Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 22

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

Requested move 26 January 2024

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Common opinions in this discussion are that an insurrection (as "deliberately planned") is what took place, but also that it's a politically-charged term which could appear to convey bias. Reliable sources use the words 'insurrection,' 'attack,' 'siege,' and 'riot' without clear preference, so our current title appears to be adequate and there does not appear to be a compelling argument for changing it at this time. Brian Kendig (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

January 6 United States Capitol attack → January 6 insurrection – The events of January 6 are commonly referred to as an “insurrection”. When people talk about January 6, they are very likely to call it an “insurrection”. Most media and news outlets refer to it as “the insurrection”. I am not sure about the exact title I have proposed, but the title should at least include “insurrection”. MountainDew20 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Most media and news outlets refer to it as "the insurrection": But do they? Which ones? Do Fox News, OAN, and Breitbart call it that? Or only media within a particular range of political leanings? I think of the event as an insurrection, so I'm not basing my lack of support on my own convictions. But I don't know that it's primarily or properly called that, or whether we should repeat media that do call it that without a neutral, formal finding that it was one. Have any of the many people who've been convicted for their role in the event thus far been convicted of insurrection? Largoplazo (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Sedition is the more serious charge -- insurrection is only 10 years, sedition is 20. Feoffer (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Whether this constitutes an insurrection depends on who you ask. If I were to ask you if it did, you would say yes, but this isn't about out personal convictions. Conservative outlets, from what I've seen, tend to call it a riot. Also, from what I've seen (and I'm not going to call anyone out specifically), the majority of people who lean left call it an insurrection, and the majority of people who lean right call it a riot. To answer your last question, nobody has been charged with or convicted of insurrection. The closest thing would probably be the conviction of Stewart Rhodes and other Oath Keepers on charges of seditious conspiracy. Unknown0124 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:RSP, Fox News, OAN, and Breitbart are not considered reliable sources for information about politics in the United States, so they don't count here. (This is not an expression of support for the proposed renaming.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Since when does anyone care about what OAN or Breitbart say? GMGtalk 02:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment We do have multiple seditious conspiracy convictions and at least two states have ruled it was an insurrection. Maybe it's time. Feoffer (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I see no reason for the change. The current title is accurate and uncontroversial. Riposte97 (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - The current title accurately represents overall what happened, which was an attack on the United States Capitol on January 6 [2021]. Insurrection is accurate, but in general, I see absolutely no need to be changing the title whatsoever, although if there is anyone who can think of good reasons, I would be happy to rethink that position. Lawrence 979 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as a bad descriptive title. Best title yet was the old one, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I would support a return to that title. Srnec (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I prefer the current one over the one you propose, as “January 6” or “January 6th” should be in the title in some form as that is the common name. MountainDew20 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
If we were to put “storming of the United States Capitol” in the title, then it should be “January 6 storming of the United States Capitol”. MountainDew20 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I would support a move to January 6 riot. The term "insurrection" may be interpreted as politically biased. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This is so weird. The month and day are completely incidental to the event. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Neutral at this moment. Although I think "insurrection" is a good descriptor, I am taking into account the above comments. Maybe "insurrection" is a biased POV. Also, the current title does represent the events described in the article well enough. However, I am open to seeing if "insurrection" is a good fit per this discussion. I think "riot" would not be as good a descriptor as what we have now. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
All choices involve bias. “Riot” is biased towards it being unplanned and spontaneous by those present. “Insurrection” is biased to it being deliberately planned. “Storming” is factual without motive. “Attack” implies intent without necessarily implying premeditation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The attack was planned, at least in part. See Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
“Insurrection” is ... deliberately planned. Good argument for using that terminology. Feoffer (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
If sources are conducive, this could help us eliminate some overlap and trim the respective articles down, with the "attack" referring to the insurrection, and the "protest" referring to the Attempts to overturn. DN (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It certainly looks like an insurrection. However, “was jan 6 insurrection?” is clearly a contested question, and Wikipedia should not lead the commentary by declaring, in the Voice of Wikipedia, that it was. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
“was jan 6 insurrection?” is clearly a contested question But is it? Looks like the only debate is about Trump's participation in the insurrection. 15+ people have been convicted not just of a spontaneous insurrection but of a planned full-blown seditious conspiracy to incite an insurrection. It's not 2020 anymore; All sources agree two militias came to interfere with the constitutional power transfer. I'm not fully convinced we should retitle the article yet (WP:COMMON?), but the literal factual thresholed is def met. Feoffer (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Reading the article again, it does not include the word “insurrection”, let alone well sourced. While the article doesn’t substantiate “insurrection”, the word has no place in the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, I have to agree that 2021 storming of the United States Capitol sums up the events chronicled in this article fairly well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree. The storming of the capital is the event. The year is highly relevant. Astronomical alignments at the time are not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Support A previous user suggested that the title should not be changed to insurrection because "Fox News, OAN, and Breitbart [do not] call it that," therefore there was not a consensus among the media. I would like to point out that according to Wikipedia's own Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, OAN is considered a depreciated source and that editors "noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability." Breitbart is also on the spam blacklist and depreciated for publishing "a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact." Fox News for politics and science is listed as "generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards." So yes, I support calling it an insurrection, because sources that are actually reliable call it that. BootsED (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The fact that I picked those prominent conservative news sources in the United States doesn't mean that there aren't others that aren't considered unreliable. My point is not dismantled by disqualifying those specific three. The point is that "insurrection" is a matter of opinion; it's unlikely that most Trump-supporting or ultra-conservative news sources are calling it that; and, therefore, the claim that Most media and news outlets refer to it as "the insurrection" is not likely valid. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
That's really irrelevant. What matters is what most media and news sources that are considered reliable call it. "Ultra-conservative" and "ultra-liberal" sources have an extremely low correlation with reliability. I would trust more neutral sources like Associated Press and BBC, more than MSNBC and Fox. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Please see my comment below. YoPienso (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yopienso: You left several comments below. I don't know which you are referring to, unless it's the one about BBC. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
So I did. It's this one. YoPienso (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Support I checked three fact-checking sites with the question. Politifact.com argues that it was an insurrection. Neither FactCheck.org nor Snopes.com directly addressed this question as far as I can see, although they did refer to it as an insurrection in other checks. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I sent a request to Snopes to address the question. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Many experts and historians seem to lean this way, however a complete scholarly consensus will probably take more time since many seem to be waiting on the verdict, per the recent talk page discussion I started earlier, above. DN (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose by SmokeyJoe's rationale. — Goszei (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. Such a move would suggest that the events of January 6 encompass the whole of the insurrection, when in fact it began well in advance of the election, whenever the decision was made that a loss in the election would be met with a claim that it was rigged and an effort to overturn it. BD2412 T 16:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose but not ferociously so. I agree with others who have noted that we may have clear call to use the term insurrection in the future as historians fully come to a very clear consensus that it is the correct term and/or the legal case against Trump is convicted. For now it is worth noting, for example, that Trump's second impeachment did not yield a conviction (albeit because it required a supermajority rather than a mere majority. Secondly, insurrection implies a substantial amount of intent, but there was many historically significant aspects of this that didn't quite fit under that sam intent. Several involved were there for everything from peaceful protest to promoting violence and chaos for the sake of violence and chaos (as opposed to a direct plan for insurrection). The fact that there was an attack of the US Capitol seems sufficient at this point in history rather than narrowing the scope of the title to indicate why that attack was occurring (which is addressed in more detail in the article). I suspect history will eventually come to the conclusion that "insurrection" is the correct wording; I just don't think we are at a broad consensus on that point yet. Aranae (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per rationale of SmokeyJoe, BD2412, and Aranae. Current title is compliant with WP:AT, and I see no compelling reason to change it at this time. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Very recently, The Guardian posted an article in regard to Trump v. Anderson, which reports: "Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office." DN (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps, in lieu of a full title change, we could prominently mention the scholars and the court rulings that conclude it was an insurrection in lead, without necessarily getting into the disqualification of any individual candidate until later? Some middle ground short of a full wikivoiced titled change? Feoffer (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    The phrasing is misleading. The scholars made two points. (1) The presidency is an office of the United States and therefore the prohibition against people having engaged in insurrection applies. (2) The amendment is in force without requiring additional legislation by Congress.
    The scholars were replying to arguments that Trump's lawyers had presented. I imagine their view would have broad support because these arguments appear extremely weak.
    However, the brief does not address whether an insurrection occurred. TFD (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    It may seem misleading in your view, except it repeatedly refers to future insurrection(ists)...If you wish to conclude they are talking about some event other than January 6th, or some type of crime other than insurrection, I simply and respectfully disagree.
    • Page 18. "Contrary to many laws that targeted former Confederates in southern states, Section 3 enshrined disqualification in the Constitution with generic language that does not reference the rebellion or former rebels. Unlike statutes, as part of the Constitution, Section 3 endures indefinitely, free of tampering by future Congresses. Republican Senator Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said during debates over the 14 th Amendment, “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood.”17 (emphases added)" (emphases not mine)
    • Page 19. "They pardoned persons previously disqualified under Section 3 but did not vitiate this provision of the Constitution by exempting future insurrectionists or rebels from its coverage.
    • Page 20. "Our study of the records of Congress demonstrates that debates centered on amnesty for those involved in the Southern Rebellion, not on amnesty for future insurrectionists.
    • Page 26. "Justice Chase recognized that “The amendment applies to all the states of the Union, to all offices under the United States or under any state, and to all persons in the category of prohibition, and for all time present and future.”32 (emphasis added)" (emphases not mine)
    • Conclusion. "For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should take cognizance that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment covers the present, is forward-looking, and requires no additional acts of Congress for implementation
    DN (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    The linked brief is just one small piece of a larger puzzle; So far as I am aware, all sides in that case agree an insurrection did occur, they're just arguing over Trump's potential involvement and disqualification, a very different question than the one we're faced with. Feoffer (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think we are on the same page or close to it in certain regards. There will be editors that refuse to acknowledge certain sources no matter the quality or how respected they are academically or otherwise. Just AGF, ignore and move on. Wikipedia is not a democracy for very good reasons. DN (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    Your comments are misleading. The historians do not argue that Trump committed insurrection, merely that if he did he would be excluded from the office of the presidency. Most experts would agree with them. But if I said if you committed insurrection, you could not become president, it would not mean I was accusing you of insurrection. TFD (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    Frankly, you have no sources to back up your statements, and it is a waste of time engaging with you on this subject. Good luck with all the original research. DN (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose We would need to show that there is a legal and academic consensus for this. IMHO that is unlikely since the term is poorly defined. Essentially it is legislation that allows the president to suspend constitutional rights when civil order has broken down. TFD (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    TFD, that's clearly not the standard Wikipedia uses for page titles. See [1] and WP:COMMONNAME. And "insurrection" has a plain English meaning that dates back far longer than you seem to suggest. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    Insurrection is not the commonly used name except among a tiny group of highly partisan supporters of the Democratic establishment.
    The term insurrection as you know was not a concept in common law but was first introduced into the American colonies as a method of controlling slave revolts. Insurrection acts allowed colonial governors to suspend habeas corpus and other civil rights, use the military against the population and suspend local legislatures. Since the acts left it to the discretion of the governors to determine whether there was an insurrection, there was no need to define it. In fact, in at least one case, the law said that the fact the governor had determined an insurrection was underway was conclusive proof of insurrection.
    In the United States, lawyers look to definitions sections in legislation, precedents, or common law definitions written by such writers as Coke, Blackstone, Story or Dicey. But there's nothing there. Bear in mind that legal definitions do not necessarily reflect current usage. For example laws on bastards are about children of unwed mothers, not nasty people. TFD (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moving to "insurrection" would introduce bias. Here's what I found in response to Anachronist's query about what the Associated Press and the BBC call it:
  • Illinois just weighed in; RSes disagree about whether Trump participated or will be disqualified, but RSes seem to agree an insurrection did occur. Feoffer (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    Don't you think it's rather hyperbolic to say "Illinois just weighed in" when all that happened was that a hearing officer in Illinois gave a nonbinding opinion that he himself thinks has no authority?
    To which other RSes do you refer? YoPienso (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    Don't you think it's rather hyperbolic to say "Illinois just weighed in" No, because we're not talking about Trump's role or disqualification, we're talking about whether an insurrection existed at all. I don't there are any RSes that deny an insurrection occurred -- many juries have found defendants guilty, people have sentenced to decades in prison for seditious conspiracy. Feoffer (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    "Illinois just weighed in" means the people and government of Illinois have called it an insurrection. They haven't. One official did, in a non-binding opinion. For my part, I think your statement is considerably exaggerated. Please provide links to RSes that, in their own voices, call Jan. 6 an insurrection. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    I've decided to list some RSes that do not call it an insurrection. All of these were published this month.
  • The AP used "Capitol riot" in a headline, the word "stormed" in a caption and the lead, and further down called Marc Bru (the subject of the article) a "rioter." "Insurrection" is used 3 times, always about a more violent event Bru hoped to execute but did not.
  • In their own article about Bru, CBS News wrote virtually the same thing as the AP.
  • The Guardian's article was also similar, with the notable exception of a caption: Insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump breach the Capitol in Washington, 6 January 2021.
  • NBC News used exclusively "riot" and "breach" (including declensions.)
  • The US Attorney's Office used only "breach" and "riot" (with declensions); "insurrection" is used only for the event Bru planned in Portland but did not carry out.
  • Now, here are 2 sources that do use "insurrection" (along with "breach" and "riot"): the left-leaning My Bellingham Now that's so minor it's not mentioned in Wikipedia, even in the Bellingham, WA, article, and the weekly Atlanta Black Star. YoPienso (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced we should change the title to "insurrection", but the existence of a "riot" and an "attack" do nothing to disprove the existence of an "insurrection". Feoffer (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    There's no reason to try to prove or disprove the existence of an insurrection. We're talking about the title of this article. Per WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:NPOVNAME, we use a title that is as neutral as possible while at the same is what the majority of readers expect. We go by what most RSs use. That's why I took the time to search out the most common usages in the MSM.* Of course parties to a lawsuit and extremists will use more dramatic terms. I think it would be wrong to change the title to "January 6 . . . insurrection."
    *(Which don't seem to be "attack," but I'm not suggesting renaming it "riot." I wouldn't mind if it were restored to "Storming. . .") YoPienso (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    A definition of a word and it's abilities to define, is enlightenment. Only truth is provided by a word. True testimony can only be accurate if it can be defined by all of mankind. Glory is grace and truth. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    Except very few if any reliable sources refer to it as an insurrection. The term almost only occurs in articles by Democrats disparaging Republicans. TFD (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    Encyclopedia Britannica DN (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SmokeyJoe. The current title "January 6 United States Capitol attack" is acceptable, in common use in the MSM (e.g. [2], [3], [4] for some random examples), and better reflects WP:NPOV. The proposed titled is not acceptable due to NPOV issues. Specifically, the term "insurrection" is far more likely to be used for these events in the context of left-leaning opinion articles and partisan positioning regarding a current political/legal controversy due to its legal implications, and frankly it is not acceptable for Wikipedia to take up partisan framing like this. Also, I think trying to cite some recent state court decision or or legal briefs to support this name change question is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. GretLomborg (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    Thumbs up icon Exactly! YoPienso (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    That's what I thought. Unknown0124 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    Do you consider William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, of the Federalist Society "left-leaning"? MSM is usually reliable but there are mixed opinions. Some reports say insurrection while others do not. This is why we turn to academics and authorities on the subject. "Journalists" aren't required to be experts or scholars in political science or history. See NYT Aug 2023.
    • Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office...The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.
    • Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office.
    • He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
    Here is a non pay-wall article from The Daily Pennsylvanian
    Cheers. DN (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    We're supposed to rely more heavily on secondary, not primary, sources. See WP:PST.
    Yay for Baude and Paulsen! I appreciate their scholarly opinions about Trump being ineligible for the presidency. But as Feoffer has repeatedly pointed out, that's not the point of this discussion. The question we're examining is whether the most common mainstream term for the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is insurrection. Later, it may be, but I don't see a preponderance of sources calling it that right now.
    (We could also cite the more recent opinions of GOP judges Luttig, Lamberth, and Erickson. It's the MAGAs and the people in Congress who want to be reelected that are refusing to call a spade a spade.) YoPienso (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    This misses my original point that we have conflicting articles from secondary sources, which is why we need to also rely on tertiary sources like Encyclopedia Britanica which says..."Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état."...As well as experts and scholars like Baude and Paulsen.
    An obvious issue here is some want to discard "certain" secondary source articles that call it an insurrection, like WaPo or APNews or the The Atlantic because they are "left-leaning" or for whatever reason...But it's not because there aren't any.
    Cheers. DN (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    '"We could also cite the more recent opinions of GOP judges Luttig, Lamberth, and Erickson. It's the MAGAs and the people in Congress who want to be reelected that are refusing to call a spade a spade.)"
    Agreed, we absolutely should.
    Cheers. DN (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed we need some tertiary sources. It's normal and logical that secondary sources disagree.
    I'm not aware of anyone on this thread wanting to "discard 'certain' secondary source articles." GretLomborg made the valid point that left-leaning sources tend to use the word "insurrection" more than centrist and right-leaning sources. Certainly the MAGA voice doesn't call Jan. 6 an insurrection!
    • The WaPo article you linked to is comprehensive and strongly opposed to Trump's behavior, beginning with "President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020. . ." Its large, bold title is THE ATTACK. It uses "attack" as a singular noun naming the Jan. 6 violence 27 times. It uses "riot" as a singular noun naming the Jan. 6 violence 5 times. Just below the headline, before the article itself begins, is the phrase, "The Jan. 6 siege." In all, the article uses "siege" and "insurrection" about 20 times each.
    • The AP article isn't really pertinent to this one since it's about the FBI's alleged rule-breaking. The headline calls Jan. 6 a riot. A caption and the lead sentence call it an insurrection. Tally: riot, 1; insurrection, 2; attack, 0; siege, 0.
    • I would need a subscription to read the article from The Atlantic. It's title is "The January 6 Attack Is Not Over," and the lead sentence reads, "On the second anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, . ."
    My conclusion is that the sources you provided confirm we should keep the present title, at least for now.
    I think I've used enough of my time and Wikipedia's bandwith on this. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    I see your point, I would say though, that the lack of mention of insurrection in the lead seems like an NPOV violation. DN (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    You should read WP:HEADLINES DN (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    The WaPo citation reads "The consequences of that day are still coming into focus, but what is already clear is that the insurrection was not a spontaneous act nor an isolated event."
    The Atlantic states in the very first paragraph (so you don't need a subsctiption) "On the second anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, Joe Biden decorated Americans for courage during the unrest, while on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives remained in limbo as many of the same people who tried to overturn the 2020 election bickered over electing a speaker." DN (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    Because I'm keenly aware of WP:HEADLINES, I identified them in my tallies. (Also captions and sentences just below the title to distinguish them from what the journalists themselves wrote.)
    If you read my comment in its entirety, you'll know that WaPo article used the word insurrection about 20 times. It references the Jan. 6 event about 71 times, variously using attack, riot, siege, and insurrection. (I could have made slight miscounts; it was a tedious job.) So "insurrection" was used 20/71 times, or 28% of the time in that particular article/journalistic project.
    It doesn't help to know The Atlantic used the word once. We have to see which words are used most commonly. YoPienso (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Do you consider William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, of the Federalist Society "left-leaning"?. You're misreading my comment. The language I used was "far more likely," not something so unreasonably black and white that a counter example would be significant. My point stands that using the term "insurrection" in this case is typically partisan positioning regarding a current political/legal controversy due to its legal implications. Though it's probably somewhat more correct to say it's political positioning--still biased but usually but not exactly mapping to party or broad ideological grouping. In any case "insurrection" fails NPOV at this point, and "attack" is objectively far, far better on the NPOV front. Wikpedia should not engage in this dispute by adopting the term insurrection at this time. We can re-evaluate in a decade, when the active controversy is over and the events have receded into actual history. GretLomborg (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
We can re-evaluate in a decade Why not a century? Nah, we'll keep re-evaluating on an ongoing basis, but I agree we shouldn't change the title Feoffer (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
"My point stands that using the term "insurrection" in this case is typically partisan positioning regarding a current political/legal controversy due to its legal implications.
Conversely, not calling it insurrection, as many experts on both sides of the political spectrum seem to do, is also partisan, except it finds a loophole in the policy of COMMONNAME.
From an academic standpoint (storm, siege, riot etc...) is the wrong choice since it ignores expertise, and it still fails NPOV WP:FALSEBALANCE. DN (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I would clarify that while "attack" isn't necessarily incorrect, it does seem to ignore a growing consensus among legal, political, and historical scholars. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, you are presenting opinion pieces and commentaries as evidence when as you know they are not reliable sources. Also, I find it ironic that you would quote the opinions of members of the Federalist Society when you know that their views are fairly fringe. Heaven help American democracy when members of the Federalist Society get to decide what is an insurrection. TFD (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Your comments leaves out the point of reference, and seems simply antagonistic in nature. As a longtime editor, this should be beneath you. DN (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article seems to be most focused on the actual physical event of the storming of the Capitol, with the attacks, protests, etc. that went along with it. "Attack" is a clearer, unambiguous term. "Insurrection" opens questions: was the insurrection successful, was anything overthrown? Meanwhile, "attack" specifically defines it as referring to one event, without the weight and implications of "insurrection." Attack is also already a suitable word for the title; reliable sources uses it to describe this event as much, if not more so, than insurrection. Whether you agree or not, calling the event an insurrection has unfortunately become a political topic of its own, and at this moment is also undecided by the courts, from a legal standpoint. Kafoxe (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    I totally agree with you.
    The insurrection started long before Jan. 6. YoPienso (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    That is a bold statement that would require a source. DN (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    The proposition is abundantly well sourced in the background section of this article, particularly January 6 United States Capitol attack#Seditious conspiracy by Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Plans to initiate a civil war against the U.S. were entered into and moved forward almost immediately after the election. BD2412 T 23:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    Except the insurrection they planned was never carried out. Their plan was for armed patriots to come to the defense of U.S. soldiers fighting antifa after martial law had been declared. They would then be invited to help form a military junta. TFD (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I ivoted neutral in the above. Since someone replied, I'll just leave it there.
After reviewing the ivotes, related commentary and some of the RS, I think using 'insurrection' at this point is nebulous wording. Who exactly determines the set of delineated actions that amount to an insurrection? There is no such single authority. Yes, a few of the courts and state governments define Trump's actions as insurrection, along with some media commentators.
But I think we need this to be a slam dunk as determined by the courts before we use 'insurrection' in the title. If for example, a significant majority of offenders are charged with and convicted of insurrection, then we can say that's what it is. If a plethora of courts weigh in and a consensus develops, then we can again say that's what it is. Otherwise, we are leading rather than following the RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If for example, a significant majority of offenders are charged with and convicted of insurrection "Insurrection" is definitely appropriate when discussing the actions of the 15 or so people convicted of seditious conspiracy, but I think that's as far as we can go right now. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the term belongs in the lead at the very least, as there are tertiary sources and authoritative figures on both sides of the aisle that agree with it. To leave it out seems more and more like an NPOV violation. DN (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
And I agree with others who have commented here. From my point of view the insurrection started long before January 6th. But that is my opinion and not RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused by your definition of the term insurrection. DN (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess you're right. I always thought the planning and organizing were part of an insurrection, but numerous dictionaries and encyclopedias say an insurrection is the actual violence itself. Here's a link to good old Webster and another to the no-longer-venerable EB. This means, since Trump engaged in no physical violence, he's technically not an insurrectionist. (I'm saying many informed people--judges, even--use the term like I always have.) Trump did conspire to insurrection, though. YoPienso (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (Came back to strike off-topic musings.) YoPienso (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@Yopienso I simply requested a source, that doesn't mean I found your claim implausible, just bold. Apologies if you find my responses uncalled for. DN (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, no problem at all. I admire and try to use precise language. It's inappropriate for me to discuss on this page whether Trump's an insurrectionist, but after more thought, by the strictest definition, I've concluded he didn't even conspire to insurrection; his behavior (words and demeanor) incited others to. He conspired to pull off a self-coup. And now I need to drop this like a hot potato. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


  • Comment I myself have tried to play Devil's Advocate on this topic, but we've got like 12 opposes. If someone UNINVOLVED wants to call it, it's probably time. Feoffer (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not overly concerned with the result, I think the discussion itself is healthy and shows where the community's mind is on the topic. When Trump's trial is over I think that would be a good time to revisit the issue, whether he is convicted or not, I think consensus will be stronger one way or the other. DN (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Feoffer I agree, and it would be best if it was an uninvolved editor. DN (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Feoffer I just checked the time on this, it might be a bit early? only a week or so? An early close might be cause for a do-over, best to avoid those. DN (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Support as the requirements for an insurrection are clearly met, as described in the contents of this article and because various reliable sources (as per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources) refer to this as an insurrection. CrazyPredictor (talk) 01:32, 2 February 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.

Word Count

The word count is now at about 20,000 Corndogst (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

yes, and? Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven Violates WP:SIZERULE, and few readers will find comfortable to read. rootsmusic (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
SizeRule is a guideline, not policy, so speaking in terms of "violating" is not proper. Further, the actual word count is 14,486. Citations, menus, etc... are not counted. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The scope of the topic justifies the added reading material. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The size is absolutely justified given the topic. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Ahh I see, it might help if you were clear what you wanted. What do you suggest we can remove? Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
As others have noted, the actual length of prose is at the upper end of WP:SIZERULE but not over 15k. I think there's probably opportunities for additional sub-articles to help with WP:SUMMARY to keep this article from getting too much bigger. In particular, the "Analysis" and "Historians' perspectives" sections probably will warrant break-out articles eventually. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree it is too long and could be condensed without losing much information.
Consider the following text: "A survey by the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston taken January 12–20 showed that nearly a third (32%) of Texas Republicans supported the attack, although overall 83% of all Texans who expressed an opinion were opposed to it."
While Republican reaction to the attack is relevant, It doesn't have to be broken down to the state level.
Articles created about current events tend to expand as new information is reported. At some point though they have to be pared down.
There is likely to be a lot more information reported in the press that will need to be added. Courts continue to look at Trump's alleged involvement, convicted persons are going through appeals and clemency for the participants will no doubt be reported if as is likely Trump returns to the presidency next year. TFD (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

More on the Confederate Flag

The article says this was the first time the confederate flag was flown in the Capital. However in 2015 during a debate about the use of the flag, an (incorrect) version of it was on display the House. While I guess we could get in semantics about it not being the real one, I think it warrants discussion about the accuracy of the claim. House Dems display incorrect Confederate flag | The Hill Anyway thoughts? 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

What has this to do with events 4 years later? Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This page says January 6 was the first time the flag was flown in the capital. However after seeing the article linked I wanted to know what others think about this being accurate.Also sorry if my original post was not clear. I revised it to explain why I brought this up.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That isn't a flag. DN (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
true, but I can see some people saying that’s semantics so I want to see what others think. At the moment seeing this at least makes me wonder if the statement about it being the first time flown in the capital should be revised or removed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm open to claims that some congressman or protester peacefully might have entered the capitol with a flag sometime in the 1950-70s, but the exhibit on the House floor isn't relevant. Imagine how many swastikas or sickles-and-hammers have been shown as exhibits. Feoffer (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Im think you need to read wp:v if no link is made, we can't say there is a link. If RS say X we have to say X even if our wp:or says Y. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
We have reliable sources saying it was the first time, but another reliable source appears to contradict that information. My only point is to ask what people think. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
No we have a reliable source saying it and your wp:or saying otherwise. It is not a flag, it is not flying and it is not being carried (and (as the source says) it's not even a Confederate flag). Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The CNN article linked also mentions other times it has been displayed. My whole point is to hear what people think and try to avoid people arguing semantics. For example flying the flag usually refers to hanging on polls so one could argue that since it was only carried it was not “flown”. I never argued that it be removed only that it seemed possible there was doubt to the claim and wished to hear from others. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay from the CNN article: “While versions of the Confederate flag have appeared in legitimate exhibits in the country’s legislative headquarters, the closest any rebel carrying a Confederate flag ever came to the Capitol was about 6 miles, during the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11 and 12, 1864.” Maybe it should be revised to being the first unlawful display of the flag in the capital? Thoughts?

Does the source say unlawful or "rebel carrying a Confederate flag"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
“Rebel”, but I can see people getting into a back and forth about using the term rebel so unlawful could be the neutral compromise choice. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
LIke with "FIRST TIME"? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes I could see that happening so I think discussing and working on a consensus would be prudent. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What is a "method"?

In the infobox, some "methods" are listed that were employed in the January 6 attack. It is a tragic property of this infobox design that it's never really clear what's supposed to be included here due to methods and goals often times being one and the same, but this specific instance also suffers from the infobox seemingly not being aware of the article's scope.

What is the article is about? The January 6 US Capitol attack. It is not about the broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Here is a list of entries that I take issue with then:

  1. "Far-right terrorism". What exactly is this supposed to denote? It could be argued that the January 6 attack was an act of terrorism, yes. But to then say that it employed terrorism in order to accomplish terrorism is absurd. Acts of terrorism employ violence. That is what should be listed, and it already is. "Terrorism" is vague and question-begging in this context.
  2. "Political subversion: propaganda (big lie)". Propaganda is hardly a method for attacking a building. The most that could be argued is that propaganda was used in order to recruit the people who participated. But this is far too removed, and more fitting of the broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
  3. "Conspiracy". So what if the attack was planned? This isn't a method for the attack, but for organising the attack. We don't list "conspiracy" as a method for every single mass movement just because some of the participants conspired, and we shouldn't.
  4. "Incitement of insurrection". Beyond having more to do with the events preceding the attack than the attack itself, this is also uncited.
  5. "Attacking a legislature". This is obvious. The infobox already calls it an "attack", and it was directed against the legislature. The reader should not have it spelled out for them that and those engaging in an attack on a legislature are "attacking a legislature".

Dieknon (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

POV

I think there are some problems with this article’s neutrality.

- It labels the riot as an insurrection despite the usage of that term being disputed.

- It’s labeled as terrorism which, whilst it is an accurate description, isn’t used in the case of other riots.

- Images showing the (justified and within protocol) use of tear-gas on the rioters were removed. LordOfWalruses (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  1. Trump was impeached on "incitement of insurrection". We do not label it an "insurrection" in wikivoice, but we use the terminology they used. A Washington Examiner op-ed from 2021 entered into evidence by House Republicans is not a neutral dispute of the term.
  2. The FBI has labeled this incident right-wing terrorism. If "terrorism" is an accurate description, then what's the problem? Other "riots" aren't relevant here.
  3. What images were removed? Got a diff? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    1. Ah, I see.
    2. Yeah I see your point and I think the usage of the term is fine. I just find it strange that “terrorism” isn’t used to describe other riots.
    3. Here’s the image that I believe was removed. File:Tear Gas outside United States Capitol 20210106.jpg LordOfWalruses (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Was that firced at them, or by them? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
To your first point, you should look at the sources. There is a plethora of past discussions on this talk page regarding whether it should be called an insurrection or not, and I will not re-hash those discussions here, because I also didn't support it being called an insurrection at first, but the majority of reliable sources call it an insurrection and as such we call it that too. To your second point, pages don't have to be consistent on Wikipedia, and inconsistency is not an argument to change one side or the other. If you have actual reasons to contest terrorism as a claim, feel free to present them (and reliable sources to substantiate them). But given you admit it is an accurate description, I don't think you do. If other riots have a plethora (or even majority) of reliable sources describing them as terrorism, please feel free to open discussions on their talkpages to include that descriptor on those pages.
To your point on images.. it's hard to decide what images are encyclopedically relevant. I would consider it acceptable to start a discussion on what part of prose you think that image directly enhances the understandability of, and why it is better than other images that are currently (or could be) in the article. I'll note that the section January 6 United States Capitol attack § Attack on the Capitol already has a large amount of media (images, graphics, and videos) that leads to, at least in my current resolution/size, only about 10 paragraphs total appearing in part/full to take the whole width of the page. This obviously isn't a rationale for not adding more in its own, but the section is media heavy right now - so the onus is on you to recommend (likely in its own section) why you think this one image should be added, where it should be added, and what if anything should be removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I was the one who removed the tear gas image from the Attack section, mostly because the section was too media heavy and causing collisions, but also because that particular image was just a hair anachronistic to time frame under discussion, being taken later in the day. But it's a fine image, and I took the liberty of adding the image back into the article in a later section that had no media, which I probably should have done in the first place. Thanks for the suggestion @LordOfWalruses. Feoffer (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
You’re welcome, and thanks for taking my suggestion. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"The insurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The insurrection 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/2024 June 29 § The insurrection until a consensus is reached. Hog Farm Talk 14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Did Pelosi get told by Trump to have more guards/police/etc.?

Did Pelosi get told by Trump to have more guards/police/etc.? Seems pretty notable if so. But I saw nothing in the article about it by searching for Pelosi. Misty MH (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a common falsehood that has circulated, which is why it's not in the article. See this fact check by the AP. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, he offered National Guard support for DC police but Nancy declined. Eegorr (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
That is a falsehood. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Or, no he did not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This fact-check by AP provides no evidence or fact that Trump did *not* order more security. It basically just states that the claim Trump did order more security is not true. I have no idea what it relies on. Am I miss reading this right? can someone help me out? Sonderidk 16 June 2024
According to testimony, he did not order troops. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
All this time he was being asked and begged by his own people in the White House, and calling from elsewhere, to call off the attackers and call in the National Guard. He refused to act and reveled in watching the violence. That's what sources tell us. I also remember while it was happening, cameras in the White House showed him standing in front of a big TV on a wall, watching the fighting, smiling, and fist-pumping as if he was at an UCF match. His biographers say he has no sense of humor and only shows real joy when domination others, hurting others, or watching them being hurt. He seemed to love seeing the violence he had called for, and he did it knowing that there were people in the crowd with weapons. He had been warned that some of his supporters in the crowd had weapons, but he still demanded the mags be turned off because "those people won't hurt me". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I can't find anything to confirm or deny it. Sounds like he said she said. I do have this where she takes responsibility.
https://cha.house.gov/2024/6/nancy-pelosi-contradicts-her-own-narrative-of-january-6-hbo-footage-shows
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13515171/amp/nancy-pelosi-national-guard-deployment-january-6-new-footage.html HoadRog (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Neither of those is a reliable source. The house.gov bit is from a Republican member of the House, not a full committee report, and the other piece is WP:DAILYMAIL. Pelosi did not have the authority to call up the National Guard, only the executive branch has that authority. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's your reliable source:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/09/chaos-anger-congressional-leaders-jan-6-evacuation-00162424
I don't care what your political bias is, this is about 45 minutes of previously unreleased footage of January sixth that was recently discovered. This article is boisterous so I don't see the issue of including documentation of the never before seen footage of the attack, especially since it documents high profile figures throughout the attack. HoadRog (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"MAGA tourist" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA tourist 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/2024 July 24 § MAGA tourist until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So. This article just underwent a page move.

I must have missed the discussion/RfC/whatever it was, wherever it took place. Can someone point me to it? Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What?

Was this written by the DNC, MSNBC? Who? Not up to standards of neutrality. Who reviews that? I wouldn't know where to start other than all over again. Venqax (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You could list it at the neutral point of view noticeboard. There's nothing wrong with making small improvements yourself, either—correcting a few sentences at a time, or adding inline cleanup tags such as {{POV statement}}. Remember to keep your edits constructive and factual, of course. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 18:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@Venqax: Where you start is by identifying specific portions of the article you believe are non-neutral. You not liking the facts of what happened on that day doesn't make it non-neutral. Wikipedia does not give fringe theories or conspiracies "equal weight" to the actual facts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Conservapedia is → thataway. I'm sure they'll have an article more to the liking of those who view actual neutrality as left-wing bias. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
this isn't conservapedia Nohorizonss (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeff'd
The fact you perceive to know exactly what true neutrality is already demonstrates that you don't. MutedL (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
What a farcical response. I could say "the fact that you perceive to know exactly what your true gender is already demonstrates you don't." You couldn't be bothered to read the policies on reliable sources and neutrality, eh? You didn't bother to look at the communities list of sources considered reliable and unreliabe before spouting off. "It's better stay silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". You just removed all doubt. As I said, the Conservapedia article on this subject may be more to your liking. Go there. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Nice strawman, but I'm not the one who was begging the question. QQ harder that people have a problem with the obvious left-wing slant of this trash article, I don't care. MutedL (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Deeper and deeper. Still haven't read any of the policies, have you? You still can't recognize a reliable source, can you? You still haven't pointed out anything specific that is a problem, either with a source or with the prose. This isn't a forum for complaints, it's for discussing article improvements. Are you going to suggest anything specific, or not? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I have read the policies actually, enough to know that this article includes The Daily Beast as a source, which according to wikipedia guidelines, is not reliable. How about that for something specific, numb-nuts? MutedL (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Finally, something specific. Had you actually read WP:DAILYBEAST, you'd see that there is no consensus about the reliability about Daily Beast. All would agree it's an opinionated source, but that doesn't equate to partisan. They do tabloid journalism that attacks both the left and the right.
So let's have a look.
  • The first citation (#35 at this time) is apparently the only one we have reporting on the number of protesters (five) who were hospitalized, and it's cited only in the infobox. That could be removed, but there is no reason to doubt that some were hospitalized. However, I think this should be removed because it's WP:Original research, which isn't allowed. The article actually says "At least six people were hospitalized on Wednesday, including one law enforcement officer. Three others died due to medical emergencies during the riot, police said." One could conclude that 5 of those 6 were protesters, but the source doesn't actually say that. We could remove it with no consequence.
  • The second citation to the Daily Beast (#106) is corroborated by multiple other sources: The Intercept, CNN, and Arizona Republic. Removing it would not weaken the statement that cites it.
  • The third citation to the Daily Beast (#144) is there only because the Daily Beast made news reporting a comment posted on "The Donald" forum: "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." At the time the FBI was also viewing this and other forums, giving warnings about armed protests. The Washington Post and others also reported on it. This is established fact, documented in the article.
  • The fourth citation (#489) says that Rosanne Boyland, who was initially reported as being crushed to death under other rioters, actually died from an amphetamine overdose. For the purpose of this citation, the Daily Beast is as good as any other source. It's been corroborated by Fox and others too. Nothing unreliable about this citation.
What, specifically, would you change about these? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
No consensus for reliability indicates that it is not found to be reliable. Reliability is something that is shown to be proof positive, not simply being found reliable because they are not categorized as "unreliable". Secondly, Wikipedia very blatantly states that only in very special case circumstances could they be used as a reference and due to the extreme subject matter we're dealing with, they do not fit that criteria in regards to the genuinely unbiased nature we are looking for. What I suggest is to have all Daily Beast references and quotes excised in their entirety. If you have quotes from other sources, use those instead. It doesn't really matter whatever The Daily Beast posts as "established fact", if it's established, then you should easily be able to find it from a reliable source, and if not, then it is in fact NOT an established fact. That's how that works. MutedL (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
This is incorrect; there is no presumption of nonreliability. No consensus means no central consensus has been established, not that the source can never be used. We appear to have agreement on removal of the "number hospitalized" number and source. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you read the policy on neutrality. If this article reads like a CNN analysis, that is the standard of neutrality. If you disagree with the policy, then you need to get it changed on the policy pages, because editors are supposed to follow it on every page. TFD (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_22&oldid=1257823807"