User talk:Ar85ar
"Insurrectionist" was used multiple times in the article
[edit]...but after a while the word was purged by opponents of the proposal to move to "insurrection". The reason rioter is used almost exclusively is because the language in the article was unified after the fact. The title (and the related terminology implied by it) propagates within articles and (re)defines their scope, solidifying over time. Appealing to content to derive what the title should be after that point in time (when the article isn't very new anymore) is an example of WP:CIRCULAR. The existing title influences content, which in turn reinforces the title - but that feedback loop is completely detached from Wikipedia naming conventions. To discover the best title, external sources need to be relied on, not Wikipedia itself. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Alalch Emis: I'm not making the circular argument that the article says 'rioter' so the title should be 'riot', my point is that the title and the terms within the article need to be considered together. One consideration is that referring to individual participants as 'insurrectionists' is harder to justify than referring to the event as an 'insurrection', since 'insurrectionist' attributes a specific intent, whereas I think 'rioters' can be applied generally to the people who were part of the mob that overran police and entered the building, because it only requires participation in a particular event. The change creates an additional consistency and neutrality problem as each individual use of the term requires care. Obviously if sources use one term overwhelmingly there would be no debate, but the issue is that sources use both terms and so other considerations need to be made in deciding what is more appropriate. Ar85ar (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.