 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    I do not believe so. I can’t seem to find any. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Taunting and offensive content.
never before have I read such utter bull. This is a prime example of trying to rewrite history. 50.96.86.32 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? Cessaune [talk] 14:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The American Conservative and First Things aren't great sources compared to what's already in the article (in particular, the first one is the publication of a think tank and lacks any particular reputation that would lift it beyond that); also, neither could be used without in-text attribution. The Vox source doesn't actually support the proposed wording at all. Given the quality and breadth of coverage, it's best to rely on citations to high-quality sources; even the opinion of a historian has little weight when the only people who seem to care about it are think-tanks and advocacy orgs. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    Apologizes that I did not make this clear, but I did not intend for this to be about the wording I made earlier. The question is about Payne in general being mentioned in the historian section. If it is accepted the Vox article would be used for a separate point of Payne saying that the riot does not change his view that Trump is not a Fascist. I should have made that clearer, sorry. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    It's unclear what perspective about the January 6 capitol attack you want to use him for that isn't already there; but, in any case, the article isn't about what fascism is, or about whether Trump personally is a fascist, it's about the January 6 capitol attack. Some of sources you're trying to cite barely discuss January 6 at all, and others focus on Trump's personal beliefs. There simply isn't enough secondary sourcing tying this to the January 6 attack to justify what would essentially become a digression. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    The perspective is what Payne, a historian of Fascism and Democratic breakdown, thinks of January 6th. Numerous commentary pieces on January 6 have used terms such as fascism and insurrection to describe the event. Payne giving his opinion that it was a riot, and that insurrection is overblown is I think is worth including. I also do not really see much discussion of Robert Paxton's article, yet it is still included. If Payne is not included than honestly most of these should be removed, then (which I oppose). Given that there is a rather long mention of the Confederate Flag being flown in the capital for "the first time" a dubious claims given that the flag of Mississippi itself until 2020 had it (critics treated it the same as other Confederate battle flags). I do not see why a sentence or two from one of the leading living historians is unwarranted. Cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    The Flag of Mississippi incorporating the Confederate battle flag IS NOT the actual Confederate battle flag. This is not a difficult concept to understand. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
    You misunderstood my point. Prior to January 6th there were articles in which people refer to the Mississippi flag as though it were the confederate battle flag. Also there is reason to think that the original confederate flag was in the capitals due to segregationist. Also I’m pretty sure at one point the capitals gift shop sold grey confederate hats with the flag on top, but I might have mistaken that with another DC landmark. Anyway this is not very important to this discussion which is that most objections I see to including Payne’s view could be said about Paxton and others, but when I have asked for some to explain the difference I have not received a answer.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose (also based on SPECIFICO). These characterizations are devoid of the contextual understanding acquired over a substantial time period. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Correct the number of deaths. Death of natural causes or suicide should be listed in this article as a death caused by the Jan 6 protest. In fact there was one death of the young unarmed lady shot by Capital police who you didn’t mention at all. This is a left wing spin in an attempt to distort the facts. 2601:19B:8201:B660:B0F3:7B6A:DE6C:3386 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction Death by natural causes or suicide should not be listed in this article as being caused by the Jan 6 protest. 2601:19B:8201:B660:B0F3:7B6A:DE6C:3386 (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: This has been discussed ad nauseum. See the talk page archives for past discussions that we will not be reopening. The woman who was shot and killed after not listening to officer instructions and continuing to push for the senate floor is mentioned by name in the "Casualties" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis

I noticed there are several groups listed that are Neo-Nazi parties and organization as well as white supremacists and holocaust deniers in the civil conflict section. Would it be simpler just to list White Supremacists or Neo-Nazis? TYMR (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How would that improve the article? Details are important. While Neo-nazis and the KKK have been combining forces since the Greensboro massacre, they are still distinct. I think it is important to acknowledge each group even if they fall under the same umbrella of white supremacist extremism for the sake of accuracy, but I'm still interested to hear opinions from those with more editorial knowledge than myself. DN (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree especially given that far right extremist groups tend to hate each other almost as much as their enemies. Same of course with left-wing extremists. So, grouping them together would not improve the article IMO. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC).

Histrionic language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
We can present the POVs of both the prosecutors and the defendants, but it is the court verdict should be given more weight on the matter. This discussion has become fruitless and if any party insists to go on, please move to WP:AN/I instead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I know that the type of people who edit this site will not be receptive to this, but I have to point out how strange it is to refer to this incident as an "attack." Such language is typically used to refer to terrorist attacks, which was obviously the intention of those who would like to call it this. The fact is that this bore little resemblance to mass shootings, bombings, or other such incidents which are usually labeled that. This was a disorganized riot; its participants were not wielding firearms or any other types of weapons which would be characteristic of an attempt to cause mass carnage. The only person who was directly killed by a deadly weapon was one of the rioters. Before you say "reliable sources call it an attack" - reliable sources have called it a lot of things. Why is this language in particular correct? Frankly, almost no one outside of Wikipedia calls it this. If it were to have the most commonly used term applied to it, the page should be called something like "January 6 Incident." 2600:4040:4932:700:9018:983E:5E6A:BB57 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the conviction of the Proud Boys for seditious conspiracy would demonstrate to all that this was not a disorganized riot, it was a pre-planned terrorist attack. And yes, Wikipedia follows reliable sources, whether you like it or not. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
How exactly does it qualify as a terrorist attack though? You can find all sorts of fringe groups who participate in mass protests - the fact is that very few of the rioters were "Proud Boys," which is an eccentric group that is not particularly large or influential despite media attention surrounding it. Comparing January 6 to terrorist attacks, where people typically use deadly weapons to kill large numbers of people, is idiotic. 2600:4040:4932:700:9018:983E:5E6A:BB57 (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The term "attack" has been discussed in great detail. See Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 17#Requested move 2 August 2021 and other archived discussions. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
To attack is to direct violence towards a target. Please explain how you think this event fails to meet the definition.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The whole group was NOT proud boys. which by the way president Trump has talk out against. Most of the PEOPLE there were oked to be there by permit to hold a protest. There were only a small handful of proud boys there. This whole article is biased and none of it based on non biased facts. I watched the whole thing. Trump never demanded that Pence decertify the election. He suggested that he should do the right thing and send the ballots back to the states for them to recertify, or he would be "very disappointed". Furthermore most of the protesters were peaceful. The media only sensationalized the radicals and left out the parts of the rest of the peaceful protesters (which there were thousands). 170.75.133.180 (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
"Trump never demanded that Pence decertify the election." Have you read Trump's Twitter from that day? Trump told him that it was "a time for extreme courage" and urged him to block Biden's certification.[1][2] Then Trump blamed Pence for the "problems" on Jan 6th because he refused to not certify the election.[3]
DN (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite the convictions for seditious conspiracy, no claim was ever made in the indictment that there was a plan to breach the Capitol Building before Jan. 6. The actual plot was to engage antifa, causing mayhem and forcing the president to declare martial law and cancel the counting of the votes. This of course never happened.
The expression "attack" is problematic because even though the events could be described as an attack, the term has a broad meaning. These attacks were different for example from the September 11 attacks and we should not conflate them.
I prefer the term "incident." Note that although the most significant event of the day was the breach of the Capitol building, the vast majority of demonstrators did not participate in this.
TFD (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Sources regularly refer to this as an "attack", not an "incident". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
"Incident" is a useless non-description. EVERYTHING that has ever happened is "an incident". If I tell you there was "an incident" somewhere, your first question would be "what kind of incident?", so why not just go straight to that? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
To be fair there is the February 26 incident which was arguably more violent, planned, and dangerous than Jan 6, but I do not see sources using the word "incident" for Jan 6th (maybe in the future). I think TFD has a point, but I think Riot would be a better word. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The term "incident" (事件 jiken) is commonly used in Japanese sources to describe events like that. Here, February 26 incident is a common name. Other East Asian languages also use "incident", e.g. the February 28 incident in Taiwan (which resulted in about 20,000 killed in 1947). The January 6 attack was not committed in East Asia. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:8932:B7B4:F74B:BBE2 (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for providing that cultural context.3Kingdoms (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The usual definition of an incident is "an event that is either unpleasant or unusual," (Cambridge Dictionary), IOW a negative event. Hence the The USS Maine incident, the USS Panay incident, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Palomares incident. The value of the term is that it covers all the types of incidents we are arguing about. It's an erudite version of calling the article "The bad stuff that went down on 1/6/2021." TFD (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Which still means it is virtually meaningless. Okay, "bad stuff went down". WHAT KIND OF BAD STUFF? That's the obvious question and is exactly the kind of thing an encyclopedia should tell us. Leaving it as just "incident" is lazy and bad writing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever seen any of the bodycam video? soibangla (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

RS call it an attack (and in fact worse, Attack is a compromise between the weakest and the strongest condemnations, between sightseeing visit and insurrection). Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This page shouldn't exist as-is, and should include all attacks on the capitol, including actual insurrection attempts in the past and not focus on a single event that is highly politicized. There is more than one attack on the capitol on this date in different years. 2600:8806:501:E800:9488:726E:2F56:4EE0 (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
There is more than one attack on the capitol on this date in different years. My, how fascinating. Could you elucidate and provide examples? Zaathras (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. No Wikipedia article should focus on a single event that is highly politicized. For a start, let's merge 2020 United States presidential election, 2016 United States presidential election etc. into United States presidential elections. Having a separate page for every single election is just a waste of space – space filled with nothing but histrionic language. After that is done, we can get rid of Joe Biden, Donald Trump and thousands of other pages that focus on a single, highly politicized individual. Great idea! Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think the "Capital Riot" or "January 6th Riot" is the best description. However, given the debate, attack is likely the best compromise for now, plus it is used by a decent nuumber of RS. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are multiple terms used by RS, that usually indicates the importance of avoiding attempts to narrow the focus to one overly reductive aspect. Seditious conspiracy convictions don't necessarily make this a clear cut case of sedition, but it does reinforce the need to accept there are levels of complexity to this event that require a nuanced approach.[4][5] I've also read articles discussing whether the term "insurrection" would be more accurate, but I've yet to find any that show that one term to be definitive.[6] For now, it's best to pay attention to legal proceedings and what academics say, especially in terms of who, what, when, where and why.[7] DN (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with you and make two points. First, the convictions of seditious conspiracy were for a plot that was never carried out. The plot was to provoke Trump to declare an insurrection at which point the conspirators, who were stationed in hotels, would join the army in suppressing antifa.
Second, insurrection, as Hawa Allan points out in Time, is a very peculiar legal term. It was originally used by British and colonial legislatures, and eventually U.S. law, to define when the government was allowed to suspend civil liberties and rule by decree. It was used to put down Irish rebellion and slave uprisings, but not allowed in England. Some statutes said that the government had sole discretion in what it called an insurrection. It lacks the precision one expects in legal terms.
In this case, only Trump could have declared an insurrection, which he did not do. TFD (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
TFD, while I don't really disagree with you substantively, but I think it's more accurate to say the seditious conspiracy failed than that is was never carried out -- per the general common law of conspiracy, at least one overt act in furtherance of the charge was necessary for conviction. I understand this is largely a semantic point, but I think it's one worth making. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not part of common law, its a requirement in some statutes. Nonetheless, conspiracy never requires that an attempt be made to carry it out. The very fact that the conspirators agreed to meet at a hotel in D.C. would be an overt act even if none of them had actually arrived.
I suppose you could say that the conspirators could not carry it out because antifa never arrived, which was an essential requirement for the plot to work. TFD (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
So, fair play! I was apparently remembering the wrong statute. I would quibble that in conspiracy law, an agreement and an overt act are separate things, but as you point out, neither here nor there really. The question then would become where we determine the beginning of the "plot." But I'll leave that for another day. Thank you for the correction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
There is confusion among some people that the breaching of the Capitol Building was planned as part of an attempt to seize power, and the conspiracy convictions prove this. If this were true, then terms such as attempted coup would be appropriate. But no evidence has been found that the breach was planned or was part of any wider plan. It's important to be clear on what happened before describing it. TFD (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"But no evidence has been found that the breach was planned or was part of any wider plan."...Says who? This has already been refuted multiple times by multiple RS. As I tried to explain earlier, at this point, to try and reduce this event down to some "spontaneous" chain of events is unreasonable...at best.

  1. [8] "a new report by a nonprofit research group, and a separate review by NBC News, uncovered hundreds of social media posts discussing plans to move on the Capitol, including a map of the building and talk of how to create a stampede that would overwhelm Capitol Police."
  2. [9] "Approximately 40 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three."
  3. [10] "explicit planning took place in the weeks leading up to January 6th on social media, Trumpist message boards, and sites like 4Chan."
  4. [11](The Capitol police intelligence division had been gathering online data since December about plots to storm the building on 6 January, including messages such as: “Bring guns. It’s now or never.”)
  5. [12] "Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says"
  6. [13]"A lawyer for one of the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy released a 9-page document on Wednesday that outlines a plan to occupy key congressional buildings connected to the US Capitol and the Supreme Court on January 6, 2021, and to distribute a list of demands calling for a new election."

DN (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

None of your sources say the breach was planned or part of a wider conspiracy. Can you please provide a single quote that says otherwise. I suggest you read the seditious conspiracy indictment to see what was actually alleged in the courts. TFD (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
TFD, just so I can make sure I understand you, what was the aim of the conspiracy for which the defendants were convicted? Dumuzid (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Per the indictment, "The purpose of the conspiracy was to oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force, by preventing, hindering, or delaying by force the execution of the laws governing the transfer of power, including the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments to the Constitution and Title 3, Section 15 of the the United States Code." TFD (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize if I seem pedantic, but I find (at least for me) a lot of confusion around here stems from varying definitions or premises. That said, you don't believe the Capitol breach was in furtherance of that aim? Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, wait, I think your objection just clicked for me. Would it be fair to say that the convicted oath keepers (and perhaps some of their associates) breached the Capitol in furtherance of the conspiracy, but the riot was not begun in furtherance and many people who participated were therefore not part of such a conspiracy? Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
If the breach was part of the conspiracy, then wouldn't anyone who joined in at that point be joining in on the conspiracy? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I am just honestly trying to make sure I understand TFD's positions. While I am sure we don't agree on everything, I have always seen them as a reasonable editor. But to answer your question, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the riot began spontaneously, and people began breaking into the Capitol. If the seditionists at that point seized upon the opportunity to further their plan, then I would say the rioters had not joined in on the conspiracy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
A conspiracy requires agreement between two or more people. It does not have to be spoken or written but can be assumed by actions. I won't go in to how this is proved, but if the jury believes that two or more people were of the understanding that they would all enter, even if the agreement was made as they entered, it would be a conspiracy.
Many people have been charged with conspiracy, but it is conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding, rather than seditious conspiracy.
We discussed earlier how the maximum penalties are the same. But the sentencing guidelines differ. If you disrupted a city council meeting you would not be charged with sedition and would face a lesser sentence. TFD (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We seem to be moving away from the original discussion. One editor said they thought "the conviction of the Proud Boys for seditious conspiracy would demonstrate to all that this was not a disorganized riot, it was a pre-planned terrorist attack."
I assumed by attack they were referring to the breach of the Capitol building. But there is no evidence that breaching the building was discussed before 1/6. And only the eleven members of the Proud Boys were indicted for seditious conspiracy.
Most people who attended thought that they could persuade the VP to reject the election of Joe Biden. But many of them then turned to violence. However, no one has claimed that they were in a conspiracy with the Oath Keepers, at least before they attended the Capitol. TFD (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, understood. Dumuzid (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Most people who attended thought that they could persuade the VP to reject the election of Joe Biden. Total, utter BS. People went there with zip ties, guns and body armor, there was deliberate and purposeful pre-planning to detain and remove members of the federal government. Armed plans to kidnap and torture are not mere "persuading". Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The article you provided is about two people that showed up with those things. It goes on to say that one of them thought it would be impossible to breach the capital which would be more proof that there was no pre-planned idea to attack the capital. Unfortunately, I do not think a statistical breakdown of how many were armed in total exists. In the case of firearms, it would seem to be on the low side due to D.C. gun laws and that no officer was shot by the rioters. It stands to reason that rally was supposed to be a show strength to convince (and intimidate) Pence to reject the electors, but the ensuing attack/riot was not planned. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any RS referring to the crimes in question as a "spontaneous insurrection" or "accidental sedition"..."Put simply, the Department of Justice is now 3-and-0 in its most serious cases against the leaders who orchestrated and carried out a plan meant to overturn the results of the 2020 elections... It is entirely fair to call the planning and execution of Jan. 6 what it was: an insurrection."[14][15]

DN (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not see what your point is about "spontaneous insurrection" or "accidental sedition" two words I never used. Riot, the word I have used, is mentioned in numerous sources for the event. The first article you think is an opinion piece that strawmens people who have issues with the use of insurrection acting like it is either that or "tourist". The second one does have merit (although since I assume the convicted will appeal its not impossible a judge reverse the decision).3Kingdoms (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. There were rioters, and there were seditionists, and or insurrectionists. There is RS for both and one doesn't negate the other. As I have said throughout this discussion, trying to reduce this topic to one aspect or the other is counterproductive. We must include all aspects, but the view that "the ensuing attack/riot was not planned" is untruthful, unsupported by reliable sources and therefore WP:OR. So let's avoid that. DN (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that do say there was little to no planning Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources | Reuters. It is not original research. There were certainly people there with violent intentions that amount to seditious conspiracy, but it can also be said that there was no plan to have hundreds of people storm the capital. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You say source(s), plural, yet you only provide one that also reads much like an opinion piece. Did you bother to read it? It says "They alleged that one Proud Boy leader recruited members and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol."...Hmmmm?.....It looks like it also says ""Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages." - No one here is talking about a "scheme with Alex Jones or Roger Stone". It goes on...."But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering."...Seems like it is also quite antiquated "August 20, 20219:43 PM CDTUpdated 2 years ago"...Yep. DN (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

From the article The FBI "no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside." In the Oath Keepers trial, the government said, "There is no discussion of forcibly entering the Capitol until January 6, 2021." and "Even if the idea of storming the building and going inside to disrupt the vote arose only after demonstrators congregated at the Capitol, such a last-minute plan could still constitute a conspiracy, said Chuck Rosenberg, a former federal prosecutor and NBC News legal analyst." Thus, even with people indicted for seditious conspiracy, it could still be argued that the attack was not preplanned. "No one here is talking about a "scheme with Alex Jones or Roger Stone" Correct I never said that, so I do not see why you are bringing that up. From the evidence, there were people angry and were prepared to use violence, but even that is not enough to prove an organized plan. (Given how meandering many of rioters were once they got inside and the "relatively" quick way they were removed (around 6 hours) with no police officers killed again would seem reasonable proof to point to for it not being preplanned. I do not really see the point of this discussion. My whole point was that evidence another user posted that TFD claim was "utter BS" was not to my mind sufficient to warrant such a charge and TFD's characterization of the event is a reasonable to hold even if you disagree with it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
So, 3Kingdoms, I think your take is reasonable, insofar as there is little to no evidence that the Capitol breach had been specifically planned in advance. I would however quibble that the indictment and evidence in the Oath Keepers trial trace a more generalized conspiracy back earlier ("from in and around November 2020") to use violence. While it may be true to say the Capitol breach was not preplanned, it does not follow that there was no preplanning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Sorry for not being more clear, but I agree with what you are saying. My focus was on the claim that the riot itself was a plan. I agree that the OK did plan for the whole militia mobilization that TFD mentions and what they were convicted for. Cheers!
Yes, as I said in my edit summary, nitpicking really. But for some reason in this topic even more than most, there seem to be a lot of very slight misunderstandings leading to a lot of back and forth. Hence my pedantry trying to grasp TFD's position below. Have a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not talking about the Oath Keepers or rioters or the attack "in general". It doesn't matter to us if they didn't know what to do, once inside. That doesn't change why they were there in the first place, and I'm not here to waste time debating that with you. That part was/is up to the legal system. They (PB) planned the breach and at this point the majority of sources, including yours, says so. As long as we are clear on that, I don't have any other concerns at this point. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay. My focus was always on the riot in general not the PB. That I guess was the mix up. Cheers.
Perhaps I misunderstood your previous statement. I was not attempting to claim that all attendees were taking part in the planning of the breach, only that sources have stated that (according to prosecutors) there was planning involved regarding the breach, not just on internet message boards, but also by the Proud Boys... "prosecutors alleged, (NORDEAN) led them with the specific plans to: split up into groups, attempt to break into the Capitol building from as many different points as possible, and prevent the Joint Session of Congress from Certifying the Electoral College results.”[16]
"A new affidavit filed Tuesday by the FBI described preparations by the right-wing Proud Boys to storm the Capitol"[17]
A DOJ press release stated, according to court documents, Daniel Lyons Scott, a member of the Proud Boys organization who goes by the nickname “Milkshake,” yelled to the assembled (PB) group walking towards the capitol “Let’s take the fucking Capitol!”. After the Capitol grounds were initially breached, Scott moved forward up the stairs... Scott’s assault breached the police line, allowing the crowd behind him to surge up to the upper west terrace. This group became the first crowd of rioters to enter the Capitol building. Worrell then filmed Scott shortly after the assault, and Scott can be heard yelling, “Proud of your fucking boy!” to Worrell. Worrell then celebrated the crowd’s surge up the stairs: “Yeah, taking the Capitol!”[18]
Sources also state that the Proud Boys used non-members as "tools" to breach the capitol.[19][20]
Hopefully, that helps clear things up a little. DN (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
How is that supposed to clear things up? No one has questioned that the FBI made that claim and proved it in court. The only issue is whether before 1/6 the conspirators had planned to storm the building . TFD (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Each of these sources (above) seem to claim they (PB) did, as did the prosecutor. Hence, it had been affirmed. Is that still somehow unclear in your view? They were found guilty, were they not? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
TFD -- apologies, but I thought I understood your complaint, and I am once again confused (my fault). Is it your position that not even those convicted of seditious conspiracy formed the intent to storm the building before January 6? How else would they oppose the electoral count by force? Dumuzid (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The indictment says the Oath Keepers plan to stop the lawful transfer of power "included multiple ways to deploy force." (para. 4.) It then refers to statements made by the leaders beginning Nov. 5, 2020. I don't have access to these documents so can only rely on the indictment and news media for what they said.
One way was, "Bringing and contributing firearms, ammunition, and related equipment to the QRF staging areas outside Washington D.C." (para. 17f.) They thought that by fighting antifa outside the Capitol, Trump would be forced to declare a state of insurrection existed and the QRF teams would then help the armed forces restore order. Note that the QRF teams were outside Washington when the building was breached.
They planned road blocks and ambushes (para. 24). They thought that their very presence "a few hundred feet away" from the senators would scare them into declaring Trump the winner (para. 34). There was also discussion of preventing members from entering the Capitol building.
Just the fact that they encouraged a group of angry people to come to Washington prepared for violence and revolution is sufficient to prove seditious conspiracy, even if it was unclear what they would do once they arrived.
But no evidence has ever been provided that there was a plan before 1/6 to enter the Capitol and no such allegation has been made in any indictment. If people believe there was, it's because of flawed logic. The Oath Keepers conspired to disrupt Congress, entering the Capitol Building disrupted Congress, therefore it must have been part of the original plan.
The Oath Keepers believed that a million people would show up to take orders from them. Although we know that could not happen, it doesn't mean that they were not guilty of conspiracy by including this in their plan. TFD (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I can agree in regards to the OK militia that a planned breach is not apparent, but multiple RS, indictments and subsequent convictions of the Proud Boys do seem to indicate a pre-planned breach by PB militia. I'm not saying this affects the title of the Wiki-article at this point, but here's another quote from POLITICO. "A week before Jan. 6, Tarrio received an email from a girlfriend with a document titled “1776 Returns,” which contained an outline of a plan to assemble a large crowd in Washington and storm government buildings. Prosecutors had no evidence that Tarrio shared the proposal with anyone, but they noted that he appeared to reference it in multiple conversations with associates, using the phrase “The Winter Palace,” which the document used as a euphemism for the Capitol — as well as an allusion to the Russian Revolution."[21]
DN (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia article about it, 1776 Returns, which has an external link to the original document. The plan involves storming and occupying the Supreme Court, six congressional office buildings and CNN. There is no mention of attacking the Capitol Building.
While one of the sections of the document is called "Storm the Winter Palace," it is a reference to the Bolshevik seizure of power during the Russian Revolution rather than a code word for the Capitol. Your source is the only one I have seen that says it is a code word and even then as a code word for the Capitol (where the targeted office buildings were located), not the Capitol Building itself.
The cold reality is that there is no evidence that the breach of the Capitol Building was planned before 1/6. That's not surprising, because they probably thought that the Capitol would be adequately protected and hence could not be breached at least without bringing sufficient fire power, almost all of which was left in hotels outside Washington. TFD (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Cold reality? It seems you are only looking at this through the eyes of the defense attorneys instead of the sources, which would violate WP:NPOV if we did not present both the prosecution and defense equally. The bar you seem to be setting would require what amounts to a literal confession. Ignoring RS (aside from the defense's argument) to say it was not planned would not be neutral.

To further clarify, we are not limiting ourselves simply to the contents of the 1776 returns document. It is relevant in it's use as evidence in part of the conviction, as proof of planning. For us to claim it was proof there was no plan to storm the capitol would be to take the side of the defense, thus WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It is a factor amongst evidence of pre-planning of the breach used by the prosecutors.

The reference to "Bolshevik seizure" obviously isn't the point. Text messages show PB members celebrating storming "the Winter Palace". This has been shown by court docs and reliable sources to clearly be a reference to the capitol building. To claim it is "only a historical reference", seems like non-neutral POV in favor of the story the defense used.

"From 1776 Returns...

"The Capitol itself, which was the ultimate target of the January 6 insurrection, is not specifically included on the list of targeted buildings, but the document uses the phase "Storm the Winter Palace" as an apparent reference to the Capitol, and the plan outlined by the document contains similarities to the actual attack on the Capitol on January 6."

Here's another court filing in regards defendant Donohoe who pleaded guilty, stating..."At least as early as January 4, 2021, and prior to Donohoe’s decision to travel to D.C., Donohoe was aware that members of MOSD leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol. Donohoe believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group’s goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power. Donohoe understood that storming the Capitol would be illegal."(p. 4) Donohoe understood from these discussions that a tactical plan for January 6, 2021, was being discussed at least among Tarrio, Nordean, and Biggs.(p. 6)[22]

"Tarrio and his four allies — Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — are set to go to trial on allegations that they spearheaded the violent assault on the Capitol, pinpointing weak points around the Capitol and using the cover of the mob to help overwhelm police lines. Prosecutors cited “1776 Returns” in Tarrio’s indictment. The document describes plans to “Storm the Winter Palace”... The indictment also notes that in celebratory text messages with Tarrio, an associate referenced 1776 and Tarrio responded with “The Winter Palace.”"[23]

"The second witness, Matthew Greene, told the jury he did not initially understand why the Proud Boys marched from the Washington monument to the Capitol to be among the first people at the barricades surrounding Congress, instead of going to Trump’s speech near the White House. Once the Proud Boys led the charge from the barricades to the west front of the Capitol, Pezzola using a police riot shield to smash a window, Greene said he realized there may have been a deliberate effort to lead the January 6 riot."[24]

Perhaps the source below will be explicit enough?

"Ultimately, Proud Boys leadership decided the plan was too impractical, federal prosecutors allege — and the target was narrowed down to the storming of a single building, the Capitol.[25]

If you still want to disagree that's your choice, I just can't figure out why. DN (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your source (The Guardian) says, "Lacking evidence in the hundreds of thousands of texts about an explicit plan to storm or occupy the Capitol, the prosecution used two cooperating witnesses from the Proud Boys to make the case that the defendants worked together in a conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power." Your position seems to be that because there is no proof the Capitol attack was not planned, that is proof it was.
As I said your source (Kyle Cheney) was the only one that said Winter Palace was code for the Capitol. You then provide a quote from Wikipedia that is sourced to Cheney. What is the purpose of that?
FBI prosecutors may be correct that the 1776 Returns plan was "narrowed down" to the Capitol, although elsewhere they concede they don't know whether the plan was ever discussed at all. But they don't explain when that decision was made. Most likely it was made moments before the building was breached.
The best argument you have is Donoghue's agreed statement of fact, where he concedes "being aware of" discussions among Proud Boy leaders. That has no evidential value.
And no, I am not defending the Proud Boys. I am instead defending the facts that were established by the courts. I'll compare it to UFOs. I have no proof UFOs do not exist, but there is no proof they do. That does not mean they don't exist, but it doesn't mean they do.
At the risk of being accused of straying off topic, the relevance is whether the courts have established that storming the Capitol was planned as part of an attempted coup or was opportunistic. Which one it was determines how it should be described, for example, "attempted coup" or merely "illegal incursion." We must be guided by the evidence that was tested in court rather than our own personal conclusions.
You should read about the trial of the Chicago 7. Nixon's DOJ tried to prove that the disorder at the Democratic Convention of 1968 had been carefully planned by the eight original defendants. We now know that it wasn't and that Nixon was a paranoid conspiracy theorist who hired people like Gordon Liddy and Roger Stone. TFD (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
whether the courts have established that storming the Capitol was planned as part of an attempted coup or was opportunistic. Which one it was determines how it should be described
No. Verdicts say there was a plan to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, that's being guilty of a coup attempt, whether or not they "called an audible" during the play. Feoffer (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that we've got the guilty verdicts on seditious conspiracy, a very good case can be made for upgrading the title to "coup attempt", matching language used by scholars of coups since 2021. Feoffer (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(TFD) Your personal requirement for burden of proof should not be confused with the standard requirement for WP:V. "Your position seems to be that because there is no proof the Capitol attack was not planned, that is proof it was." It's fine if you disagree, but please don't make misleading statements like this. All anyone has to do is look at the discussion to see that myself and others have already presented reliable sources that explicitly say that not only did prosecutors allege planning by PB to storm the Capitol, but even without a confession, verbal or written, they won. At the risk of BLUD, here's a recap...
"Prosecutors alleged, (NORDEAN) led them with the specific plans to: split up into groups, attempt to break into the Capitol building from as many different points as possible, and prevent the Joint Session of Congress from Certifying the Electoral College results."
"A new affidavit filed Tuesday by the FBI described preparations by the right-wing Proud Boys to storm the Capitol"
"Ultimately, Proud Boys leadership decided the plan was too impractical, federal prosecutors allege — and the target was narrowed down to the storming of a single building, the Capitol" DN (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
TFD your claim that "Most likely it was made moments before the building was breached." would require a citation, if you have one. DN (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Seditious Conspiracy does not equal coup, so I do not think the new information warrants that sort of change. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in what you have presented says that the Proud Boys planned to attack the Capitol Building before 1/6 or that anyone has made that claim. Why not just say that despite no evidence, it's what you believe? And please don't present any more sources that don't support your position. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not claiming sources state when exactly it was planned, only that reliable sources have stated..."Prosecutors alleged that the Proud Boys planned to breach the capitol."...That's it...Nothing more and nothing less.
I do not subscribe to WaPo, but here's a report that appears to be taken from them that states prosecutors alleged this as far back as 2021. "U.S. prosecutors alleged for the first time that a Washington state leader of the Proud Boys was nominated by members of the group to take charge of the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6 and carried out a plan to split into groups to break into the building from as many points as possible."[26][27]
As you now know, in 2022 a DOJ release stated... "as early as Jan. 4, 2021, Donohoe was aware that the Ministry of Self Defense’s leaders were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol"[28]
Here's an article excerpt from Aljazeera on Jan 12th 2023. "Communications cited in court papers show the Proud Boys discussing storming the Capitol in the days before the riot. On January 3, someone suggested in a group chat that the “main operating theater” be in front of the Capitol. “I didn’t hear this voice note until now, you want to storm the Capitol,” Tarrio said the next day in the same chat."[29]
I'm not trying to interpret it or take anything out of context. I am surprised and a bit frustrated at your lack of acknowledgment, but I'm not trying to waste our time as evidenced by my disinterest in arguing about UFOs or what amount of time before an event it takes to constitute a "plan", or the "quality" of evidence presented. I'm just here to reflect what these sources explicitly say. That's all. We can take it to DRN if you prefer, because I think we are both tired of this back and forth. Or, we can just agree to disagree, and see where it goes from there.
Either way, please enjoy the rest of your weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
You are just repeating what you said before. You have no source that says what you believe so you are providing me with lots of stuff that together should persuade me. But the only relevant issue is what conclusions were reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
DRN it is...DN (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
TFD - if we set aside the Capitol for a moment, would you agree with the proposition that there was premeditated violence by at least some on January 6? Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2023 (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.
  1. ^ "Trump makes desperate plea urging Pence to block Biden certification". The Independent. 2021-01-06. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  2. ^ "https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346808075626426371?lang=en". Twitter. Retrieved 2023-07-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  3. ^ Pengelly, Martin (2023-03-13). "'You can blame him': Trump shifts responsibility for January 6 on Pence". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  4. ^ "4 more Oath Keepers found guilty of seditious conspiracy tied to Jan. 6 attack". POLITICO. 2023-01-23. Retrieved 2023-07-07.
  5. ^ "Office of Public Affairs | Jury Convicts Four Leaders of the Proud Boys of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach | United States Department of Justice". www.justice.gov. 2023-05-04. Retrieved 2023-07-07.
  6. ^ "What the History of the Word "Insurrection" Says About Jan. 6". Time. 2022-01-07. Retrieved 2023-07-07.
  7. ^ "Ask the 'Coupologists': Just What Was Jan. 6 Anyway?". POLITICO. 2022-08-19. Retrieved 2023-07-07.
  8. ^ "Feds aren't using posts about plans to attack the Capitol as evidence". NBC News. 2021-04-20. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  9. ^ "One Year Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol". www.justice.gov. 2021-12-30. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  10. ^ Nast, Condé (2021-01-08). "How the Attack on the Capitol Happened, From Planning to Siege to Arrests". GQ. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  11. ^ Smith, David (2021-06-08). "US Capitol attack was planned in plain sight, Senate report finds". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  12. ^ Broadwater, Luke; Feuer, Alan (2022-07-12). "Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  13. ^ Rabinowitz, Hannah (2022-06-15). "Nine-page plan to occupy congressional buildings on January 6, 2021, released in court filing | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  14. ^ "Proud Boys Verdict Rebuts Lies About Jan. 6 Attack". Time. 2023-05-04. Retrieved 2023-07-14.
  15. ^ "What seditious conspiracy means in Proud Boys' Jan. 6 case". AP News. 2023-05-04. Retrieved 2023-07-14.
  16. ^ "Prosecutors fill in details of Proud Boys assault on Capitol". POLITICO. 2021-03-01. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  17. ^ "Feds: Evidence shows well-laid plan by some Capitol insurrectionists". POLITICO. 2021-01-20. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  18. ^ "Florida Man Sentenced For Assaulting Law Enforcement Officers During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach". www.justice.gov. 2023-07-13. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  19. ^ "Proud Boys deployed foot soldiers in sedition plot, Feds say". AP News. 2023-03-10. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  20. ^ Cheney, Kyle (2023-03-06). "Feds say Proud Boys associates fanned out to facilitate Jan. 6 breach". POLITICO. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  21. ^ Cheney, Kyle (2023-05-04). "Proud Boys leader found guilty of seditious conspiracy for driving Jan. 6 attack". POLITICO. Retrieved 2023-07-15.
  22. ^ "USA v. Charles Donohoe". www.justice.gov.
  23. ^ Cheney, Kyle (2022-12-27). "Jan. 6 committee interview sheds light on origins of Proud Boys '1776 returns' document". POLITICO. Retrieved 2023-07-21.
  24. ^ Lowell, Hugo (2023-05-04). "Proud Boys: four found guilty of seditious conspiracy over Capitol attack". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-07-22.
  25. ^ Italiano, Laura. "Read '1776 Returns,' a 9-page extremist plot to take over the Supreme Court, CNN and 6 other DC buildings". Business Insider. Retrieved 2023-07-21.
  26. ^ Hsu, Spencer S. (2021-03-02). "U.S. alleges Proud Boys planned to break into Capitol on Jan. 6 from many different points". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  27. ^ "U.S. alleges Proud Boy planned Capitol breach". Arkansas Online. 2021-03-03. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  28. ^ "Leader of North Carolina Chapter of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy and Assault Charges in Jan. 6 Capitol Breach". www.justice.gov. 2022-04-08. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  29. ^ "Proud Boys did not 'stand back, stand by' on Jan 6: US prosecutor". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

Can we use photos from U.S. Dept of Justice filings that were taken by people charged with participating in the riot and that are being used as evidence against them? jengod (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, yes. What pic(s) would you like to include. Feoffer (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Feoffer https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/marroquin-michael
statement of facts - figure 8
jengod (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Added! Feel free to adjust the caption or location. Thanks for the suggestion, that's a really good image. Feoffer (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Article size is still huge. Do we need to split off content again?

According to page information as of writing, the article is at around 387,000 bytes including sources, as well as over 12K words, among the biggest articles I've come across. Per WP:TOOBIG, articles of this size by word count should be divided unless the article length can be justified by scope, and I do feel that we should take a look at definitely cutting down on the size as 387,000 takes my M1 Mac almost 15 seconds to load the editor.

I would like to suggest to the community that a split be considered, but I'm personally not sure on how to do it. Either that, or we rely on a smaller amount of sources and reuse as many sources as possible if the same information is covered. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Planning section and its two subsections could easily be spun off into a subarticle and replaced with a much briefer summary. Feoffer (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Fork as much as you can. jengod (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is still growing. More splits are needed. Corgi Stays (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Proud Boys be attributed to the attack over other participants?

Should the Proud Boys be attributed to the attack over other participants as detailed here and here? Corgi Stays (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  • No. Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No - I think there will be a clear, strong consensus for no. If this isn't the case, I'll add my rationale later. Pecopteris (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Precisely as implemented in those edits? No. In some respect, and prominently in the lead somewhere? Yes. (Summoned by bot) As an FRS respondent, I don't have the familiarity with the sources here to say exactly where the line is for what a WP:DUE description looks like, but my strong suspicion (as someone who has followed press on this story more casually in the years since the attack) is that expressly attributing the attack as the work of these two militias first and foremost and above all other parties and factors, to the extent of labeling it as such, unqualified by particulars, in the lead sentence, is just not supported by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources.
    At the same time, I want to be clear that, for a certainty, the WEIGHT does support mentioning the special role which these militias played--in the lead, and probably even in the lead paragraph. The RfC is so generally worded that I have a concern that the results could be used to POV push in the opposite direction next and minimize the role of these groups even further, removing that which actually is DUE. The groups definitely are a significant enough part of the story to be mentioned early and prominently in the lead. Just not in the completely unqualified way represented in the two diffs the OP raises here. SnowRise let's rap 22:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Badly worded RFC -- It would have been better discuss on talk to clarify the nature of the dispute before automatically opening an RFC. For example, there is no active dispute about the lead. The actual dispute, such as it is, is far far far more narrow. RSes report that the PBs played a critical role beginning the attack with the breach of the outer perimeter near the Peace Memorial at 12:54 and during the physical breach of the Capitol at 2:11. Because RSes attribute those two actions to the PBs, I would like to see some mention of the Proud Boys in the section headings for those two specific events during the attack, Corgi Stays objects, saying "Proud Boys weren't the only ones responsible for the attack.". There's plenty of room for creative "Win-Win" verbiage that make mention of the Proud Boys's pivotal role without suggesting they're somehow alone in their endeavors. Feoffer (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Premature RfC See WP:RFCBEFORE...It doesn't look like there is any current discussion on this. Perhaps it's in the archive? While I have seen RS and court docs in which prosecutors allege OK and PB militias not only planned the attack, but PB led the breach, there still needs to be some discussion about the consensus on subtitles before an RfC. DN (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
According to this, there's already been discussion on the matter. Corgi Stays (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
But there no dispute there -- I'm pretty sure that I'm the one who BOLDly introduced oath keepers/proud boys sentence into the lede sentence, and I absolutely see why it was reverted per concerns that it was "being used to pull culpability away from former President Trump regarding what transpired on January 6" which I find entirely valid. Feoffer (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
You just edited the article to say that Zachary Jordan Alam smashed a window yet he was not a member of any known group. TFD (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Indeed -- we can all agree that the answer to "Should the Proud Boys be attributed to the attack over other participants?" is no, which is why this is a literally one-sided RFC, in a good way. :) Feoffer (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
According to Feoffer there doesn't seem to be disagreement on the lead, and they seem to welcome discussion on the section titles, at the very least. Let's at least discuss this and perhaps try a survey. It seems a bit too early and simplistic to require an RfC at this point. DN (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No While several leaders of the PB and other far right groups have been convicted of conspiring to use "violence if necessary" to stop the confirmation of Biden's election, the vast majority of participants had no connection with these groups and were not led by them. TFD (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    This rather depends on what you mean by "led" in this context. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Early days for an RfC but initially no. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No Per WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:RS Proud Boys should be given some prominence in this article especially considering their former leader just received a sentence of 22 years, the longest of any participants in the attack so far. However as others have pointed out this is a poorly worded RfC and the prominence given shouldn't be defined as per those two diffs. @Corgi Stays: perhaps it might be best to withdraw this RfC and come up with a better question. TarnishedPathtalk 09:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Considering that the question makes no sense, no. To say that the Proud Boys are attributed to the attack would mean that that organization grew out of the attack. Are you perhaps trying to ask if the attack should be attributed to the Proud Boys? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Excessive blow-by-blow coverage, not enough summarising secondary sources

Now that we're getting close to the three year mark since this event it's time to start replacing a lot of the stuff sourced to contemporary breaking-news reportage (which is a primary source) with more summary-style content sourced to secondary sourcing. The page could also do with a reduction in size, and is presently very heavily over-cited - particularly, the lead section should be a summary of content elsewhere in the article and need not be heavily cited per MOS:LEAD, yet the entire lead section here is riddled with cites that hinder reading. It is also nine paragraphs long when we should normally aim for four paragraphs.

This is now a historical event (sure, I know, Trump may win the next election etc.) so we need to write about it more like one. This page has more words than our Battle of Gettysburg article (13764 words v 9034 words) and has roughly four times more citations (592 cites versus 171 cites). FOARP (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I am rather concerned by what appears to be the deletion of massive amounts of history and RS by Feoffer. I am not unsympathetic to the expressed concerns, especially too much detail in the lead, but we don't usually delete such content and sourcing as it violates WP:Preserve. We usually condense and/or move it, maybe into a Background or History section. We document history here. We document all the events and details that show how we got from A to B. Feoffer, maybe you can explain how you are dealing (or intend to deal) with the preserve issues here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I restored the deleted sources and will try to be mindful of preserving history. _IF_ we agreed that overcite is a big problem, and I'm not sure I do, then we could push those extra sources & details into the Attempts subarticle Feoffer (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
There are citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Sadly, many of the facts are contested by one side. I agree the lead is too long and the body can likely be trimmed too, but I don't think it helps to compare a 2021 event to a 1863 event in terms of how sources cover it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The comparison Gettysburg is with a topic that is every sense bigger (it lasted longer, killed more, involved more people, has had far more written about it, is the subject of great controversy, had far larger consequences in the same amount of time etc.). That the internet creates a fire-hose like stream of primary-source data does not mean we need to include all of it. We do not lean heavily on contemporary reports in our Gettysburg article and it is much better for it.
Obviously changes can only be achieved with consensus, but there is no need to cite everything in the lead section nor make the lead so long. The cites already exceed 80 in number before the lead section is even finished. Additionally, a great deal of the cites (I haven’t counted but it is something like 30-40%) in the article are dated January 6 2021 and are breaking-news, primary sources.
It is not Wikipedia’s job to construct its own timeline of events out of primary sources, that would ultimately be a WP:SYNTH. There are already secondary sources available on this topic and our article would be much better if we focused on summarising their description of it.
We did manage to clean up Axis Powers, which was hardly worth uncontroversial (for a while it showed Poland as a member of the Axis…). FOARP (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Too many big changes at once, though. Let's do it one at a time and discuss if there isn't consensus. The lead could definitely be shorter and a better summary, but, we don't want to remove useful info from the article if it's not in the body. Andre🚐 16:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
But it should be in the body if it’s in the lead section, right? That’s most of the reason why lead-citing is discouraged except where necessary. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it should. I think it's fine to move it to the body, which is likely where it belongs, and write a new shorter summary in the lead. Just try to go one step at a time so we don't accidentally erase anything that's been there for a long time without some discussion about it, if you don't mind. Andre🚐 15:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm restoring the stable version. Please be careful about removing info. Andre🚐 03:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

As this still has ongoing criminal court cases linked to it please make sure the article doesn't lean towards the Government's side of the story. (Even though the evidence is heavily weighed in the Government's Favor) Itisi5 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality means neutrally reflecting the WP:RS. I believe that is what this page does. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Parties

Most of these are just movements and ideologies, or loose groups which leaders didn't conspire to attack the capitol. PB and OK did. I don't think "Blue Lives Matter" was a party to the attack. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am going to make a separate page listing any and all groups and movements tied to the attacks. For now, it will stay the same, however im going to eventually take out all but the proud boys and oath keepers and add a link to the list below as they are the main conspirators Personisinsterest (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
That's a stupid idea, there is nothing to warrant a standalone list of participants. Zaathras (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
There is media attention surrounding the sheer amount of groups that helped storm the capitol. I think it warrants an article, but you can comment on Draft:List of parties to the January 6 United States Capitol Attack Personisinsterest (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
im going to eventually take out all but the proud boys and oath keepers
That may not have consensus. We can debate things like "Blue Lives Matter", but QAnon's role is well-cited and unlikely to leave the infobox anytime soon. Feoffer (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Qanon is not an organization. It is not a party. It's not even a group. It's an ideology. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, to satisfy this, ignoring Qanon, there are individual militant groups inside of movements I've found that have participated. For example, instead of the boogaloo boys, a decentralized movement, we could put a militant faction, the Last Sons of Liberty. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I have found a satisfying list of directly involved groups:
- Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, self-explanatory
- DC Brigade of Three Percenters, only brigade directly involved
- Last Sons of Liberty, boogaloo movement faction directly involved
- NSC-131, neo-Nazi militant group directly involved
- Christian militants. Although not a group, there were Christian-nationalist militants there.
- Qanon movement. Though not a group, it had a major impact on the attack, and movements can be parties.
- Groyper movement, group of 4 groypers conspired
- Other protestors, self-explanatory Personisinsterest (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
You're attempting to take widespread movements and assert that only a limited subset were involved in the violence. I don't want to prejudge consensus, but I should warn you that the changes you propose are likely to be very controversial and unlikely to garner consensus.
For example, you argue that the three-percenters who attacks the Capitol were part of a militant, out of control faction -- but in the same breath, you admit only 4 out of the 6 Three-Percenters were part of said faction. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that Three-Percenters is not a movement. It is an organization, and the organization was very opposed to the attack. I'm going to put everything up on the infobox and I'll see how it plays out. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I've decided against adding QAnon, Groyper, and Christian militants for now. They are only movements, and are not directly involved groups. They are not parties. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus for this edit. Foeffer and Technosquirrel69 both seem to have objections. DN (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Ill add back in Groyper, QAnon and Christian militants. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A bug in the article

Greetings and felicitations. At very bottom of the article, instead of the "Authority control" template, is a recursive link, January 6 United States Capitol attack#invoke:Authority_control "#invoke:Authority control", which I cannot figure out how to fix. It seems/may be caused by the {{Navboxes top}}/{{Navboxes bottom}} templates. The "Authority control" template is displayed in the previews of edits. (I am using Firefox 120.0.1 (the latest) under macOS Sonoma 14.1.2 (also the latest.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding a "Further reading" section?

Greetings and felicitations. I searched the archive of this article's talk page, and only found AleatoryPonderings's Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 3#Further reading from 7 January 2021. It seems to me that there should be enough material to create a decent section. Here's (or rather, part two of an interview about) what prompted me:

  • Gonell, Aquilino; Susan Shapiro (2023). American Shield: The Immigrant Sergeant Who Defended Democracy. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint. ISBN 9781640096288. OCLC 1640096280.

—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To be solved

In this article I found a lot of punctuation marks inside quotation marks. The rule is that if the sentence is a quotation, the punctuation marks must be enclosed in quotation marks (e.g.: "I'm thinking it will be literal war on that day. Where we'll storm offices and physically remove and even kill all the D.C. traitors and reclaim the country."), while otherwise they must be after (e.g.: after the attack, Walter described the order as "unusual",). JackkBrown (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

First Time Confederate Flag

This article PolitiFact | When did it become a crime to cross the U.S.-Mexico border? says that senator Cole L. Blease flew a confederate flag in his office, which the primary source 08 May 1930, Page 2 - The Belleville Telescope at Newspapers.com says is the Senate Office Building, (presumably now the Russell building). If that is the case then it is not technically in the Capital, but I wanted to check with others. Maybe include it with the note on MS flag? 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey 3Kingdoms, on reading the Belleville Telescope, I tend to agree with you that it is not technically in the Capitol--it specifies his office and it was presented in the Senate Office Building. As you note, only Russell existed at that time. I am not quite sure what to do with the information, but I would need something more definite to see it as a contradiction to an otherwise reliable source. So, essentially, that's a lot of words to say simply that I agree! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is it “biased context” (whatever that means) to include a real quote among other real quotes.

I edited this page to add a quote from the same source that all the other quotes from Donald Trump’s speech are from, in which Donald Trump states “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” How exactly is this “biased”? It is what he said. The user, @Zaathras, stated his edit “Undid revision 1190845204 by HutchDoesStuff [me] what it adds is a biased "context", attempting to explain away the incitement to violence”


It is not objectively a call to violence, fight has often been used in a metaphorical sense (eg. fight for what you believe in). This quote actually makes the article LESS biased by offering more context to what he is actually saying. Zaathras is also very clearly a strong liberal (look through his profile talk page) and I don’t think it’s the goal of Wikipedia to have a major event like this be dictated by one side and deleting any objective thing that goes against what they believe is true. HutchDoesStuff (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

When taken in the context of all of the many things that Trump said and tweeted and did on January 6 and in the days and weeks leading up to January 6, that single sentence is a cherry-picked outlier in his rhetoric. Focusing on that sentence amounts to undue weight, which is contrary to policy. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Your assessment of my beliefs are not only inaccurate but also irrelevant. Be better. It was reverted for cherry-picking and undue weight, that is all. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent infobox changes

Two questions regarding the new infobox changes.

Were the Three Percenters directly involved? The DC Brigade of the group was directly involved, and so were two other attackers. However, the national group itself strongly denounces it to the point of dissolution. It is misleading to suggest that the Three Percenters was a party to the attack.

Is the Boogaloo Boys an organization? In my opinion, no. It's a movement of different factions of militant groups. I think it's unreasonable to keep it in the "Groups" section.

I'm leaving a footnote on both until we reach an agreement. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"January 6, 2021" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect January 6, 2021 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 29 § January 6, 2021 until a consensus is reached. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Parties, again

I seriously think we need to rethink the parties section again.

The Three Percenters cannot be a party. The organization literally dissolved after the attack, because of it. It's a slippery slope. We might as well add any group or movement associated with the attack. There are so many, look at this: https://www.start.umd.edu/january-6th-capitol-extremists-network

We should only put groups directly responsible for the attack. Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Last Sons of Liberty, DC Brigade, and NSC-131 are the only groups who were directly involved. Qanon cannot be a party. It is a movement. Same goes for everything else. The Republican Party? Tea Party? Traditionalist Workers Party?

Any movement can inspire someone to do things. Any person doing things can be associated with a movement.

Infoboxes are supposed to be informative, yet they leave you thinking that the Three Percenters was fully on board with this, and that a thousand different party remnants of movements from decades ago inspired the rioters.

If anyone disagrees, go add on the 30+ groups and movements onto the infobox while you're at it. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at the other side. Only police and National Guard groups directly involved. Should I put the ideologies and groups and movements associated with any cop there? Personisinsterest (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Qanon cannot be a party... It is a movement. It's understood that we're referring to followers of the movement. No one assumes every single member of a group was a participate -- not every Qanon follower was there, just not like every member of the DOJ was there. Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Qanon is not a centralized organization that told people to go. It is a movement that people are inspired by. It's very odd to put Qanon at the same level as the Proud Boys, which is an organized paramilitary with leaders conspiring to invade the capitol. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Added some whitespace to try to distance the planned attackers tied to sedition from the rest. Does that help? Feoffer (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the Groyper Army is responsible: the leader encouraged the attack and other members went in, even placing a groyper flag Personisinsterest (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Source? Slatersteven (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2021/01/far-right-activist-who-encouraged-us-capitol-occupation-also-organized-stop-the-steal-rally-in-michigan.html, https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/secor-christian#:~:text=Arraigned%20and%20pleaded%20not%20guilty,of%20supervised%20release%2C%20%242%2C000%20restitution Personisinsterest (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The Groypers are in the current list of parties. Feoffer (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I just wanted to add it to my current list Personisinsterest (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the list is too big and vague in some areas. Christian Right for example should be removed. Also, I think focus should be on groups whose leaders were there and charged like the Proud Boys and Oath-Keepers.3Kingdoms (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Undesirable redundancy between infobox images and sidebar images

At present, two images each appear twice in the lede. Both first appear in the infobox, only to immediately reappear in the sidebar that's transcluded directly after the infobox.

As we select new non-duplicate images for the infobox/sidebar, we should take care to distinguish between true "attackers" like the Proud Boys and the genuinely-peaceful protesters outside. To pick on just one of the three images: The mock gallows is an evocative image, but it's a protest image; to include it twice in the lede implies, presumably falsely, that it was created by someone to aid in the attack on the capitol -- this is especially likely to confuse readers who are unfamiliar with just how far the US's freedom of speech goes: creating a non-functional gallows to mock-threaten your leaders is fully legal and even consider a well-worn patriotic tradition as long as meant metaphorically. The other images have similar issues -- they depict largely non-violent protesters milling about outside. Feoffer (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the gallows image is just a protest image, however the protest outside the capitol is the most recognizable image; I couldn't see this page with anything else. And there were unaffiliated attackers in the protest crowd. I don't think we need to differentiate, everyone there broke through the fences or trespassed, they are attackers. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
It's okay to use the gallows image once in the body -- but using it TWICE in the lede is too much. The lede images probably should be of attackers, not protester-trespassers. Feoffer (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4 and Giovanosky: could you both take a look at the navigation box right below the infobox? Navigation boxes aren't visible in the mobile theme, so if you're on a phone or tablet, you'll have to use the desktop theme. To do so, scroll all the way down and click the "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page; to switch back to mobile scroll down to the bottom and click "Mobile view".
Right now 2 images are repeated in the lead for desktop and laptop users. They should be either removed from the infobox or removed from the navbox. When choosing the top image for the navbox keep in mind that it will be the thumbnail image used by Wikipedia for articles containing the navbox at the top of the page like International reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Sedition Caucus.
Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The images for this article should be selected independently based on what makes this article best, not based on a separate nav box that may or may not even be visible to all users. For concerns about image repetition, I would take the discussion to the talk page for the nav box. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: I've posted a notice about this discussion at Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar. Have you been able to see how the article looks on desktop? Rjjiii (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I removed a BLP violation where we characterize the gallows as having been "erected by a rioter" -- we have no knowledge that the creator was a rioter or attacker. Per NPOV, I also replaced the "tear gas deployed against rioters" image with a "bear spray deployed against police" image -- the focus of the article is not non-violent people carrying signs, it's the attackers who came prepared for violence. Feoffer (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on renaming the January 6th Capitol attack to "The Battle for The United States Capitol"?

Obvious nonstarter

Considering it seems to be a multi day event and the definition of battle fits the occasion. Rand.org used the word "battle" in article but also used assault in the context. nytimes used "battle" too. I'm assuming eventually this will be the proper title. Anyone feel free to agree? EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No, this is a preposterous proposal. Has there been a single reliable source that has referred to Jan 6 this way? Answer: no. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Click the link. Rand.org EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
That's one article. And "battle" is a term associated with military conflicts or wars. This was not that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battle EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't a battle with cancer either. More to the point, this is clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME, which is what matters here, not dictionary definitions. I had not heard or seen the term "battle" used to describe this until just now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I know what the definition of a battle is. Pasting the link to a dictionary definition isn't going to convince me or anyone else. What will is finding a consensus among reliable sources that "battle" is the most widely used term for this event. That aside: there was no need to carve out a separate section for this given the large conversation happening directly above. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
nytimes EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
[17] Wikipedia's definition. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Not even close to satisfying WP:COMMONNAME.This is way over the top. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Pseudohistory EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Obviously not, for a multitude of reasons. VQuakr (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Preamble to the United States Constitution EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Uh, what? You're not making a very convincing presentation.Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Did you click all of the links? Take the effort to read them? EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
No. You need to make an intelligible policy-based rationale or drop this. You're wasting volunteer time by posting bare links to other articles. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Every link functions. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I think "The Battle for The United States Capitol" is within reason. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
[18] EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Second bomb location suggestion

The second bomb placed on January 5 was certainly near the RNC headquarters, but its exact location was at the Capitol Hill Club, a private Republican club across an alley from the RNC. This might be worth mentioning. Here’s a map from the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/map-of-jan-5-pipe-bomb-route-090821.mp4/view. Atubofsilverware (talk) And a mention in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/january-6-capitol-hill-pipe-bomb/621178/ 12:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please update criminal charges and how many found guilty

The "Aftermath" section contains this outdated paragraph:

  • A large-scale criminal investigation was undertaken, with the FBI opening more than 400 case files. Federal law enforcement undertook a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators, with arrests and indictments following within days. More than 615 people have been charged with federal crimes.

Can someone please update it with the info from Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack? Something like this, perhaps.

  • A large-scale criminal investigation was undertaken, with the FBI opening more than 1,200 case files. Federal law enforcement undertook a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators, with arrests and indictments following within days. Over 890 people had been found guilty of federal crimes. 
♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion! Feoffer (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Politico Cite by Joshua Zeitz for consideration in the Analysis and terminology section - Historians' perspectives

Joshua Zeitz via Politico

"The political wisdom of using a constitutional provision to bar Trump from the presidential race, and thereby deny voters a free choice as to whether he should return to the White House, is debatable. So is the question of whether Section 3 is “self-enacting” in his case. Is he disqualified because he did what he did, or does he need to be convicted?"

"The history behind the 14th Amendment proves its general applicability. Conspiring, whether by violence or coercion, to overturn the outcome of an election is precisely what Confederate officers and officeholders did. They didn’t like the outcome of the 1860 election, so they tried to dismantle the United States, first by walking away, then by force.That was what Section 3 called “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States government."

"It’s hard to argue that the same thing didn’t happen in the aftermath of the 2020 election. For symbolic measure, insurrectionists carried the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol on Jan. 6, marching in lock step with an earlier generation of Americans who aspired to end our system of government. That it was a bungled attempt, and that it didn’t work, doesn’t make it different."

In this same vein of thought, is the consensus here that only if Trump is convicted would the term "insurrection" apply in terms of the article's title or otherwise? Feel free to direct me to previous archives and or RfCs.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Add year to article title.

No consensus for the change. Acroterion (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Change from January 6 United States Capitol attack to January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is a redirect there now.

Believe it or not, English Wikipedia is read around the world, and not everybody knows this happened in 2021. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

September 11 attacks do not include a year. Is there a Wikipedia policy that supports this? Feel free to make a requested move! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I often forget years for events, even 9/11. I am just pointing out the obvious. As a longtime editor, I expect nothing. Others can fight it out over such a trivial matter. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Believe it or not, other languages have their own wiki's. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
You have the right to miss my point. News flash: Other countries are majority English. Many countries have populations where large percentages read English. European countries for example. Readers in many other countries prefer English Wikipedia over the other-language Wikipedias. Feel free to continue living in your bubble. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe the WP:COMMONNAME for this event is "January 6", much as the COMMONNAME for September 11 is, well, "September 11". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, the redirect is being kept: January 6, 2021. See discussion.
WP:COMMONNAME: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." And: "For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below."
Again, people outside the US bubble.
On the Commons we try to put more, not less, info in the file names. To aid search engines on and off the Commons in finding images, etc..
In other countries there have been various attacks on capitols. Dates galore.
But I can see that this may well be a case where obedience to inadequate US-centric policies will prevail. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think anyone objects to January 6, 2021 redirecting to this article - I still don't see why you are so upset that the page title is Jan 6 US Capitol Attack - the year is mentioned in the article, it is the only attack to happen on the US Capitol on any Jan 6, etc etc. Take a breather as WP:COMMONNAME applies, you are only one English speaker of over a billion, and I haven't seen an outcry from others objecting to this as the common name. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone tried to eliminate the redirect solely because it had the year in the redirect. It is as illogical there as it is here. What is wrong with providing more info in the title? And let's say someone creates a list of capitol attacks around the world. All without years. Just month and day. What a poor list that would be. It is a dumb US-based policy. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
google the difference between Capitol and capital LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I did that before I first used it here. Proves my point about US-centrism. To think that there haven't been many other capitol buildings attacked around the world. Gotcha. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kind of falls under crystalball adding the year in title. Cwater1 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
On the English-language Wikipedia, we prefer WP:CONCISE titles, and that applies to non-American topics. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This seems obviously significant enough that WP:NOYEAR applies. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
We have
whereas, in my scan, I came across only four or five similarly composed titles for US topics, so kindly dispense with your unwarranted, unprovoked leap to US-bashing as your go-to rationale for requesting a title change. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the list. It illustrates my point perfectly. I have no idea what most of those events are, nor what year they occurred. And WP:NOYEAR says most events should have a year. At least in their examples. Scroll up.--Timeshifter (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that list debunks your point. You not knowing what year an event happened does not justify adding years back to all titles that don't have them. Your response reads to me as WP:IDHT so it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Zaathras made a good non-admin close and as an WP:INVOLVED admin, I welcome them to reinstate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
On whose end is the "Failure or refusal to "get the point" "?
The guideline actually says I am correct: WP:NCWWW. At least concerning most items in the above list. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
You're disregarding all of the examples at WP:NOYEAR and down, but okay then. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I think given the OP's insistence to expire on this the mounded protrusion, we may as well let them, a reinstatement by little old me won't stick. As for the topic, J6 is near-universally recognized for what it is. Adding a year would not be helpful. Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my request. Far be it from me to try to stop American systemic bias on English Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I am dying to know how a list that shows that year-less titling bears no correlation to US topics justifies your turning this title into an opportunity for US-bashing. Largoplazo (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Since you asked. Your list is from countries around the world. Unless you live in that country many people have little or no idea what that article concerning that country is about. At least not from the way-too-short titles. Wikipedia is not paper. WP:NOTPAPER. We can afford a few more words in article titles. This phobia against having a few more words in article titles (when they serve a purpose) is just silly. But who am I to fight the herd instinct here. It is funny that after all the wikilawyering, I found the better guideline: WP:NCWWW.
And a few years from now "January 6" will be even more meaningless to many people outside the US. The most ridiculous titles in your list are the ones with month + day + "Incident". --Timeshifter (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know why you're bothering to respond to me at all if you're only going to address points I didn't make while ignoring the point I did make. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
From WP:NCWWW: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions
In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors:
  • When the incident happened.
  • Where the incident happened.
  • What happened.

For their examples they add years. You added countries to your list. As years go by more people outside the US will not know of the US Capitol attack. So we have what and where it is in the title. A year in the title would help others outside (and even inside the US for kids) remember it better, and in context of what else they remember happened that year in the world, and in the US. Why not add the year now? But as I said I have withdrawn my request for this article title. But your list shows a great need. I will probably be posting it on the relevant guideline talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget to keep reading the page, past where it says Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I already pointed out that the guideline did not require the year for all articles. I am going to propose that for all the reasons listed above. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Not needed; there's only one January 6 Attack. Go look in the archive to see the consensus to exclude the year. Feoffer (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the Glorious October Revolution! (Quick...what year was that, again?) Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. That thing that happened in November! Dumuzid (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The first words in this article are "On January 6, 2021..."; I don't know why the year needs to be in the article title when anyone who doesn't know what year it took place just has to read the first few words of the article to find out. Indeed, I'm not sure what even hypothetical benefit putting a year in the article's title would give to any reader: if the year is included in the title, then someone who doesn't know what year it took place in definitionally can't go directly to the article. If anything, including the year would make it less accessible to someone who doesn't know what year it took place in. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. You don't need to know the year to find the article. You need to be able to find "January 6 attack" when you see a reference to it somewhere. Additional information is in the article. Whether somebody knows in advance that the attack happened in 2021 doesn't need to be dealt with in the title any more than the nature of the attack has to be. The title doesn't need to be January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by people who were convinced that the 2021 election had been stolen. Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that OP's question has been responded to by *nine* unique editors (sometimes more than once) all of whom are in agreement that OP's proposition is not gonna fly, It is obvious that WP:CONSENSUS is now more than apparent, and that WP:SATISFY applies in spades. Further replies to this thread seems like a waste of everyone's time. If an uninvolved editor would like to {{atop}} or {{hat}} it, you'll probably get a big round of applause. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2024 (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.

Ashli Babbitt killing subheader

The subheader for the killing of Ashli Babbitt, "QAnon follower killed by police while attempting to breach Speaker's Lobby," seems very anti-NPOV. Wouldn't something less derisive/controversial, like replacing "QAnon follower" with "Rioter" be more appropriate? Loltardo (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not "derisive", her ties to QAnon are routinely discussed in RSes as what led her to the Capitol. Feoffer (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like an assumption based on tenuous evidence. What led her to the capital was Donald Trump and the election, not QAnon. I agree it should be changed to rioter. Sounds too conspiracy/tin-foil hatty to call her some "QAnon follower". MutedL (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Facts, not feelings. There is nothing incorrect in the text. Zaathras (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Responding to the posts above... We have to rely on what the reliable sources characterize Babbitt as. Was she described as a QAnon follower? Yes. Was she also described as a "rioter"? or as a member of a "mob" of people? Yes. In the RS surrounding the time of the event it seems to me that she & the people in that group were mostly described as "rioters", "a mob" and "members of a mob". Babbitt's political beliefs & her internet history seem to have not appeared until later, when journalists went over her Twitter history, when her family members were interviewed. I don't think choosing to use any of the following - "QAnon follower" or "Rioter" or maybe even "Stop the Steal participant" - isn't necessarily incorrect, it's a matter of editorial consensus and relying on what the RSs say and if editorial consensus is relying on the news dated on that actual day, in that actual month or if the editorial consensus relies on the research & writing that came much later. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it's simply too detailed of a subheader, regardless of whether it's an accurate way to describe her personal beliefs or motivations. "Rioter" or "Participant" is a much more concise description. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_21&oldid=1210922342"