Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Trimmed lead

So I've checked the edit summary by AnonQuixote, stating that my edits are somehow grammatically incorrect. As a background, I edited the lead: trimming it to make it un-repetitive and concise, as well as removing citations, as they've been covered in the article. And considering the short duration of the event, it does not warrant a large summary providing very detailed explanation on the riots. Knowing that I'll be stricken by edit conflicts later on, I'll just pour out thoughts on how the lead should be.

---

Paragraph 1: There doesn't need to be a bold of the article title here. It makes the lead vaguely longer. So I suggest changing "The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack" to "Riots occur at the United States Capitol". Thus, "Capitol" preceding "marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to the" must be delinked.

This paragraph is also inconsistent in whether to mention "United States" or "U.S.", suggest reaching a consensus on that too.

I suggest merging descriptions of the riots to the first paragraph. Currently it does: "Breaching police perimeters, rioters then occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol." However this is repeated in the second paragraph, and the third. The only statements, I think, that can be moved to the first paragraph from the second, third, and fourth para, is:

• "They assaulted Capitol Police officers and reporters, erected a gallows on the Capitol grounds, and attempted to locate lawmakers to take hostage and harm."
• statements about when the protesters left and continuation of vote count
• VP Pence's opposition on violence and affirmation on JB and KH
• lockdown
• death and injuries.

Others are trivial for the lead.

Paragraph 5 and 6: suggest merge. Suggest removing Mitch McConnell's statement on insurrection, as it's been summarized in the later statement: "The storming of the Capitol was variously described as treason, insurrection, sedition, domestic terrorism, assault, and an attempt by Trump to carry out a self-coup or coup d'état." Suggest extending "FBI" to "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)". Delink "insurrection" in the last sentence.

---

The images in the infobox are also too much, especially considering that nothing much happens at the Capitol other than dumbasses fighting with dumbasses. Two photos of regular protests and two photos of riots can suffice. GeraldWL 12:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't agree with removing the images. This was an event that was all over every TV channel for hours - this was a national event that was similar to 9/11 or the Las Vegas shootings. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Swordman97, except the fact that 9/11 occurred in multiple places and caused thousands to die, and the fact that the Vegas shoptings article has less infobox images? There should be less photos in the infobox to be able to represent the event, the others cpuld be saved in the body. As with RFC, I've removed it as this isn't really an "RFC". GeraldWL 01:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"except the fact that 9/11 occurred in multiple places and caused thousands to die" That doesn't matter. The importance of an event isn't defined by how many people die or how may places it occurs. Plus, the images that he wants don't really represent what the article really is - the important part of the article should be the people inside of the capitol and the violence going on- not a picture of some protesters outside. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Swordman97, that does not mean that this article has no choice but to have six crazy paragraphs with cluttered citations and overly-detailed timeline with 6 photos of which some can be moved to the body. Leads are summaries-- this is not. GeraldWL 05:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Coup navboxes?

Hello, I find it weird that there are coup navboxes on this article when there is no consensus this is a coup in any way. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Swordman97, you mean navboxes? The current infobox is on civil conflicts. GeraldWL 06:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• If you mean the navbox, see the list of sources at the top of talk. There's a lot of sources using the term (or, for the more pedantic ones, a self-coup, which would also fall under the infobox); sources refer to it in a variety of ways, but they generally have meanings at least analogous to 'coup' to the point where they're not contradicting it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"...the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington..."

While there have been other attacks and bombings of the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British Army during the War of 1812.

Given that there have been multiple attacks on the Capitol since 1814, including a shooting where five members of Congress were injured, what is the definition of "breach" being used here? It seems narrow, given that the same sentence acknowledges the other attacks on the Capitol. Other sources identify the 1954 shooting as a breach as well:

The Capitol was also breached in 1954 by Puerto Rican nationalists who fired on House members, wounding five.

Autonaut333 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s not a breach though; they just walked in SRD625 (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Lawmakers gave groups ‘reconnaissance’ tours of the Capitol one day before riots, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) says

I'm unsure how to include this information, any suggestions? Here are some references:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/13/mikie-sherrill-reconnaissance-capitol-attack/
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/lauren-bobert-qanon-capitol-riots-pelosi-b1786237.html
• https://thehill.com/homenews/house/533978-new-jersey-dem-says-members-of-congress-led-reconnaissance-tours-ahead-of
• https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/colorado-lauren-boebert-republican-resignation-response/73-192ec0ed-bca9-40e9-98d1-8b33dd864449 (reference not accessible in EU or UK due to GDPR)
• https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/12/nation/colorado-republican-tweeted-about-pelosis-location-during-capitol-siege-shes-now-facing-calls-resign/ (paywalled)
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/qanon-lauren-boebert-nancy-pelosi-capitol-riot-b1785663.html

John Cummings (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the edit Calmecac5 made on Mikie Sherrill is an appropriate way to include this information.[3] Unless people think it's too soon to add. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, my question is should it be added to this article about the event? What are the rules about this kind of well referenced eye witness statement? John Cummings (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fair to add. You just need to be cautious in how it's stated per NPOV. The word "reconnaissance" needs to be in quotes, the quote needs to be attributed to Sherrill, etc. Stick with the source, go no further than what RS says. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lawmakers give tours all the time for perfectly legitimate reasons, but the term ″reconnaissance″ was hers, not mine.Calmecac5 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: can you suggest a way to phrase the text and where it might go? John Cummings (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings, I think the text Calmecac5 used is solid, but where does it go? Under the "January 5 events" section? Or perhaps "Aftermath"? Or both? Maybe the bit about "reconnaissance" goes in "January 5 events" and the calls for investigation goes under "Aftermath". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, John Cummings, I'd put the "recon tour" allegation under the section called "Planning of the storming" after the paragraph on Ali Alexander. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings For a better undestanding. Tours were NOT perfectly legitimate! Public tours are prohibited since March of 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic! Visiors are not allowed. The tours were so unusual that they were reported to security on Jan. 5, ahead of the following day's violence.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/mikie-sherrill-capitol-hill-attack-458655

Sherrill, along with 30 other House Democrats, signed a letter demanding an "investigation" into the "suspicious" visitors that were allowed in the building on Jan. 5. The letter was addressed to Acting House Sergeant-at-Arms as well as the acting Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and the United States Capitol Police. All of these agencies have elements that have been implicated in the coup plot.

In the letter it is noted that the "visitors encountered by some of the Members of Congress on this letter appeared to be associated with the rally at the White House the following day," and that the group seemed "to have an unusually detailed knowledge of the layout of the Capitol Complex. The presence of these groups within the Capitol Complex was indeed suspicious." In a viral social media video, one woman with a bullhorn (#Bullhornlady) is seen and heard giving detailed instructions to rioters who had broken into the Capitol: “There’s also two doors in the other room, one in the rear and one in the right, when you go in, so you should probably coordinate together if you are going to take this building.”.

As part of the effort of the Democratic Party to cover-up the plans of their “Republican colleagues,” Sherril refused to comment to Politico as to the identity of the lawmakers involved or to describe the “suspicious” activity she witnessed. In a similar vein, Democratic representative Tim Ryan of Ohio also refused to publicly name Trump’s co-conspirators, telling a reporter that he’s aware of “a couple” of names of complicit congresspersons, but that he would wait to release them “to make sure we get verification.” Ryan said he had passed the names “to the authorities” Jan. 6, the night of the coup.

Jason Crow, Democratic Colorado representative, told the New York Times that he had requested an investigation by the Government Accountability Office into whether members of Congress played a role in inciting the insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol: “To the extent there were members of the House that were complicit, and I believe there were, we will pursue appropriate remedies including expulsion and a prohibitions from holding elective office for the rest of the their lives”.

The three Republican congressmen Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, and Mo Brooks were named in a December Periscope video by Ali Alexander. “We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Alexander said. The purpose of the mob was to “change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.” In a statement to the Washington Post, a spokesman for Biggs said that the congressman had never been in contact with Alexander or any other protesters and denied he helped organize the rally. This is not a credible statement. The newspaper Arizona Republic had previously reported that Biggs spoke at December 19 “Stop the Steal” rally that was hosted and promoted by Alexander, who even had a graphic made for the event, which was held at the Arizona state capitol. https://twitter.com/andreaheart19/status/1349181336397910017 In addition to Alexander, Congressman Andy Biggs is featured on the poster. The official Arizona Republican Twitter account also previously endorsed a tweet from Ali in which he claimed he would sacrifice himself in order to overthrow the constitution. --87.170.206.111 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. It seems there is a consensus for inclusion, but I do not see this content on the page. A few things: (a) this is highly significant. (b) this in not just Mikie Sherrill, but a letter signed by more than 30 lawmakers, (c) there were other people, not only her, who observed the "tours". This is under investigation. Hence it could be included to a section entitled "Investigation", but I do not see such section (!?). Actually, this is a part of a more broad subject of responsibility of the Republican Party for these events, which involves promoting false claims about the stolen election leading to the attack and other things (see these sources [4], [5], for example)... As about the personal responsibility by President, there is an excellent timeline, but probably for another page, Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

List of participants arrested

First, thank y'all guys for putting this together in real time. You have performed a valuable public service.

Secondly, I'd like to make a suggestion - there should be a page that lists all of the known participants of the storming that have been arrested and/or are wanted in connection with the riot. A page listing all the participants would be unnecessary, but a table showing all the major ones who have been positively identified, what crimes they have been arrested/ are wanted for and the status of their case would be helpful. This would help clear up the misinformation that they were antifa - most have expressed their opinions as Trumpists in no uncertain terms - as well as showing what the FBI and other agencies are doing to investigate and prosecute this incident.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Most all of the participants/arrestees are not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, nor would they pass WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME standards (among others)... also, there is no way we would know them all, unless some massive list of arrestees was published by a third party reliable source... as for the overall "what the FBI and other agencies are doing to investigate", again, we only know what has been published, I can almost guarantee there is a lot of "behind the scenes" action they do not want the public to know about... and the sources already listed have done a good job of clearing up the antifa rumors... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

See also Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Notable arrests and charges. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Here ist a list Dignus est intrare (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned this list violates wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

According to mainstream news sources, at least two of the people arrested are left wing activists

The intro refers to "a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump." Reliable sources have reported that at least two of the people who were arrested were left wing activists. And we have no idea how many more of those arrested were left wing. The first citation that I'm putting here is from Associated Press. The second citation is from KTVX, the ABC television affiliate in Salt Lake City, Utah.

[6] NYC man arrested on Capitol riot charges freed on $100K bond

January 12, 2021

NEW YORK (AP) — The son of a New York City judge who was arrested by the FBI on charges that he was among the protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol was ordered Tuesday by a different judge to stay away from Washington. Aaron Mostofsky, 34, was picked up at his brother’s home in Brooklyn on Tuesday morning, about a week after he was seen inside the Capitol wearing a fur costume and a police vest he is accused of stealing during the mayhem. The charges include a felony count of theft of government property — a bulletproof police vest worth $1,905 and a riot shield valued at $265. Records show Aaron Mostofsky is a registered Democrat.

[7] Utah activist who provided video of deadly D.C. riot to investigators arrested

January 14, 2021

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) – A Utah activist is facing charges for his alleged involvement in the deadly U.S. Capitol protest last week. The Tooele County Sheriff’s Office tells ABC4’s Jason Nguyen that John Sullivan has been booked into their custody under a U.S. Marshall’s warrant. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Sullivan has been charged with entering a restricted building or grounds without authority; civil disorders; and violent entry or disorderly conduct The criminal complaint filed against Sullivan lists him as the “leader of an organization called Insurgence USA through which he organizes protests.” He was arrested in June in connection to riots in Provo and charged with 3rd-degree felony riot and criminal mischief. In July, officials say Sullivan was charged with rioting and criminal mischief for the Provo riots. Federal investigators say they obtained a video posted on YouTube of Sullivan allegedly seen in the crowd, telling those around him over a microphone “we got to rip Trump out of office” and “we ain’t waiting until the next election.” He was also seen wearing a ballistic vest and a gas mask. S34V67hvE34F1 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Being a "registered democrat" does not make someone a left wing activist. See [8] for the debunking of the other one. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not at all unusual for very conservative ultra-Orthodox New York Jews like Mostofsky to register as Democrats. By no means does that make them "left wing". As for Sullivan, the other fellow, he is the only person arrested so far who has some sort of vague left wing credentials, though it is worth noting that he leads an one man extremist anarchist "group" that he created last summer. He should be assessed with great suspicion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Those interested in the roll of John Sullivan, AKA Jayden X, may wish to view the video he took during the event which is on his YouTube channel (though any analysis wouldn't be appropriate for the article, given WP:OR and WP:RSPRIMARY).

Aside from giving a sense of his role, his 1h26m "Full Video: The Seige On United States Capitol" video gives an excellent view of what it was like to be there leading up to and through one of the forceful but not extremely violent breaches. (He wasn't at the very violent battle for the arched entrance, but he wasn't with one of the groups which appeared to have walked in without any resistance.) He was present at the entrance to the Speaker's Hall when Ashli Babbitt was shot, and his video has been used extensively without attribution. He records (and I think is the one who shouts), "There's a gun! There's a gun! There's a gun! Hey, he's got a gun!" 35 seconds before the shooting. -- ToE 08:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This article gives details of the political views of the close knit Mostofsky family. His older brother who was also at the Capitol on January 6, heads a group called "Chovevei Zion, a right-wing organization that self-professedly promotes “American Exceptionalism,” “Limited Government” and a “Unified Jerusalem” under the control of “Sovereign Israel,” the controversial idea that the Palestinian West Bank—which the group refers to as Judea and Samaria—should be incorporated into the State of Israel." Very far from left wing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

News Coverage of this talk page

https://www.fastcompany.com/90593176/wikipedia-capitol-attack-name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quota8Star (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That link is already featured above: "This article has been mentioned by a media organization". RetiredDuke (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like they changed the title though. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The main picture in the infobox is not representative of the mayhem and violence

We are currently using this picture [9] along with some others.

Because it's at the top of the infobox and is the largest picture when you first come to the article, it needs to be representative of the mayhem and violence that occurred that day. Showing a guy in an American flag jumpsuit carrying a flag doesn't do that. There are also no pictures from inside of the Capitol. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

background section

Our article states:

"The Associated Press attributed the extremism that fueled the 2021 riot to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns. Widespread frustrations and acts of defiance towards the lockdown orders by individuals had allowed far-right groups like white supremacists and the American militia movement to recruit more people, and also led to more rapid radicalizations through social media."

I don't believe that it is correct to say that the AP is the author of this thinking (the article says "experts") and the AP did not say that the riot was caused by the pandemic lockdowns (though they are related). They said the rioters were "a melting pot of extremist groups: militia members, white supremacists, paramilitary organizations, anti-maskers and fanatical supporters of President Donald Trump, standing shoulder to shoulder in rage." Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is not really an incorrect statement, but perhaps it should be significantly rephrased and better sourced. Something should be said here. For example, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping should probably be noted in this connection, but again, the connection must be made by RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I believe that it is an incorrect statement. This incident has been brewing for years and is in no small way related to the election of a black president and the way Hilary Clinton was absolutely hated by a certain segment of our society. Best to not get into reasons at all rather than use less than the whole spectrum of what has led up to this uprising. IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but what text do you suggest instead? Just delete it? Something needs to be said here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The AP article puts it "a melting pot of extremist groups: militia members, white supremacists, paramilitary organizations, anti-maskers and fanatical supporters of President Donald Trump, standing shoulder to shoulder in rage." I certainly can't improve on their excellent wording but I know WP does not really like a lot of quotes. Let's wait and see what others have to say, OK? Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2021

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 procedural close. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 breach of US Capitol – seems overly wordy WakandaQT (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural Close Can we get a procedural close on this request. There are numerous articles linked to this one using the title "storming of ...". We cannot have constant RM discussions on the article. Perhaps the initiator could post informal discussion about possible names. The train has already left the station as far as this title goes. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and procedural close The "US" must be spelt fully as "United States". It also lacks reliable source that stats it had "breach" instead "storming". 36.65.38.213 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural Close It was a storming. In Wikipedia titles, US should be spelled as United States. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural Close A week hasn't passed yet. Alalch Emis (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close per above. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 00:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close per above and I think we have reached a consensus. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

False flag conspiracy theories

At this link – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_7#False_flag_conspiracies – I find a discussion about adding a report of the widespread false attribution of the attacks to Antifa or other false-flag entities. The consensus there seems to be to include it. I agree; the charge has enough currency on right-wing websites that it is notable, so it should be reported, but the evidence against it should also be reported. Accordingly, a subsection about it was added.

Now, however, the information is not in the article. It has been relegated entirely to a section – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_reactions_to_the_2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#False_flag_conspiracy_theories – in the daughter article. AFAICT there was no discussion of this change on Talk, so no reason to go against the previous consensus.

Per WP:SS, there should be at least a couple sentences in the main article, with a wikilink to the relevant section of the daughter article.

Have I overlooked a consensus for the removal? JamesMLane t c 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I blinked and discovered a whole buncha stuff had been split off to Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I wish we could've discussed that more before acting. soibangla (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the conspiracy theories definitely warrant a mention here, with a wikilink to the daughter article. –Bangalamania (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Potentially misleading line

I apologize if this is completely incorrect, I have not done sufficient research on it so am going from what I gathered from random news sources. The line "Several social media and technology companies suspended or banned Trump's accounts from their platforms" – seems to imply that the event it self resulted in such a ban; but if I understand correctly (which again, I may not), the social media platforms banned Trump for his unapologetic response videos and posts, not the event it self...? Aza24 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, Trump has been making incendiary comments on social media for years and only regarding election results did Twitter start tagging his tweets as misleading and misinformation. This event was pretty much what propagated the bans. It wasn't until this occurred that tech platforms banned Trump and started to crack down on misinfo and similar accounts. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful reference: Department of Justice website which collates defendants and charges

Hi all

The Department for Justice has created a a website for tracking defendants and their charges for the insurrection , it could be useful as a reference for this or related articles

• https://www.justice.gov/opa/investigations-regarding-violence-capitol

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings, great ref, thanks for finding it! ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

Rosanne Boyland’s death is currently described as “disputed” on the Wikipedia entry. Her death has been unequivocally confirmed as being a result of her trampling, which is verified by video evidence showing that she initially fell at or about 4:09pm when rioters attempted to shove their way past guards and into a tunnel entrance to the capitol. Her boyfriend, Justin Winchell, can be seen trying to pull her from the ground for the next 7 minutes. Just after 4:17, video shows two people attempting to perform CPR before ultimately carrying her up to the capitol police. She was taken by ambulance to a hospital and declared dead at 6:09pm, but the witnesses who attempted to render aid state that she was deceased when she was pulled from the crowd. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/us/rosanne-boyland-capitol-riot-death.html 47.221.16.157 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Given their comment and the source, I would assume that they want the sentence Boyland's cause of death was disputed; one account said she was crushed to death, while another said she collapsed while standing at the side in the Capitol rotunda to be changed to something like Boyland was crushed to death. The article mentions that she was trampled near a western entrance of the Capitol due to the crowd trying to push their way into the Capitol. She ended up being brought into the Capitol without a pulse and she was pronounced dead at a local hospital. I am unsure if those details should be added to the paragraph, but I think a change should occur that she was crushed. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Current text now reads Boyland was trampled to death by people rushing to breach a tunnel entrance on the west side of the Capitol; her cause of death was originally disputed. Thank you @Super Goku V: for clarifying the edit request. Also thank you IP editor for trying to update the event with new sources. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick

The Reuters article cited only says he suffered a stroke, not specifically a thrombotic stroke, and suffered that later after sustaining injuries, not specifically a head injury causing it. The writer of that sentence is being too medically-specific for the information available. FYI, injured bones can also cause blood clots. The Sun article also quoted a member of the police force who said exposure to chemicals used that day may have exacerbated the injuries he sustained, which we know at minimum included being shoved and being hit by a fire extinguisher tossed at his head. 2600:2B00:7628:D700:C8BF:437C:A902:A1B3 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC) -Reticuli

Source for crushing of boyland - nyt (new)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/us/rosanne-boyland-capitol-riot-death.html

Requested move 16 January 2021 (2)

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: closed per WP:RM procedure for controversial topics. Only one proposal at a time. The proposal above also removes the year. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol – Slipping in the many overwhelming move requests; this might just be approved instantly. See #Removal of the year 2021 in the title. for more info. Basically, this is the first time the Capitol is "stormed" or "looted", and thus the specifier "2021" is redundant. GeraldWL 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural close as per WP:RMCM Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page – there's a RM right above yours :) Alalch Emis (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Proposal: 1-month moratorium on move proposals

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.

---

Can we agree to a moratorium on move requests? I'm not claiming the existing title is ideal, but we need some time for the dust to settle here and the incessant requests aren't helpful. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and procedural close This proposal is not procedurally sound. This is not a viable process to extend the cooldown to such a long period. Quite possibly, multiple users are waiting just a few more days to pass as per the last RM's closing statement - a whole month is way too long and completely unreasonable. Imagine being one of those users, coming back after not visiting this page for a few days to post a new RM, only to see that some weird moratorium was put in place. Unacceptable. Alalch Emis (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "weird moratorium." It's ridiculous to have so many move requests. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's weird, unusual and concerning. It's not ridiculous to have many move requests. It reflects how the current name is unsatisfactory to many people. If it's unsatisfactory to many people, that's how it is – you can't "fix" the problem by stifling discussion. That's some blunt instrument methodology. Alalch Emis (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support contingent that any rename requests require the nominator to first hold an informal rename request on the talk page and obtain consensus before initiating an RM request. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think a month is too long. I'd be ok with a week. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We should only one RM open at a time so a week is implied. Spudlace (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Maybe a month is a bit long, but let's suspend move requests until three or four weeks after the event. That's two or three weeks from now. By then, we'll probably have a clearer picture of what the common term for the event will be. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Let's let the second impeachment, more investigation, and sources settling on a WP:COMMONNAME first. At least two weeks to a month of no move requests. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose An additional month of preventing move requests is excessive after we just had a moratorium for a week. I could understand deferring a name change to a RfC to help decide it, but a lengthy restriction to users not satisfied with the article name doesn't seem proper. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm probably going to oppose every move request, but it wouldn't hurt to see if a few of them have consensus. Unless you just want to wait until after the inauguration; maybe a week of moratorium? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support There's no rush on this. Let wait a few more weeks to see if the news media coalesces around a common name for the incident. LK (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Reliable sources now reporting that US officials believe participants intended to assassinate Vice President Pence and others.

There was previously a discussion about whether the "goals" section of the infobox should list assassination of Vice President Pence and others. There is new reporting on this aspect of the event, from NPR for example: https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/15/957201436/u-s-says-rioters-at-capitol-aimed-to-capture-and-assassinate-elected-officials Lunasspecto (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, obviously [10]. That could be just like during the Armenian parliament shooting or as they planned with Gretchen Whitmer. That's why the attackers left the building immediately after realizing that the lawmakers are gone. They did not try to keep the building. The security personnel in the Capitol saved the day. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, this is now apparently a subject of public disagreement amongst U.S. investigators, per USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/15/capitol-rioters-accused-aim-capture-and-assassinate-officials/4174807001/

So it may be too early to definitively state the opinion of investigators in the article after all. Lunasspecto (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the claim was false. But it is worth including, along with the rebuttal, because it shows the reaction or over-reaction to the events. TFD (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Except that article in Usatoday does not rebut anything. It tells that according to official filing, "Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States Government". At the same time, they say there is "no direct evidence of kill and capture teams". Sure, just the words of this strange guy is not a direct evidence. They will learn more during the investigation, but this is something discussed in many sources. Why do you think they brought the plastic handcuffs? My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this is not a rebuttal. I think at this point the best is to give all pertinent info as it is stated; connections made between them is for hindsight. --Calthinus (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to an article in Business Insider, "Prosecutors also asked the judge to temporarily disregard their previous claims that Chansley had planned to "capture and assassinate elected officials," while leaving open the possibility they may make the claim again during a full trial."[11] I guess that's how prosecutors walk back absurd claims without losing face. For some reason the media ignored the even stranger claim that Chansley participated in "a violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the United States Government." Of course Chansley isn't charged with any of these things. Also, I was wondering why Putin wasn't thrown into the mix. TFD (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Witness now attesting that certain participants had assassination of Pence and Pelosi as a goal. [12] I realize that this is controversial for many editors, but can we at least put it with an 'alleged' qualification under the goals section? Reyne2 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The unnamed witness said that after "Spaz" and others entered the Capitol building, they said they would kill anyone they got their hands on, specifically mentioning Pence and Pelosi. They said they would return on the 20th and kill everyone they could. (The article provides a link to the witness's affidavit.) I think that is more accurate than implying they had some sort of sophisticated plan before they entered the building, like the terrorists in the Armenian parliament shooting. TFD (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I assume you mean [13] this. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 09:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. TFD (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think listing abduction or assassination as a goal of part of the crowd that breached the Capitol (which is attested by some reliable sources) is different from saying that they had actionable plans to do so after their targets had been removed to a secure and heavily guarded room. Lunasspecto (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no question that some of the rioters wanted to kill certain politicians - as they cried out loud during the storming and even admitted to the FBI later. However, what exactly did they plan (including creating the "teams") is under investigation. It is obvious from the videos that some of the attackers were well prepared and did act as teams to breach the building, as some experts noted. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's why, according to news reports, the lawmakers will not be inside Capitol buildings in various US States starting Monday through Thursday. Hence there will be no attacks on the empty buildings. This is pretty much predictable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

six dead

Should we only be listing one police officer? Perhaps we should consider two?

Howard Liebengood was on duty and died shortly after from trauma he suffered at the event according to WP at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/liebengood-capitol-police-death/2021/01/10/3a495b84-5357-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html

He should be recognized as a victim too. WakandaQT (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The cited source mentions that he was on duty during the event, but does not say that "trauma he suffered at the event" caused his death. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No. It's been reported his death was a suicide: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/liebengood-capitol-police-death/2021/01/10/3a495b84-5357-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html Inkwzitv (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Daughter pages

Edits requested on topics once they aRe moved to daughter pages are not happening. I don’t edit Wikipedia, but I frequently follow and request edits from the experts. I’m seeing this happen. Just so you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:61B9:480:C5E:D3C5 (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the year 2021 in the title.

As can be told by the article itself, the Capital has not been occupied previous to the storming, except for the Burning of Washington. That led me to think, we don't call the Burning the "1814 Burning of Washington", so why do we call this storming the "2021 Storming"

I think the "Storming of the United States Capitol" is a far better title, and until another event like it takes place, I recommend we forego the year in the title.

I do not know how to formally request a page move from Wikipedia mobile, if someone else could do that for me, I'd appreciate it. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Also agree on removing the year on the title. There has been no similar event before. 152.132.1.16 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that having "2021" in the title is unnecessary and odd. Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, 2021 is redundant. I would be bold and move this myself right now, but I'd like to hear from more editors first. — Czello 10:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the others here. Please go ahead with the page move. LK (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah damn, the house is locked. GeraldWL 15:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So ask an administrator for permission. Trillfendi (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

But ♩ where are the admins... ♩ GeraldWL 06:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Support this. /Julle (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I was all set to do this, when I came across the following food for thought in talk archives. I thought Smartyllama and Gwennie made good points. My own opinion is the discussion should sit for a bit longer, but I'm pretty inactive, so no prejudice against another admin moving the page.--Chaser (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the year in unnecessary in the title. --Tataral (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Chaser, the points were mainly made procedurally, as move requests weren't being considered and the consensus of a 200+ response RFC is rather difficult to overturn easily. However, I do support the removal of the year. A redirect will provide that functionality as well. (Hopefully, it doesn't become necessary if it gets stormed again in the future) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with including the year. It makes it more clear it was a specific event and not a general article on the concept. It's a provisional title anyway which should err on the side of being clear over being brief; if a consensus title emerges among reliable sources later, the article can shift to that then which won't be a descriptive title. SnowFire (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I think the original argument is convincing, the year isn't really necessary, because this is the first time in history that this has happened, it's not as if anyone is going to forget about this for a very long time. We don't put the year in the September 11 attacks because everyone in America has the year memorized. Also, I don't see where the lock is? LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 23:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we stop fighting over the title?

Seriously. We're suddenly too obsessed with it. I think the current (if without "2021") is already fine-- others can be redirects. Us fighting over a small thing as a title won't serve good to anyone. Call it what you want-- coup, insurrection, rape, death of the United States-- you just don't need to blast like hell over a pack of cigarette. GeraldWL 07:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Its not a small thing, its about image and how we present armed insurection.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, still, people are fighting and acting incivil because of this. This is WP20, people. Act civil. Act mature. GeraldWL 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they are, but this is because it is not trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that doesn't give them the pass. It is a violation of the policy. GeraldWL 15:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't notice people fighting over the title. This article is on an important topic and deserves to have the best title it can have. This title is not that bad (certainly better than "protests") but could be significantly better. When the title is changed to something more encyclopedic, it won't be changed again for a long time. The outline of the procedure has already been set at the time of the closing of the big RtM, and the discussion in this section can't affect it. Too many people are simply waiting for the next couple of days to go by, to start a proper new move discussion. The RtM is coming 100%. Alalch Emis (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and even though Wikipedia has a generally contemptable reputation people still trust this website to get the job done right and they trust this website (1.9 million people so far) for information on any subject. So yeah, words matter. In 15 years when this is a history lesson, a kid who probably isn’t even born yet, will come here looking for answers. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

While I think that argument is straying into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, I do think that there should be more of a focus on the content of the page than squabbling over the title. The lead section says which other terms people are using which should really cover all bases; maybe there could be a section on terminology if it comes to that. –Bangalamania (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So... "The storming/Storm of the United States Capitol"? Like Der Stürmer, Sturmabteilung, The Daily Stormer?--217.234.73.139 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Or the Storming of the Bastille, or Storming of the Winter Palace... Neither of which are related to neo-Nazism or QAnon conspiratorialism. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Bangalamania True, there was a time when a swastika was not a Hakenkreuz but a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck. Tempi passati!--93.211.214.79 (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@93.211.214.79: Not sure what you mean by this, and I hope you're not implying fascist sympathies on my part. A swastika outside a Hindu temple is obviously still a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck; one tattooed on the arm of a white supremacist isn't. So I agree that context matters.

"Storm" is defined, among other things, as "(of troops) suddenly attack and capture (a building or other place) by means of force." That is still a current definition of the term, which correlates to the usage above. The term 'storming' has also been used by numerous reliable sources to refer to the incident. Yes, the term 'storm' (in German) was used a lot by the Nazis, but with a completely different meaning.

(FWIW it's not my preferred term in prose either, as I can see how the phrasing may glamorize the event as a heroic battle of sorts. But linking the term "storming" – to refer to the capture of a building – to the stormtroopers or Der Stürmer is a terminological error.) --Bangalamania (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This meta-discussion will have no effect on the article itself. No one will be persuaded not to squabble over the title, because no one is squabbling in the first place. Although, if you falsely premise your question by using loaded language ("fighting"), you will probably have people squabbling and fighting in this very section, signs of which are already appearing. Conclusion: this section simply needs to be closed. Alalch Emis (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What a joke. The lead and body needs more attention than the title does. As I said in my opposition in the RfC, the media calls the event a variety of ways, and it's unlikely that a wording is favored, thus the RfC won't lead anywhere. I've collapsed one NOTFORUM and CIVILITY violation subthread above, which is one of the signs that people are fighting before I even somehow "incited" the fight. You can love or hate Donald Trump, but that internal ideology has been exploded to this talk page, which is not a good way Wikipedia celebrates it's 20th. GeraldWL 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

body needs more attention than the title does – that's a fallacy of false dilemma. You are not doing anyone favors with posts like this. No one is fighting or squabbling over the name, but over politics. People are opening RMs because they think there is a better name. A name of an article is always important with regard to that article. You complain about fighting, but you've started an inane metadiscussion section using loaded language, relying on a fallacy, and complaining about other people's behavior. What a joke. Alalch Emis (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

...and from those discussions, deviating to NOTFORUM, then violating civility policy and start attacking people, include (but not limited to) one of the collapsed forums above? Well, whatever. Collapse this thread, warn me shit, whatever. This is America anyway. GeraldWL 15:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bangalamania No, I did not meant to insinuate that to you. Here, a reading recommendation from User:Beyond My Ken, quote: "I would like to mention, though, this essay by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker, specifically where Lepore writes A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a “storming” of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a “Storm” in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January “the Storming of the Capitol.”" --87.170.203.43 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarify sections "Planning of the storming" and "Rioting in the Capitol building"

Now that we can see the House article of impeachment does not allege that Trump planned the storming, this section needs some re-heading / re-writing.

The section Planning of the storming begins by attributing 'plans' to Trump, as if he was instigator of the planning of the storming. Then Amy Kremer is mentioned as if she were an accomplice in Planning the storming. The second paragraph states that Ali Alexander 'took part in organizing the rally and expressed support for the storming as "completely peaceful" ' (as if 'storming' could be peaceable), but Alexander cannot be seen as a reliable source for the intent of Trump or Kremer at any time time, planning or at the event. The third paragraph begins 'The rioters planned openly', as if Trump, and Kremer and others whose intent was not riotous, were also rioters.

There is evidence that many, perhaps most, of the crowd had assembled with peaceable not riotous intent, such as[14] cited in the article. See also[15] cited at Amy Kremer. Is there any evidence that any of those with peaceable intent such as Kramer were among those who riotously trespassed by entering the building or clambering the walls or inciting others to do that? Some who entered did not break in but went in by a door opened to them by the police.

It is notable that the House Article of Impeachment does not claim that Trump Planned the storming. It alleges instead that on January 6 he

'addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide". He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore". Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.'

That looks like carefully avoiding alleging planning or taking part in the 'storming' or riotous or other conduct for which many individuals are being charged. Outside legalese that could be worded 'Thus inflamed by President Trump'. Qexigator (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)edit10:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)12:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no sources provided that say the storming of the Capitol was planned. Sources report two allegations: (1) the demonstrations were planned and (2) Trump incited the violence. TFD (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and those two points could well be covered in this way:

In the main section ' Background', the first sub-head could be changed to 'Planning the rally' leaving it to be followed by the sub-heads '...donations'. and 'Prior ...concerns of violence'.

In the next man section, sub-heading 'Pennsylvania Avenue march' begins 'instigated by Trump to help him overturn the election result...' and later reads 'Around 1:00 p.m. EST, hundreds of Trump supporters clashed with officers and pushed through barriers along the perimeter of the Capitol..'

Qexigator (talk)

There's a problem with the sequence in the section. it makes it appear that Trump supporters clashed with officers after Trump's speech. In fact it was near the end of his speech and before the people listening to his speech departed for the Capitol. (The speech ended at 1:09, the clash had occurred at 1:00.) TFD (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that sequence tallies near enough with Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article. Qexigator (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The sequence of events described in the sub section on Rioting in the Capitol building could be made clearer by expanding the first sentence (after the heading 'Pennsylvania Avenue march') to read:

By 11.00 a.m. The Ellipse, near the White House and some distance from the Capitol, was filled with a a rally of Trump supporters. Coming from the White House, Trump addressed the rally at The Ellipse, from 12 p.m. to 1.10.p.m., encouraging this crowd to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. At the end of his speech, Trump returned to the White House while the crowd began their walk to the Capitol. Meanwhile, by 12.30 p.m. another crowd of Trump supporters had gathered outside the Capitol building. clashing with the police and pushing forward to the building. The crowd walking up Pennsylvania Avenue from The Ellipse arrived at the Capitol after the disturbances there had begun.

Qexigator (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the re-heading / re-writing proposed above is essentially copy editing, not adding, removing content or changing the purport of the current version, I propose to go ahead with this fairly soon. Please tweak or comment. Qexigator (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Major security failure

I couldn't find anything in this article saying that this was a major security failure or mention of the resignations. It should have greater attention. TFD (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See the article Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. WWGB (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think there should be more discussion of this in this main article also, as I said at the time of the split. Might work on it later if nobody else does. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Read. And don’t use the words “intelligence failure“ or “security failure“ about the events of January 6. Don’t. It was a decision-maker failure to act adequately based on warnings received. --87.170.203.43 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Video archive?

Propublica put 500+ videos grabbed from Parler up online. I feel like this should be mentioned, but I don’t know where. They are videos of the event, from the event. https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:CDDA:2DAC:F8EF:3AE8 (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Added as an external link. -- Beland (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on "insurrection", but what title?

It seems that reliable sources have given the event a WP:COMMONNAME, which has been described as an "insurrection", not a coup or something else (see previous discussion). Before we make a potential move proposal, we should agree on the format of the title. Should it be 2021 United States Capitol insurrection, United States Capitol insurrection or neither?--WMrapids (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No it is way way way too soon to even discuss what historians are going to call this. Current name is unambiguous; no moves yet. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We can wait a little bit, but it's worth collecting sources so far to get a sense of where things stand. "Storming" strikes me as a bit odd (though there are sources using it, it's not the most common term.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We should not wait too long, it's becoming more out of date each day. We can change it a second time if it's needed.Spudlace (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion that we should wait as results are changing daily and this title is fine for now. I did some Google News searches today (without the year) using variations of the common terms in the title:

1. Attack - approx. 190,000,000 results
2. Riot - 167,000,000
3. Storming - 50,000,000
4. Insurrection - 50,000.000

Per WP:COMMON NAME , 'attack' and 'riot' are the terms used most by sources. Due to the planning and incitement, I prefer 'attack' and think this discussion should be closed. 'Insurrection' is fine within the body of the article. IP75 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@IP75: "Attack" is such a generic term that the search results are often skewed to show descriptions of individuals rather than the event. The title of this article is describing the event, not individual actions. This is the same situation with "riot".--WMrapids (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC) While making recent searches on Google News, a simple "Capitol" was entered into the search bar with a 24-hour filter. It seems that "Capitol riot" was another popular term, so that will be placed into the discussion as well.--WMrapids (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Choices

Add an appropriate comment of support to only one of the two designated sections below.

While still recognizing WP:NOTAVOTE, it would be easier to see a possible consensus of comments using the following format: "# Support: example comment here "

Which looks like:

1. Support: example comment here

If you do not support one of the two choices below, please participate in the discussion section so we can determine a consensus among ourselves.

2021 United States Capitol insurrection

• Support. Although there may not have been many prior violent breaches, I'm fairly sure in its more than 200 year history you could find incidents at the Capitol that might be referred to as "insurrection", even if in a metaphorical sense. To ensure clarity and ground the title in time, I support including the year in the title, although I'm still undecided if I'd support "insurrection" over "storming" in a move rfc. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The word "insurrection" seems to be the term being used by the media, government officials, etc. Though I think "2021 insurrection at the US Capitol" might be better, and perhaps "2021 pro-Trump insurrection at the US Capitol" which provides more clarity but could be contentious. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Jushyusaha604's suggestion is good: "2021 pro-Trump insurrection at the US Capitol"; though we are presented with only two options, of which 2021 United States Capitol insurrection is the better one. Personally, I would opt for a title that would differentiate a little more, such as: "2021 United States Capitol pro-Trump protest and siege" (or "... protest and raid").

• Support: 2021 should be included in the title, Wikipedia:Article titles states that articles should be named based on Recognizability, including the year will help with this, especially in finding the article through search engines as the event is being called so many different things by different sources e.g riot, protest, insurrection, coup attempt etc, 2021 is the common factor in all these different descriptions. John Cummings (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: keep 2021. Editors know there is only one such (thus far) but most readers worldwide do not know that. Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capitol insurrection

• I think it should be Insurrection of the United States Capitol. Trillfendi (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 United States Capitol riot

• Support as this semes to be what most (if not all) the charges realte to, rioting, vandlaism and thieft.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Until there are multiple insurrections at the United States Capitol, I think it is redundant to specify that we mean the insurrection in 2021 instead of the 2022 insurrection. If we want to speculate on the possibility of future insurrections, we have no way of knowing whether we might need to distinguish the January 2021 insurrection from the May 2021 insurrection. So at this point, I see no need to specify 2021 at all, since I do not know of other insurrections at this location. That is different from the "Storming" situation, where there was an 1814 storming and a 2021 storming.--Bhuck (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia:Article titles states that articles should be named based on Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. Also for anyone (like me) who needed to find out the differences between coup, insurrection and sedition CNN did an explainer. John Cummings (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment-proposal – Insurrection at the United States Capitol (see: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral); example of this used in a headline, in own voice: Insurrection At The Capitol: Live Updates. There was already some support for this specific name during the original move discussion. IMO this is by far the most encyclopedic name. Alalch Emis (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's too early to determine there is a common name so in the meantime it's best to keep what we have. Insurrection is probably incorrect because it implies "an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds."[16] Hence the Upper Canada Rebellion is described in the lead as an insurrection. Armed militia planned to arrest members of the government and declare a republic with themselves in charge, but were quickly defeated. That didn't happen here. TFD (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Put 2021 in the title SRD625 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Support This is a singular event in U.S. history. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on any other insurrections at the United States Capitol. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I did some Google News searches today (without the year) using variations of the common terms in the title:

1. Attack - approx. 190,000,000 results
2. Riot - 167,000,000
3. Storming - 50,000,000
4. Insurrection - 50,000.000

Per WP:COMMON NAME , 'attack' and 'riot' are the terms most used by sources. Due to the planning, I prefer 'attack' and think this discussion should be closed. 'Insurrection' is fine within the body of the article. Propose: Attack on the United States Capitol IP75 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Wait until outcome of Senate hearing of impeachment, by which time also the courts will have determined a good number of criminal charges against rioters, showing whether they have been convicted of 'insurrection' or not, which will then be reported in RS. Meantime, the current version is a good holding title. Qexigator (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

While I don't think we should rush to change the title, it's worth collecting current sources so we can get a sense of what terms are and aren't used. From a quick Google News search for "capitol":

• Politico: Attack in headline, violent insurrectionists, insurrectionists repeatedly in body, violent assault on the Capitol.
• CNN: Capitol riot in headline and repeatedly in the body, assault on the Capitol in body, specifically cites law enforcement saying it was not just a protest that spiraled out of control.
• CBS News: Capitol riots in headline and body, January 6 assault in body.
• CNBC: Capital riot repeatedly in headline and body.
• AP: Capitol assault in headline, assault repeatedly in body, insurrectionists in body, category is Capitol siege.
• New York Times: Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol building in first sentence, rioters repeatedly in body, categorized under capitol riot fallout.
• NPR: Riot in headlines and body; Insurrection in headlines and body, as well as the category they use.
• ABC: Capitol siege in headline and body; Riot and rioter in headline and body.

That's just the start, there's a ton of sources to go over. As you can see there's a variety of terms (even within the same articles) but a few things are repeated - riot, attack, assault, and insurrection are all terms that show up a lot, with siege showing up occasionally. Storming doesn't show up anywhere in the first few pages of results unless I specifically search for it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Insurrection seems to be the common thread, especially among headlines.

Here are some headlines from the past 24 hours:

• CNN - "Feds warn extremists may be emboldened to carry out additional attacks after Capitol insurrection"
• The Daily Beast - "Two Cops, Including a Trained Sniper, Arrested for Taking Part in Capitol Insurrection"
• Buzzfeed News - "The Capitol Insurrection Was The End Result Of A Trump Presidency Defined By Violence"
• NPR - Why Didn't The FBI And DHS Produce A Threat Report Ahead of The Capitol Insurrection?
• Politico - "Capitol insurrection may have claimed its first GOP candidacy"
• PBS News Hour - "New York City to terminate Trump contracts after Capitol insurrection"
• US News & World Report - "Anti-Semitism Seen in Capitol Insurrection Raises Alarms"
• MSNBC - "House Democrats demand answers on suspicious Capitol tours prior to deadly insurrection"
• The Hill - "Airbnb cancels DC reservations ahead of inauguration after Capitol insurrection"

It seems that specifically the term "Capitol insurrection" is very popular among reliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Gallows photo

I changed the photo of the gallows yesterday to File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09156 (50826223403).jpg because I thought it was a better quality photo and more evocative. That's since been reverted; I don't know when. I think it makes sense to have one photo of it. Which should it be, option A or option B? I suggest option B, because it shows the Capitol, isn't in a weird perspective, and doesn't foreground InfoWars. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed it per this; Y2kcrazyjoker removed the gallows image from the infobox on account of the images being duplicates. Either one or none is fine with me for the body, but the infobox has to have option B. QuestFour (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B

• B ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B, out of those two, since A has a weird angle and places somewhat undue emphasis on the infowars bit at the bottom (it's not totally irrelevant but it's not exactly important enough to be front-and-center like that.) Though feel like better options than both probably exist. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B Kingsif (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B per above. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 04:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• BOTH — I say we should primarily list B however we should crop and embed possibly as an image stack or some template the lower part of A because the things written on the gallows base is also important context for the event. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B not even close. Context! Mcfnord (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B. --Calthinus (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• As the song goes, "B is for this article." GeraldWL 09:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B, as option A doesn't really show the gallows properly, though I would have preferred it without all the symbolism of the building in the background. I don't see the information value in having both. /Julle (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B - that's an image that is so definitive about intent, that it's almost iconic. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B - Yes, I think the image is iconic. IP75 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Both with B in the infobox and A further down in the article. A is the only one I've seen anywhere that clearly and legibly shows the graffiti that was on the gallows, and I think there is encyclopedic value to be found in reading the graffiti on it. However, B is better quality and works well as part of the infobox collage. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A looks lopsided. Trillfendi (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B for obvious reasons. — Czello 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• A or Both - A seems to show the entire set up better and the graffiti on it is interesting, but I am not against both being used.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• B, although I would prefer another photo showing the steps and platform. This was an operative gallows, not a mock-up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• B --Ahmad^talk 10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• B Agree with Gwennie-nyan, because A belongs there as well for having relevant information, though not the whole picture is necessary; cropping it is a good idea, just enough to show the writing. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• BOTH, with preference for B. Agree with what's been said above. The text on A is important to illustrate; a cropping and re-angling of this so it can be read easier would be good. But B is a better and more evocative image for this article overall, and more the sort that you'd see in a textbook. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• B. Powerful and symbolic. WWGB (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

Please adding 1992 Los Angeles riots to See also section because i see there are similarities of both riots bar racial issues. 118.96.188.169 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how racial issues motivate the riots. Isn't it all about Trump's callouts? GeraldWL 07:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite that, i believe LA riots had similarities with this due to insurrection, which is vague meaning. 118.96.188.169 (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It feels a bit off-base. This would be merited if we were discussing like the Minnesota George Floyd protests. However comparing a BIPOC riot to a white supremacist insurrection is apples to oranges. We should compare this to the Burning of Washington or the Unite the Right rally, not what you've suggested. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Four paragraph lede + an aspirational section heading

I propose to address the need for the MOS Four paragraph lede. How about simply adding one more section heading: A disorderly reaction to the peaceful transfer of power just before the fifth paragraph (which begins with "Trump initially resisted sending the D.C. National Guard to quell the mob.[66] ")? Might such a heading fit the bill? We could demonstrate its suitability with a one-line edit. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that the 'Lead too long' tag was removed, which makes my suggestion moot until the tag reappears. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

no reports of looting

Neither the citation in the lead or the inventory of damage indicate anything was stolen. See https://www.wionews.com/world/first-inventory-of-damage-to-us-capitol-building-released-355655 The claims of looting need Citation. 68.134.72.214 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What about 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Technology theft_and_cybersecurity concerns? WWGB (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What about the two sources in the info box and five in the lede?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

still reading so far nothing in cited articles to support comments in article. If you find something let me know. 68.134.72.214 (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct they do no say loot they say theft or stolen. Looting refers to the act of stealing, or the taking of goods by force, in the midst of a military, political, or other social crisis. So yes we can say looting instead of theft. But I would be happy to change all instances of looting to theft.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would not be happy. Looting is exactly what happened, and their is a multitude of sources on the web to support that. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree. The articles in the lead say nothing about looting/theft and should be changed, true of other cases too. To find good tentative evidence of theft the most recent things I could find are not in the article, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/01/08/clyburns-ipad-laptop-from-pelosis-office-items-stolen-destroyed-in-capitol-attack/?sh=4e09076c5963.

https://www.idsnews.com/article/2021/01/us-capitol-damage-art-trump-riot. From ids-Someone ripped up Chinese scrolls. Someone else stole a photo of the Dalai Lama. From Forbes Items, electronic items were stolen from senators’ offices, documents and materials were stolen,” Michael Sherwin, U.S. Attorney68.134.72.214 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

He looted Speaker Pelosi’s office, and then bragged about it. now added to lead. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The first source for "looted" says "The mob ransacked the place", ransack=ransack verb go through (a place) stealing things and causing damage the same source also says "stealing federal property".Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

When a statement is sourced in the body of the article, as it is, sources are not required in the infobox. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Not saying we should, just pointing out its there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-speaker-nancy-pelosis-lectern-stolen-capitol-riot/story?id=75231676 --Khajidha (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021 (3)

Change references to "Trump", to "President Trump" as is done for every other President of the United States. Show some respect. 70.188.4.228 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No, we don't do that. We call president Trump "Trump", just like we call president Reagan "Reagan", and president Clinton is simply "Clinton". There's no Wikipedia policy "show some respect". It would rather go against WP:NPOV. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:JOBTITLES. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that he is first referred to as "U.S. President Donald Trump", and the title is only omitted in subsequent uses. This is consistent with our policy (linked above) and with the style of most news organizations. -- ToE 16:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Have photos of the rally crowd from the Ellipse area during the Trump speech; useful at this article, or a spinoff article, how to categorize? Planning photo dump

I have quite a few photos from the Trump speech at the Ellipse on 6 January, from shortly before he told the crowd to march, and some limited photo and video as I walked with an early wave of marchers.

Are those potentially relevant to this article, or better at a related or spinoff article? How should I categorize them and/or tag them to make sure they're easily findable on Wikimedia Commons for any related purposes? Thanks! TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@TapTheForwardAssist: There is commons:Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol and many sub-categories under that. Browse those, and upload whatever you feel might be useful. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like this to appear under "Participating groups"

Yes, this is interesting [17]. False prophet classic. But it might be not for this page. I am not sure you provided fair summary of claims in these sources. Only some RS above, such as this do make such connection. I do agree there is an important claim that appears in multiple RS: "In Trump we trust" is very similar to a "new religious movement", it does not need any reason, but only the Leader. But again, this must be exceptionally well sourced and properly phrased to avoid WP:OR. So, if you want to really propose something, please post a more carefully worded text, with a few high quality refs. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I do think this part should be expanded upon a bit, and you've definitely got some good sources there, although I do agree with the above in that I'm not sure you're providing a completely impartial summary of the views. If anyone here has missed it, here is what the article says so far re: Christian nationalist elements:

Christian imagery and rhetoric was prevalent in the mob of insurrectionists who seized the Capitol. Rioters carried crosses and signs saying, "Jesus Saves", and "Jesus 2020". On the National Mall, rioters chanted, "Christ is king." One rioter who stormed into the building carried a Christian flag. Rioters referred to the neo-fascist Proud Boys as "God's warriors". These were mainly neo-charismatic, prophetic Christians who practice their faith outside of mainstream denominations, who believe that Trump is the Messiah, or that he was anointed by God to save Christian Americans from religious persecution.

Although a few evangelical leaders supported the riots, most condemned the violence and criticized Trump for inciting the crowd. This criticism came from liberal Christian groups such as the Red-Letter Christians as well as evangelical groups who were generally supportive of Trump. This criticism did not affect evangelical support for Donald Trump. Investigative journalist Sarah Posner, author of Unholy: Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump, argues that many white evangelical Christians in the U.S. create an echo chamber whereby Trump's missteps are blamed on the Democratic Party, leftists, or the mainstream media, the last of which being viewed as especially untrustworthy.

References

I haven't read all your sources (although quite a lot of them don't mention religion at all, and some are definitely non-RS) and I'm sure there are some more specifics that could be added here. But it's very difficult to link these disparate Christian nationalist individuals into any "participating groups" as such. "Treasonous theocrat" is definitely POV-pushing, regardless of one's views. – Bangalamania (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The part sourced to Fox News ("most condemned the violence and criticized Trump...") should be removed. This also contradicts other sources. But I am not sure about the whole thing. One must be very careful with such generalized descriptions. "Supporters of Trump?" Yes, certainly. "White supremacists"? Sure, there were many of them, but probably not all? This should be properly phrased. Christians? All of them? And this is the defining common feature of the croud? Hardly. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RemoveTheocracy While there might be some overlapping or involved themes as many right-wing individuals in the US tend to self-describe as a more fundamentalist form of Christianity, please understand that your post is not acceptable from multiple perspectives:

• This isn't a place for activism. We allow some intellectual advocacy within guidelines, but that stops when good-faith advocacy turns into disruptive activism.
• The way you label sources is concerning. Breaking up sources as "corporate paid", "targeted", "secular" and so for is not only suspect, but you've also included sources which are not acceptable. We have guidelines for reliable sourcing. Sourcing from Reddit, YouTube, and blogs typically isn't acceptable sourcing, as they are largely self-published and cannot be considered authoritative except from a limited scope.
• You cannot cite Wikipedia as sources, as you do in your "definitions" section. Wikipedia cites reliable sources themselves, but isn't directly able to be cited authoritatively on its own.
• We need to as-best-we-can check our biases at the door and assess things from a neutral perspective. This means we need to give credence to all reliable sources and most perspectives varying by how much weight they're due compared to overall thought and understanding. Your username and purpose listed in this post are concerning because they preclude neutrality in lieu of activism.

While you definitely posted some interesting sources among the unreliable ones, those will be evaluated on their own. You are unlikely to see large sweeping changes to define participants by their religion, as that is not properly-sourced and not a neutral point-of-view. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Suicides

Perhaps naively, I added the following in the section "Deaths and injuries":

In the aftermath, two people who had been on the scene died by suicide: a police officer, and an alleged participant.

It was unceremoniously removed with the comment "that material is covered in Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" by somebody who probably lost track of the reader's perspective. First of all, the first suicide is not even mentioned in that other article (if anybody would even suspect that there was such an article, and that it means strictly chronological rather than historical aftermath), only in this article under... "Responses" (really?). And it also seems to me that, when grouping in different dimensions, matters of life and death kind of trump strict chronology, and not only for injuries from which people died later. — RFST (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

After looking at the two sources, I am not seeing a cause-and-effect relationship, or even that the suicides are part of an "aftermath". Two people who happened to be present at the insurrection also happened to commit suicide. No explanation or causality was revealed by the sources; it may as well have been coincidence, they could have committed suicide regardless of what happened in DC. So I am not seeing this as relevant to this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of sources have mentioned these deaths. Perhaps without a note, there's less clarity, but they were present. They seem noteworthy. Strict chronology does lose track of these two. Mcfnord (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

They are both reported, one at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Responses and one at Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#January 10. WWGB (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem: two people who might have lived are now dead, and this is effectively hidden away without rhyme or reason. To causality: it would be preferable to first quantify the exact odds for two people to die by purely coincidental suicide days later before deciding to omit these highly significant facts (for those directly involved at least). But I rest my case. — RFST (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Improving sequence in the lead

I have rearranged the first three paragraphs of the article to straighten out the sequence of events, but there may still be a need for some trimming. I have not knowingly left out any of the references. Qexigator (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Title

It should be entitled “Republican Insurrection at the Capitol”. The reference to “Donald Trump and his allies” diminishes the role of the party in denying the outcome of the election and fomenting the unrest that led to the rally, the “Stop the Steal” rhetoric, the subsequent actions of the exclusively Republican rioters/insurrectionists and the continued challenge to certified electoral votes by Republican legislators after the violent attempt to interrupt legitimate congressional action and alter the outcome of the election. Seaneboy44 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, there was not only Republicans there, it has been confirmed that there was Antifa amongst the people in the Capitol. He has been seen on video calling for people to burn it down, and he was part of the crowd breaking into the Speaker's Lobby when Ashli Babbit was shot, he can be heard saying "Go! Go! Let's get this shit" encouraging people to continue breaking the doors, in a video that he posted himself, immediately before Ashli Babbit is shot --75.118.49.94 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

One man an antifa does not make EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one confirmed man, and his brother James Sullivan, provided to Rudy Gulliani information that he was working with the FBI to expose and place blame on John and 226 members of Antifa that instigated the riot. Time will tell if this is true as more people are arrested. My point is that qualifying it with "Republican" is inaccurate, because it was not comprised entirely of Republicans simply due to the fact that someone who calls themselves Antifa was present, instigating, and arrested for rioting in the Capitol, among other charges. --75.118.49.94 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI so far has said there's no evidence to support the "it was antifa" claims. And Rudy Gulliani is far from reliable [18] [19] EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The article which you linked that says the FBI found no evidence of Antifa at the riot was from 9 days ago. The affidavit which is located on justice.gov came out afterwards, and shows that is not the case. The affiant himself in the affidavit is a special agent of the FBI, so that is no longer a valid claim by the FBI. --75.118.49.94 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And that affidavit is for a warrant for one individual. "Antifa" is not mentioned. Again, one individual does not constitute "antifa". EvergreenFir (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that point. But "Republican insurrection at the Capitol" is not a good article title either. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, this wasn't something exclusive to Republicans and largely wasn't really even about them. As for the "insurrection" bit, this is being discussed above. — Czello 23:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It was absolutely exclusive to Republicans. The rally featured exclusively Republican speakers; the goal was, originally through protest and then through violent means, to strip the electoral vote from a Democrat and, in direct violation of the constitution and federal law, hand the election to the Republican candidate; the members of the House and Senate who did not acknowledge that Trump lost the election were all Republicans and those that objected to the certified electoral votes (again, even after the insurrection had been quelled) were Republicans. The Republican Party did not offer platform during the last election and declared itself the party of Trump, and the RNC returned all of the leadership to their roles after the insurrection. I'm not sure how this could be considered anything other than exclusive to Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaneboy44 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Seaneboy44: No, it wasn't. There were people here who weren't members of the Republican Party. Supporting Trump doesn't inherently make one a Republican, either. Nor was it arranged by the Republican Party. If you want to make the claim that this was something specific to the Republican Party you need to back up that claim with some very strong sources. You're implicating an entire political party here, when in reality it was far more complicated than that. Remember, "Pro-Trump" and "Republican" are not synonyms — Czello 08:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that “Republican Insurrection" is bad. However, the overall responsibility of Republican party for these events should be noted somewhere because it has been discussed in multiple RS, for example: "The Coup Began Years Ago. Republican lawmakers have shown their supporters that there is no line they cannot cross", etc. This is obvious because they openly lied about the results of the election. Ron Brownstein even argued that GOP silence on Trump's false election claims recalls McCarthy era. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The involvement of Republicans in the mob and criticism of Republicans who objected to certification is mentioned several times in the article, including in the "Participating groups" section.

BTW, if anyone happens to be curious, the individual mentioned above is John Earle Sullivan, and that article goes into a lot more detail. -- Beland (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

While the point is correct, the problem us that you would need reliable sources to use the phrase "Republican Insurrection" or it would be opposed due to WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't matter whether 99.9% or 100% of those who participated where Republicans, just that those words are in use. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources supporting the OP are "New York Times - How Republicans Are Warping Reality Around the Capitol Attack" and "CNBC - Trump retains overwhelming support from Republicans after deadly U.S. Capitol attack: NBC poll". The second source exposes strong reasons (and not fear of life, but political existence, look at the 43% approval rating of Trump) for the Republican party to keep supporting Trump. Look also at the impeachment vote: 197 Republican Representatives, with only 10 dissenters, sided with Trump. --Robertiki (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1/6

Numerous sources refer to the storming as 1/6, should this be mentioned in the article intro? JJARichardson (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide some examples EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

One source is "NYT - 9/11 United Congress. The Capitol Riot on 1/6 Has Deepened the Divide". --Robertiki (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021 (2)

Edit: Change "carried out by a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election." to "carried out by a mob of protestors dressed to appear like Trump supporters, led by John Sullivan, who has ties to Antifa through his Insurgence USA. References: John Sullivan, and the party of the mob that he was with, are NOT supporters of Trump, so that invalidates what had been written in this article. And this is NOT the first time he and Insurgence USA started riots. Fix it or take the page down. https://universe.byu.edu/2020/07/10/police-arrest-fourth-person-in-connection-with-june-29-provo-protest/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/6/xrvision-firm-claims-antifa-infiltrated-protesters/ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/anti-trump-activist-entered-capitol-wednesday https://gellerreport.com/2021/01/more-evidence-photos-of-antifa-infiltration-at-capitol.html/ John Sullivans remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo0IyHfdWkI 2603:6011:9701:6C1A:A831:AEFF:1A5B:32A3 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Let's examine those sources. A student newspaper (byu.edu) isn't a reliable source. The Washington Times contradicts your proposal, not even mentioning Sullivan and explicitly saying that no Antifa supporters were identified. I could stop right there, but let's go on: Fox News is not considered a reliable source for political reporting, and the Geller Report is basically a blog, self-published, and therefore not usable. The fact that hundreds of people in the protest have already been identified as Trump supporters, and are begging for a presidential pardon, also contradicts your proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Even worst! Quote: "Unable to find actual evidence that the pro-Trump hooligans who broke into the Capitol and assaulted the police were left-wing provocateurs, the right-wing mythmakers have seized instead on the incidental presence on the riot’s front lines of a single anti-Trump activist, a Black man from Utah who recorded his “adventure” on video." --87.170.197.155 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

John Sullivan denied he is either right or left-leaning, but simply a BLM activist. It is very dangerous to suggest an individual's political bias if he never claims it. Also an important reminder for our editors, BLM movement is neither right nor left-leaning. While many BLM supporters voted for the Democrats, it is not up to WP to give them extra labels without reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Just unblock

We won't vandalize Beaux(+2106) (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Or you can make your case here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorists

Why are we not calling it a terrorist attack like it was?

Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

That's exactly what happened. CTF83! 14:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

how many sources do we need? CTF83! 15:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

See #RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed characterized as domestic terrorism, but, being the racist country that we are, the USA generally reserves "terrorism" for acts by foreign, especially arabic, persons. That's not right, but that's the way it is. We are so primitive and F###ing far behind the rest of the world. In spite of this, the American intelligence community are agreed that right-wing white supremacist domestic terrorism is the greatest threat to American security, so there should be enough RS to justify that we use "terrorism" in this article. Sedition is a form of domestic terrorism, and the attack on the Capitol is described as sedition. -- Valjean (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

See #RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism? as Chrisahn has stated. Please continue this discussion there. Jared.h.wood (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

All of these arguments in support of these types of naming seem to be very biased. Wikipedia has always been primarily inhabited by left leaning people, but we really should not be trying to inject charged language into something that should be neutral. Terrorism is an incredibly charged word, and storming a government building does not meet any definition of terrorism, nor has it been described as such on Wikipedia, except when it is done by actual terrorist groups. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Did Alex Azar actually resign?

I don’t think that’s right. PTSDSufferer (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

yes Walrus Ji (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Kinda of. His resignation will occur on the 20th, so he will resign. It just will not occur until Trump leaves the White House. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s notable to note he noted the Capitol riots in his resignation letter, but he also wants to stay until the end of the administration to ensure a smooth transition to the Biden administration. [20] PTSDSufferer (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

All cabinet secretaries submit their resignations effective Inauguration Day - the date when the administration ends that appointed them. That's what Azar did. No different from what every other cabinet secretary routinely did. I don't think it's notable. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To say that Alex Azar resigned as a result of what happened at the Capitol is an outright lie, at least if we are going to believe this article [Fox News | https://www.foxnews.com/media/hhs-secretary-azar-rips-cnn-after-report-of-resignation-i-am-still-here], also the NY Times does not include him in a recent list: [NY Times | https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-resignations.html] Sbyholm (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sbyholm, woah there. Let's calm our jets a little. This is disputed content based on various sources. Let's try to a little more WP:CIVIL. This is not so cut and dry as to call the position an outright lie, so saying that is a bit heavy-handed and does not WP:AGF.

Based on MelanieN's comment above, and the other sourcing provided, it would be appropriate to provide a footnote noting something to the effect of Cabinet members typically resign upon the inauguration of a new administration. However, Azar tendered his inauguration resignation early specifically citing the capitol riots. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

But he didn't tender his resignation early. He made it effective the same time as everybody else. He published it a few days early, apparently hoping to get a little credit for doing so, but in fact he would have resigned with exactly the same effective date regardless of how he felt about the riot. I wouldn't mention it. The NYT doesn't. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring article?

Now that the dust has somewhat settled and we are in the investigation phase of this event, I think now might be a good time to review the existing structure of the article. Currently, the article has the following main sections (not with these exact names):

• Terminology
• Background
• Events in DC
• Reactions
• Aftermath
• Events outside DC

I see a couple of issues with this. First of all, there is a lot of information getting dumped into the "Events in DC" section. Admittedly, the detail on the Capitol storming itself should be covered at length, but a subsection like "Alleged foreign involvement and payments" strikes me as out of place here. This isn't really going over the events of the Capitol storming itself, but rather some background info/revelations from investigation. Secondly, the "Events outside DC" section is last, even though it is covering protests from other capitols on the same day. Since it chronologically aligns with the US Capitol storming, I think it should come right after the "Events in DC" section and before the "Reactions" section. Third, from looking at similar Wikipedia articles (such as September 11 attacks), I think it is an omission that we don't have a dedicated "Investigations" section to cover the extensive effort being undertaken to identify the individuals who took part as well as to identify the lapses in security and/intelligence that allowed the event to happen. (There's currently just a few sentences in the "Aftermath" section). Fourth, the "Terminology" section seems to be misplaced, as it is going over descriptors for the event without giving the reader the context of the event itself first so they can make their own judgment. Lastly, while not a structural issue, in the "Aftermath" section, there does not appear to be any mention of the fear that repeat riots could have occurred leading up to and on Inauguration Day, which resulted in a massive deployment of military forces to secure DC. I'm sure some of this is in the Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, but I feel like the main article is missing some of these key details.

I propose amending the section headings to follow this structure (with the few aforementioned subsections moved):

• Background
• Events in DC
• Events outside DC
• Reactions
  • Terminology (possibly rename this section)
• Aftermath
• Investigations
  • Alleged foreign involvement and payments

Thoughts? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Y2kcrazyjoker4, mostly good, however I would still leave Events outside DC at the bottom or omit them entirely. After all, they're not really the focus on this article. Those would be better for the 2020–21 United States election protests, however it would be useful to note that in the lead alongside a link to the section in that article. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Also proposing "Terminology" rename to "Terms used to describe the event" if rename is agreed upon. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Support SRD625 (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you support, the unblock request or the OP's proposal?Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gwennie and support removing the Events outside DC section from this article and moving its contents to 2020–21 United States election protests. JaredHWood _talk 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

request change to sentence

Not happening, for a number of reasons.

requesting a change to sentence "The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, carried out by a mob of supporters of United States President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.[2]" in this article. this statement is fallable, as left-leaning liberals were starting the riots and encouraging others to join in. please change this sentence to a more neutral political basis, and also use this website post as verification and a citation. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.21.58 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)  Not done: That is a far cry from a reliable source, and you would need much stronger sourcing to contradict the many sources that support the current wording of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC) What they said. Unless you get some heavy sourcing, that's going to be N Not done and not likely to be done ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC) This is an obviously VERY biased article source, which also nowhere states "left-leaning liberals were starting the riots"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) It also gets facts wrong, claiming there was "zero evidence" of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and "hard physical evidence" of fraud in the 2020 election. It does make a valid point about the apparent double standard on reporting of the capitol riots vs the BLM riots, but I agree, it doesn't state that left-leaning liberals started the riots. In fact it agrees multiple times that Trump supporters were rioting and goes out of its way to excuse the behavior. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Capitol Police officer Howard Liebengood - the officer who died is the son of Howard Liebengood, by the same name. This link points to the father's wiki page. It shouldn't unless the father is mentioned. Jbernberg (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It's generally considered acceptable to pipe links to family sections when a family member of the notable, article-having individual becomes notable for a different reason, but not enough that they have their own article. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article title should say 2021 Capitol Riots. This is not a legal insurrection as insurrection would involve the repeal of the US Constitution which was not the goal of the riots. Therefore it cannot be legally called an insurrection. 73.40.185.243 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please participate in the ongoing move discussions above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Please stop

Have added United States degraded from Democracy to Anocracy several times and someone keeps removing it or making it invisible. Please stop. This is highly relevant to the article. If contesting, please notify rkerver. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rkerver: Your edit keeps getting removed because your source at Anocracy#Americas is WP:QUESTIONABLE and is therefor unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties. Claiming that the United States of America is no longer a democracy is a contentious claim and will require more than one unfamiliar source. JaredHWood💬 22:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Counter to coup claim

This article includes an interview with historian Stanley G. Payne where he dismisses comparisons between this and the 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt and by extension other coups simply calling this a riot. [21]. Thought it would be worth having for debate and adding counter-claims. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning: article does not actually "contain an interview", but contains mere snippets of interview text with "interpretations" provided and opinions inserted by Kurt Hofer. In terms of sources, this is terrible, even knowing that "The American Conservative" is already a propaganda site. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just about everything you posted is wrong. TAC is not a "propaganda site" any more than the Nation or TNR. Finally there is no evidence that Hofer is taking Payne out of context. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's doubtful that any experts would describe the affray as an insurrection or coup. But we can't use this source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We are best waiting until the hysteria dies down and expert opinion gets reported in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously issued an official statement to U.S. troops calling the events of January 6 "sedition" and "insurrection", and many reliable sources reported on that. Are you arguing that the Joint Chiefs lack the expertise to make that assessment? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact they do not and there is nothing in reliable sources that says they do. Notice also their careful wording avoids calling it sedition or insurrection. TFD (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That is fair, but I disagree about TAC since there is no agreement for it being reliable source, but I do agree we should wait. I posted this hoping to have a discussion and decide to on counter-claims since a lot of people are saying coup. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A large number of WP:RS say "coup", partly because the stated intent of the rioters was political assassinations (up to and including Pence [22]) and partly because their intent was to subvert the election in the fashion of an autocoup. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That has no bearing on what I posted. My point was to add a source by a respected historian talking about why he says this is not a coup but simply a riot. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The linked post contains a few snippets from an interview, not the actual interview. I can't even tell from the linked article when the interview took place. Payne is quoted as saying "There was no organization, no intentionality, and no ultimate goal", but it is not clear if he still holds that opinion as additional details of the attack have come to light. Not a great source as a result. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's a better source, "Why Trump Isn't a Fascist" (Richard J. Evans New Statesman, 13 Jan 2021.) Evans says that Trump isn't a fascist and the storming of the Capitol was not a coup. "[F]ew who have described Trump as a fascist can be called real experts in the field, not even Snyder. The majority of genuine specialists, including the historians Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, agree that whatever else he is, Trump is not a fascist." TFD (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree great source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not because author refutes ridiculous assertions that no one actually made. I would suggest focusing on facts rather than any commentaries. Such as "the Trump campaign paid the 10 staffers who worked on the January 6 rally more than $1.4 million in salaries" [23]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that Richard J. Evans names people who called Trump a fascist in the aftermath and numerous sources above have used the term "coup" yes it is. What is the point of your source? People who worked the campaign were at the protest, who cares how much they were paid. In the very article you link it says "Later that day, a mob of Trump supporters -- some of whom had attended the rally -- stormed the Capitol, killing a police officer and leaving four others dead in the mayhem." Making a clear contrast between the rally and the riot, and yes an expert on fascism, coups, and history is a better and more important source than the talking heads of the media. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Best wishes is asking us to put 2 and 2 together and get 5. Because some of the organizers of the demonstration had been paid to work on the Trump campaign, we can conclude they were planning to carry out a coup. I would point out that this is circular thinking, that one does not necessarily imply the other, but I don't think Best Wishes would be persuaded. TFD (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, just found it annoying that instead of actually adding to the discussion the poster decided to just insult the merits, without actually understanding what is going on. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, he refutes the claim that the storming was an attempted coup, which is what we are discussing in this thread. According to the website of Wolfson College, Cambridge, where he served as president, Professor Sir Richard Evans MA DPhil PhD (inc) DLitt LitD LittD DLitt FBA FRHistS FRSL FLSW "is a Fellow of the British Academy, the Royal Historical Society, the Royal Society of Literature and the Learned Society of Wales, and an Honorary Fellow of Gonville and Caius College Cambridge, Birkbeck, University of London, and Jesus College Oxford. He has been Vice-Master and Acting Master of Birkbeck, University of London, Chairman of the History Faculty in the University of Cambridge. He is currently Provost of Gresham College, City of London. In 2000 he was Principal Expert Witness in the libel action brought by David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, as dramatized in the movie Denial (2016)."[24] He was knighted for his contributions to scholarship. His books about Nazism have gain universal respect. He certainly is an expert. TFD (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, based on my evaluation of the source, this is a very nuanced approach. This very distinguished and expert historian is taking the position that fascism was position within a specific historical area (the early 20th century) in response to particular historical events.

This also is a facet of language. When we say "fascist" in modern terms we refer to things which appear or echo that period or advocate for it (neo-fascism/neo-nazism). He does adamantly admit that plenty of things appear to be like from the fascist era, but says that Trump can't be considered fascist in the same level.

Those two factors in mind, we should specifically not take this nuanced post to mean that Trump isn't part of neo-fascism, but has not yet reached the point of WWII-era fascism.

(As a non-expert, I do think he makes a logical highsight error. He says one of the main differences is that Trump's militant followers aren't systematic in their action. However they did not become systematic for a while. It took Hitler and the Nazi Party decades to rise. While his actions definitely don't appear to be like full-blown Third Reich, a good argument could be made that they heavily resemble the Beer Hall Putsch.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't think when people refer to Trump as a fascist they mean it literally, then we shouldn't use the term. I don't know where you get decades from. The Nazi Party was founded in 1919 and came to power in 1933. In any case the issue was whether the storming could be called an attempted coup. The term has been used but there is little or no support for the description among experts. Or do you think we can call something an attempted coup even if no attempt was made to overthrow the government or constitution? TFD (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces,

• Regarding coup discussion here: While being written by an expert, the source mentions literally nothing of coup. So it contributes nothing to this immediate discussion. However it can be useful for other sourcing.
• Regarding coup terminology: I think we can definitely call this an attempt to overthrow the government and constitution, a lot of RS use that terminology. It's literally people walking in, crying to hang politicians for counting certified electoral votes, and attempting to subvert that constitutional process. Many of the participants felt that way. Some still even do feel this way, twelve hours from Biden's inauguration.
• Regarding fascist terminology: I do think they mean it literally, just in the sense of modern/neo-fascism, that of resembling fascism of the early 20th century, but being modern and in many ways different while being similar nonetheless. This would be great for any page regarding discussion of Trump as fascist or not.
• Regarding decades: I'm getting it because Hitler was an early member of the NSDAP and it took decades of work from 1919 until 1933. The Putsch itself in 1923 was four years after becoming a member of the party and it still was an attempted coup. In 1933, the party achieved power even after the failed coup a decade previous. (Full military power didn't come until the late 30s, two decades after its beginning.)

~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"While being written by an expert, the source mentions literally nothing of coup." That is an objecvtively false statment, now to be fair the article linked only has part of the article in question so here is a link to the full one [25] and here is a direct quote about the coup claim:

"But 6 January was not an attempted coup. Nor is one likely to occur on 20 January. For all of Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, the attack on Congress was not a pre-planned attempt to seize the reins of government. Trump is too chaotic and undisciplined to prepare and execute any kind of organised assault on democracy. The storming of the Capitol has been compared to Hitler’s infamous beer-hall putsch on 9 November 1923. On that occasion, Hitler gathered his armed and uniformed supporters in a beer-hall in Munich, from where they marched towards the city centre".

Regarding the other points TFD and I are simply making the case that we should wait and here from actual experts not the partistan talking heads, we can use them for describing what people "think" happened, but not what actually did. Moving along, the claim of neo-fascism and neo-nazism makes little sense, sure the ideology changes a bit over time but the core remains this arguemnt your putting forth is no different than republican claims of Obama and the democrats being socialist or Marxist because the ideology changed since 1917 and 1949, it was nonsense there and it is nonsense here for fascism. Also minor point, but "complete military control" basically occurred in 1934 not the late 1930s, although to be fair you could make a case for the Blomberg–Fritsch affair, but even then the loyalty pledge was already there.3Kingdoms (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors it doesn't matter whether or not we believe a coup was attempted. Two of the world's leading fascism scholars said that no coup attempt occurred and no expert opinion has been provided that one did. I don't mind including attributed opinion that it was a coup attempt, since it's part of the story, but per Extraordinary claims, we cannot state that as a fact. AFAIK no one has been charged with an attempted coup, or even sedition.

TFD (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms and The Four Deuces: very well, thanks for 3K providing the full article, as the original link did not have any of that text. This expanded, full article does. As such I have striked the above claim on my part. I think it's very much WP:DUE that we mention many sources have described it as an attempted coup or auto-coup. However, we can include the controversy in the terminology section as disputed. It probably wouldn't be undue to pipe the link to him with citation and saying he disputes this. If we can find sources by others he mentions in the article, then we can definitely include them in a sentence or two which mentions certain scholars disagree with this labeling assessment. However there's so many sources which portray it and use that terminology in a less nuanced way that we can't just remove or omit coup terminology. Obviously this terminology is disputed by experts. There's probably enough weight to balance heavy experts such as Professor Sir Evans with mainstream and academic-but-not-subject-expert use of the terms. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect many experts to weigh in unless there are charges laid or an inquest. I don'[t count someone with a BA in journalism as an established expert. So far Payne and Evans are the only two. So I don't think we should treat these claims as facts. TFD (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the article does not treat them as fact. It currently only specifies that many sources and academics who aren't top-tier subject experts have called it an attempted coup/self-coup. It would be heavily undue to only include Payne and Evans and exclude the global coverage in the same terminology. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction on breaches/occupation

Currently the article states, “the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British Army during the War of 1812.”

There are two key issues with this statement:

1. Suggesting the term “breach” be removed as security was breached even for the bombings by the Weather Underground and M19 groups.

2. In 1954: Puerto Rican nationalists entered the gallery overlooking the House floor with concealed handguns, where Congress was in session. They indiscriminately opened fire and wounded 5 congressmen.

Regards Actuallyguys (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Current wording

While there have been other attacks and bombings of the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington

Suggested change:

While there have been other attacks and bombings of the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, the 2021 riot was the most severe assault on the Capitol since the 1814 burning of Washington

This is consistent with wording in the sources listed. For the ease of other editors here are the links to the events mentioned by Actuallyguys: Weather Underground#United States Capitol bombing, 1954 United States Capitol shooting JaredHWood _talk 20:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, evaluating the souring, I can see the good reason for change, however I think it might be better with different wording:

While the 19th and 20th centuries contained various attacks on the Capitol, this event was the most significant attack since the Burning of Washington in 1814.

What do you think? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Very nice. I am supportive. JaredHWood _talk 21:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think "the 19th and 20th centuries contained" is a bit unidiomatic. I replaced that part by the previous wording (slightly improved). I'm also not quite happy with "most significant attack" (because what's "significant" is a matter of opinion), but I don't have a better idea at the moment... — Chrisahn (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, your change to other instances of violence looks good to me. It is consistent with the sources sited. I agree with you that what's "significant" is a matter of opinion, but it is the opinion of a sited source, not an editor so it should remain. The wording most severe assault from the source is synonymous with most significant attack imo. JaredHWood💬 16:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To my mind, "severe" is a bit less subjective than "significant". For example, an attack in which a whole house is destroyed and 100 people are injured is more "severe" than one in which five people are injured and there's no other damage, and yet the latter can be more "significant", e.g. historically significant, depending on who the people were etc. But "significant" is OK for now. I'm sure it will be changed several times in the coming months anyway. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the broad meaning of Jared.h.wood's assertion: "it is the opinion of a cited source, not an editor, so it should remain." Is it our encyclopedia's policy to state the "opinions" of publications in Wikivoice? If so, this would mean that a NYT Op-Ed would qualify as factual. I'm more or less agnostic on the use of "significant"—but would like clarification on the standard being cited. Also, I find the past perfect progressive tense "had been" a bit odd—what's wrong with the simple past tense: "were"? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: regarding "had been": I'm not a native speaker so I may be wrong, but I felt that past perfect was the most appropriate tense in the sentence "While there had been other instances of violence at the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, this event was the most significant attack [...]". The 19th and 20th centuries are in the past, and so are any of these instances. In particular, they occurred long before the events of January 6, 2021, which are also in the (recent) past. Past perfect says: "...used to refer to an action at a time earlier than a time in the past already referred to." In conclusion: I don't think "there were other instances" would be wrong – it's just that "there had been other instances" is a bit more precise. I guess I'm a bit of a language nerd. :-) P.S.: @Ekpyros: I just noticed you mentioned past perfect progressive. The "had been" in that sentence is a case of past perfect, not of past perfect progressive. An example of past perfect progressive would be "While other instances of violence had been going on ...". Thanks for providing an opportunity to nerd out on these details! :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: the confusion is my fault. Apologies. I meant to say: the opinion of experts in the source, not the opinion of the source. However after a quick review of WP:WIKIVOICE Avoid stating opinions as facts I would support language like this: this event which some historians have called the most severe assault Thoughts? JaredHWood💬 19:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: you're absolutely correct—it's pluperfect, and I absolutely appreciate the language obsession. What's there is in no way incorrect or ungrammatical, but it's just slightly off to my ear. If I can think of a way to explain how, I will. Thanks for the reply! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jared.h.wood:} thanks for the clarification! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: @Ekpyros: The wording example given above does not fit properly in the current sentence. Please review this new suggestion of exact wording. Note that the phrase "some historians" was omitted in favor of simply "historians". This may change the meaning or tone.

While there had been other instances of violence at the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, historians called this event the most severe assault since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British Army during the War of 1812.

Please share support or give further suggestions. JaredHWood💬 21:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. "Most significant attack" wasn't terrible, but this is much better. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done JaredHWood💬 22:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It is enough of attacking anything that smells trumpeted.88.7.193.31 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"2021 Washington D.C protests" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 Washington D.C protests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#2021 Washington D.C protests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

It's claimed in this article (under section 3.4) that people associated with the Black Hebrew Israelites also participated in or were at the very least in the vicinity of the riot. I wasn't able to corroborate that via a quick Google Search (which doesn't mean it's wrong), but is there any further information as to what goals they were pursuing? Were they pro-Trump as well? I suggest adding one additional citation pertaining to the presence of the Black Hebrew Israelites during the event, if possible.

The source appears to be this Business Insider story, which is solely sourced to a Daily Beast reporter's tweet, itself prefaced with "appear to be." Also worth noting that previous RFCs have determined Business Insider to not be that reliable of a source. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the community thinks about Moment, but they also mention the tweet ([26]). --Bangalamania (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying and reacting so quickly! Quite a few Black Hebrew Israelites do appear to hold anti-Semitic views and oppose many aspects of left-wing politics in the USA, so it's not totally inconceivable that they could perceive themselves as having common ground with far right and even white supremacist groups. Maybe at some point in the future more details will emerge regarding their involvement, but I agree with you that at this stage it's somewhat open to debate whether they should be mentioned in the article. However, the photo of them does seem legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

BHIs are a rather WP:FRINGE group, so I think better sourcing is needed for this if it is to be deemed WP:DUE and merit inclusion. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Image 8014 on my contributions on Wikimedia under same name, probably others of Black Israelites in nearby files on my Contribs there

@AllegedlyHuman: @IHateAccounts:

I can personally and photographically confirm the Black Israelites (ISUPK) were present on the east plaza of the Capitol, preaching at the crowd. But I didn't see them come any closer than shown in my photos. I think 3 or 4 of mine show them. You can check around Image 8014 to see others: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapTheForwardAssist TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"I can personally and photographically confirm" - That's WP:OR, we need WP:RS coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I'm not saying I'm an RS, I'm saying it is true, so it's just a matter of finding an RS that mentioned it, vice speculation about whether it actually occurred or no. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Present nearby" could mean so many things. Were they counter-protestors? Did they participate in any illegal activities? We need secondary RS to provide context as well as establish WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Again caveating that I am not an RS, but just stating what I saw occurred so we can seek RS confirmation we can cite: what I saw of them, they were about 50-75yds from the Capitol steps and doing their usual loud preaching, arguing with both white protesters and black pro-Trump protesters. Basically exactly what anyone who knows their regular behavior would expect. I've seen them do the exact same thing at the Atlanta Capitol following a standoff between pro and anti Trump factions (both armed). Point is Black Israelites gravitate to any kind of attention-getting situation to try to get visibility, regardless of how practical the decision would appear. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing the reference to Black Hebrew Israelites from the article. It can be readded with a reliable source. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If they have received little attention then there is no reason to mention them. From the picture, it seems that about 20 attended, which isn't substantial. We can't even be sure they were BHI and it would be helpful to know if the BHI had an official position on the demonstration as well as what they did during it. TFD (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Reference removed from Article per discussion JaredHWood _talk 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman:: your claim that Business Insider isn't "that reliable a source" cites this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 83#Is Business Insider reliable?. Having read it thoroughly, I strongly disagree with your characterization. It appears to me that all the comments about BI's reliability were positive—indeed the only question of "reliability" was whether the article qualified as a "primary source" since the part cited had simply republished one. Can you point me to what in that Rfc led to your claim that BU isn't reliable? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: In regards to the RFC I mentioned, I was looking mostly at the comment saying it wasn't a primary source. I read through the relevant WP page, which notes that "Business Insider publishes original reporting and aggregates material from other outlets". I believe I was under the assumption previously that the site was merely an aggregator. In all, Business Insider has been the subject of nine RFCs, with an official report of "no consensus", defined as "marginally reliable" which "may be usable depending on context". In regards to this specific claim, it does seem to be loosely reported, sourced only to a wishy-washy tweet. As such, for this potentially libelous claim, I think the story should be considered particularly dubious. Thanks for the comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We cannot generalize about "Black Hebrew Israelites" because this is a highly factionalized movement with dozens of competing sects. This particular group appears to be the "House of Israel" headed by Kani Zabach, which is described in this ADL report. This is the group involved in the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. Zabach posted on Facebook on January 6 confirming they were active in Washington that day, but I find no evidence that they were doing anything other than their usual street preaching. Accordingly, I do not think that this article should mention these eccentrics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As for Image 8014, it does not show them storming the Capitol. If photos surfaced verifiably of Black Hebrew Israelites storming the Capitol, that'd be much different. SecretName101 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Death of Ashli Babbitt

The page has been blanked two timeswithout discussion , the last time by GorillaWarfare. In contrast to what GorillaWarfare claims, Looking at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt there's no objection/consensus against creating a standalone page on the incident of Babbitt's death. Fresh sources like this shows the event is still creating news. Any thoughts? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Notable for one event, no she is not indepdendantly notable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, the event of her death is notable! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the AFD that you linked yourself, you are incorrect... the consensus was that she fails WP:BIO1E and to REDIRECT to this article... she is NOT notable enough for a standalone article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Clarification (Ashley Babbitt vs Death of Ashley Babbitt): I need to say this, after two users (Slatersteven and Adolphus79) are failing to get the point of WP:BIO1E. No one is saying Ashley Babbitt is notable enough at the moment for having a stand alone page, rather the event of her death should be considered as an independent subject. These two are far way different, so please don't mix them. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No we get that, and no its not independently notable from the event in which she died.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The event of her death was the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (or whatever this page winds up being titled in the future)... not a standalone event, not a standalone death... this has already been discussed and settled... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It is probably too early to have an article. No doubt there will be an enquiry about her death and lots of information and opinion reported in reliable sources. She may in time become a martyr for the far right, like Horst Wessel or John Birch. Either could establish notability. At present however there is insufficient reporting to write an informative article. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, I suggest we wait until sources are available. TFD (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think her death warrants its own separate article, any more than an article about her is warranted. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts and sources with excerpts:

• Ashley Babbitt was the only deliberate death on 1/6, only trying a already broken window: "Ky. man accused of smashing window Babbitt tried to breach; N.M. man vowed to return to D.C. — and was caught when he did"

Federal prosecutors have arrested a Kentucky man who they allege was part of a violent crowd that stormed the House Speaker’s Lobby during the breach of the U.S. Capitol, smashing a window with a flagpole moments before Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot, court filings show.
An FBI charging affidavit alleges that Chad Barrett Jones is the man shown in video at Babbitt’s left on Jan. 6, wearing a red-hooded jacket and gray skullcap and striking the lobby door’s glass panels as a mob chanted “Break it down!” and “Let’s f-----g go!”
A police officer, with gun raised, appeared to shoot Babbitt, with Jones still in view at the left and holding the pole, the FBI agent said.

• it is a case of Police excessive force use, as happened to George Floyd, which is the real problem BLM is facing, regardless of race: "GUNNED DOWN Capitol riot – Excessive force investigation into death of Ashli Babbitt who was shot by cop as she stormed building"

Prosecutors in the office’s Civil Rights division have opened a formal, federal excessive force case into Babbitt’s death.

• questions linger as why a law abiding person, a military veteran, has become a rioter
• how Babbitt's death could divide more: "'Our First Martyr.' How Ashli Babbitt Is Being Turned Into a Far-Right Recruiting Tool"

Her death was part of the grim toll of a riot that left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer, vandalized the seat of American democracy and left the nation shaken. But the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol with Babbitt—climbing on scaffolding, smashing windows, looting offices and posing for selfies as they romped through the building for nearly three hours—were far from chastened by the deadly cost.
One of the keys to that propaganda, experts say, will be its new martyr: a young, white, 14-year Air Force veteran who liked to post photos in red MAGA hats and We Are Q shirts. Babbitt, who ran a pool-supply company with her husband in San Diego, was an avid Trump supporter who prolifically retweeted conspiracy theories and posted angry videos directed at lawmakers.’’
Regardless of what Babbitt believed in life, in death she has become a symbol both for causes she fervently embraced and some she likely never even heard of.

Neutral information is better as silence from who don’t approve. --Robertiki (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Robertiki: Thanks for the important points. Her death has been the subject to numerous reliable sources receiving in-depth coverage. Her death incident should certainly be differentiated from the riot event. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Her death is only notable within the scope of this article/event, not separate from it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

She is not notable outside of her death and her death is an inextricable part of this riot. --Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is enough material about her death in this article as is warranted. A separate article on her death is unnecessary and something that I will object to. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruh, The Sun is not a reliable source - it's a sensationalistic tabloid with a well-earned reputation for stretching the truth to its breaking point. What has indeed been opened is an (appropriate) and standard use of force investigation into the shooting. That doesn't make it "excessive force." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The more appropriate place to discuss this would be at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 10#Ashli Babbitt, or in the deletion discussion for the article if that is re-opened. Talking about it here isn't going to have much effect. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That link takes to a closed and archived discussion. Che only way to restart on that page is to recreate the deleted page, and I am not sure it should be done without a previous consensus. Che correct place are this pages, where the content about Babbitt has been moved. --Robertiki (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Look again; the Deletion Review discussion I linked to has not been closed as of when I looked at it just now. There is a very distinct closing template for DRVs so it is hard to mistake a closed one as being open. All DRVs, open or closed, exist on the "archive" pages. --RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Deletion Review is now closed, with the result that the AfD close has been overturned. The reopened AfD is available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt for interested editors' input. --RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It has been closed and redirected now. Too many Delete votes. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It should not have been a vote. It's sad, like having a shouting crowd storm a peaceful library. From WP:NOTDEM: "Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.". Lines like: "Delete completely and utterly non-notable insurrectionist who died doing dumb and highly illegal things." are of no use in reaching a consensus. As are all those lines who repeat the same argument. If we delete all duplicates, we would see there are more arguments to keep. Anyway, I feel that place for discussion is here, as a proposal to split the section about Babbitt's death as a own page. And my first question is: "Please explain criteria to why we have a George Floyd bio ?". Please don't direct me to the George Floyd talk page, because I am interested in comparing that criteria with Babbitt's exclusion criteria. Peace to all. --Robertiki (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that the death of George Floyd was part of a broader theme of questionable police uses of force against African-Americans, and led to widespread national protests and lasting national coverage. Babbitt's death, while tragic, did neither. She was shot and killed by police officers defending the House chamber, as she attempted to break into the Speaker's Lobby while voluntarily participating in a violent insurrection against the lawful Congressional counting of electoral votes. There are no "Ashli Babbitt protests" in cities around the country, and the tragedy here is that the billionaire elites who duped her into dying for a worthless, pointless, seditious cause will never even know her name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite simply, George Floyd was the principal, and only, individual that was involved and died in that event, and his death sparked outrage and protests nationwide, a marked public conversation about racial injustice, and police reform across the country. The event is known globally as "The George Floyd killing". Ashli Babbitt was not a principal actor in the January 6th event, and not the only person who died that day. Not once has anyone, anywhere, referred to January 6th as "The Ashli Babbitt killing". She just happened to be the first rioter to try to climb through the broken window of the barricaded door of a secured room, and happened to get shot for it. If you read WP:BIO1E, it makes this very clear.

As for your comments about "voting" at the AFD, there were just as many KEEP !votes claiming she was "A proud patriot who didn't deserve to be murdered" (or the like), and I can guarantee that the closing editor took into consideration the less profound of arguments on both sides. This subject has now been taken to AFD, twice, and the consensus both times was a rather snowy decision. To continue to argue for it at this point is rather moot. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that we shouldn't have a George Floyd bio page. And have actually done so in the past. --Khajidha (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What we do on other pages has no impact on what we do here, as not all situations are identical, and thus will just cause distractions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• FYI, here's a fresh source. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your source says "the Proud Boys posted a tribute to Ashli on Telegram", that is all... no sign of her being an major player in the event, no info about public protests or memorials, no major coverage about Ashli herself, just that someone posted a message about her on a lesser known social media app... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I assumd that was kind of theri point, that even now, weeks after the event the coverage is not really about her, so much as wider events.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, more than half the news story is about Proud Boy arrests and other activity taking place AFTER the January 6th event... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Goals section

I'm opening a discussion on this as previous attempted changes of this nature have generally been subject to discussion and reversion.

Charges were filed several days prior against members of the Oath Keepers group which include seized messages in which the charged individuals are provided locations on members of Congress, ordered to seal them in, and deploy some sort of gas to presumably incapacitate or otherwise inflict harm upon them - e.g. [27], [28], [29], [30], etc.

Editors have generally been reluctant to include any discussion of potential intent to capture or inflict harm upon politicians [including Pence/Pelosi] in the goals section. Would there be a consensus to add a short cautious statement to the goals section to summarize the additional details now known - e.g. "Capture or incapacitation of Congressional members"? Reyne2 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

prior to what? Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like "several days ago" or "several days prior to today" to me. Given the links, they are referring to charges filed around the 19th. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is because these are (in effect) criminal charges and we need to be very careful how we write is so as not to violate wp:blp.10:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jake Angeli § Requested move 22 January 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jake Angeli § Requested move 22 January 2021. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Ali Alexander - December 15 2020.webm (discussion)
• Riot in Capital .jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: source reporting on involvement of non-Trump supporters

I have initiated a RfC in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The National Pulse. The result would affect if we cite a report from The National Pulse about a far-left group being responsible for inciting the violence in the Capitol. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The storming was not a coup

In order for this event to have been a coup, it would require military or government personnel to invade the legislature in order to incite terror and declare a new government. Most of these protestors and rioters were your average Joes, they were civilians and not even soldiers or politicians, they obviously didn't intend to create a government based on mob rule, they just wanted to ensure that the voting was halted. Even if they had weapons, they couldn't possibly declare their own government because they didn't have the military or political authority to do so. If the military collaborated with the protesters, which they didn't, then it would make more sense to call it a coup, but until then, it should only be called a revolution as it pressured a change in government but didn't actually enforce a change in government. Epitome of Creativity (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The President is not “an average Joe” (no pun intended about the President Elect) PTSDSufferer (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Epitome of Creativity, this is an ongoing discussion per many sections above. It's not in any way cut and dry. However it's very clear that certain sources (as listed above at the top section) do describe this as an attempted coup. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Coups can be carried out by paramilitary groups, and involvement in the modern US militia movement likely qualifies as paramilitary. Furthermore, it has been reported that there were a number of insurgents who were military or law enforcement who flashed IDs to try and get past the police line. Regardless of those facts, I agree with the previous respondents: the POTUS encouraged the attack, which is why media outlets have described it as a coup attempt. The fact Trump was not personally there doesn't change his role. As this is studied in more detail by political scientists and commentators perhaps the eventual discussion on the page should reflect varying academic viewpoints of whether or not this really constitutes a coup, but - respectfully - I don't think it is fair to outright say it was not an attempted coup. Connorlong90 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we use reliable sources or WP:RS. Early on, there were some mentions of a coup in RS but certainly not a majority of them. As a week or two have passed, RS have stopped referring it as a coup. RS such as CNN, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, BBC, etc. Therefore, the correct Wikipedia would be to not call it a coup. This should not be politicized such that if you like Trump you say it is not a coup or if you hate Trump you say it is a coup. No, Wikipedia shouldn't work like that. Vowvo (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Pentagon lied. Charles Flynn was involved in the Capitol riot response, it's been revealed! He is the brother of Trump's ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn, a figure in the QAnon conspiracy and in the weeks before the riot spoke at rallies about voter fraud in support of Trump. The Army denied Charles Flynn involvement for days but on 20 January Charles Flynn said he was on the 6 January call among officials about deploying troops to help. The Army has not clarified why they lied for days that Flynn was not involved.

* Army falsely denied Flynn’s brother was involved in key part of military response to Capitol riot → "The Army’s initial denial of Flynn’s participation in the critical Jan. 6 meeting, despite multiple inquiries on the matter, comes as lawmakers demand transparency from the Defense Department in the aftermath of one of Washington’s gravest national security failures, which left one police officer and four rioters dead, the Capitol desecrated and the lives of Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress endangered."

* WaPo: Meeting On Military Response To Trump Riot Included Flynn's Brother | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Refusing to mobilized the national guard was participation in the coup d’etat. Those who allowed Charles Flynn to keep his post during December and January should be held accountable. --217.234.68.100 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this site concerned with fact or opinion? Is the author concerned with fact or opinion? In reality the word insurrection should only be used for those that stormed the Capitol that belong or serve alliance to Antifa and or BLM. They had stake in the game and opinion piece requires mention.

Because no factual evidence of conspiracy has been formally investigated, the root cause of this incident has no truth to attach to it. Baseless opinions are nothing more and needs to be announced at the begging of the written opinion. Visto Dalla Florida (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

lets see some RS saying ANTFA (which is not an organization) or BLM were involved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Antifa or BLM???? Are YOU concerned with fact Visto Dalla Florida? SecretName101 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"it would require military or government personnel" WRONG. Citizen-led coups and coup attempts take place. The Wilmington insurrection of 1898 (also known as a the Wilmington coup of 1898) was citizen-led. If I successfully overthrew Uruguay's government, pretty sure nobody would say "Well, he's not a military or government personnel, so I guess it's not a coup". SecretName101 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would. That would be an insurrection or revolution, not a coup. Notice that the title of the article you link to as an example calls it an insurrection, not a coup. --Khajidha (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. Per coup on Wikipedia "A coup or coup d'état is the removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator." There are various kinds of coups, such as civil society coups, that are not involving military or government figures. SecretName101 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement with SecretName101 that a coup does not require military personnel. I still would not call this event a coup or attempted coup on the basis that the rioters where not attempting to seize power or remove the existing government. They were attempting to retain power by disrupting legislative proceedings to keep the existing government. JaredHWood💬 19:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So it’s a self-coup then. Saturdayopen (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

An attempted self-coup perhaps? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Meaning that if you’re going have a list of coup and coup attempts, you should probably add this as well. Saturdayopen (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2021

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. I haven't counted the !votes (it's not really something I do when closing requests), but my general sense is that, irrespective of such a count, not even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS exists for or against this request, which defaults to it being declined. It seems like disputants are fairly evenly-matched here, in strength of arguments as well as in numbers (again, guestimating with the latter). There are exceptionally strong views expressed here (which is expected), some more substantive than others, but ultimately, the burden for taking action (moving) has not been met. Several participants suggetsed "Riots" as an alternative title and spirited debate was also engaged about whether it makes sense to have the date (2021) as part of the title. I'll set at a moratorium of one month (WP:ACDS action, will log) for trying "Insurrection" again, barring any significant legal outcomes, whichever comes first. Other move requests (like "Riots," etc.) may be launched immediately. I'm not confident that this closing summary is detailed enough for such an important request, so if any participant wishes for me to expand on something, I will certainly consider doing so as an addendum attached below. Thanks. El_C 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Insurrection at the United States Capitol – Introduction: This is the big RM that people have been waiting for, for the past week or so. Saturday evening seems like a good time to start this. This is an important article and needs to have the best name it can have. Enough days have passed, while not too many, and this is the ideal time to have a very calm and substantive discussion. The name will always be slightly contested. This is not a reason not to proceed – WP:RMCM.

The formatting must be correct now. Please only advocate in the form of "Support" or "Oppose" without suggesting alternatives. If you think a very close variant of the above such as "United States Capitol insurrection" is better, type "Support". A bold editor, or a subsequent technical move process will take care of this detail. Please remember that United States Capitol can't be shortened to Capitol or US Capitol.

Policy statement: WP:NCE, there is an established common name for this event, based on "where" (United States Capitol) and "what" (Insurrection). The differences in the exact phrasing of the common name variants are neutral and unimportant. The article title does not need the "when" (the year), because the event is so immediately identifiable. The event is immediately identifiable because it is unprecedented and important. WP:PRECISE, insurrection is the most specific/precise descriptor. Competent people such as academics and reputable journalists describe the event as an insurrection. Using "insurrection" to describe this event meets the definition of insurrection. This usage is not controversial or contradicted by an authority. WP:NDESC, insurrection is a neutral descriptior. Major political figures on both sides of the spectrum have described the event as an insurrection. WP:CONCISE, insurection is a concise descriptor.

Another relatively prominent term used to describe the event is "coup attempt" / "failed coup". This use is less prominent than insurrection. WP:COUP, coup is a strong word. Using "coup" to describe this event doesn't meet the definition of coup. When it's being called an attempt it's very unclear but for which aspect of failure of the coup, the coup would have succeeded, in order for the event to ultimately meet the definition of a coup in the first place – only then to be seen as an attempt. There is no such logical problem with insurrection, of which there can not be an attempt, because the consequence is not included in the definition. Insurrection is an insurrection regardless of success. A quashed insurrection is not "attempted insurrection" but merely an insurrection. This is very opportune for the purposes of robust article naming. Coup is not used in the article body in wikivoice. Insurrectionist (implying nothing other than insurrection) is. Apart from insurrection and coup there is no other term even approaching commonness. "Riot", "breach", "siege", "attack", "assault", "invasion" are inadequate for not meeting the above standards either partially or at all.

The same goes for "storming". It should be noted that "storming" and "insurrection" are not mutually exclusive. The storming was one the methods. Among other actions (such as attempted bombing), it was the 'how' to the 'what'. The name needs to reflect the 'what'.

WP:UCRN – Sufficient evidence of the proposed name being the common name is already included in this page – I urge you to look it over. I won't even link it as I think it's unnecessary.

Process statement: The current name is a result of an expeditious proposal to change the name primarily to something other than "2021 United States Capitol protests". "Protests" was adequate for a brief moment, but as things took a violent turn, a discussion took place to urgently replace that with something sensible. At that time, the real motivation, as well as the standard used, for the move was mere propriety and common sense. There was consensus about "protests" in the negative, but consensus in the positive – over the common name was certainly not achieved, not to any serious degree, as no such thing could have even existed then (the very same day, and the following one). A great number of pro-move participants advocated for "insurrection", and there were many other proposals with significant support as well. Therefore, scores of users typed "Support" while simultaneously suggesting an alternative. What transpired was an unusual, miserably formatted, and essentially irregular, but still quite justified, move process. This is how things go in unprecedented situations. 

As a matter of circumstance, the term proposed was "storming", but "storming" was not particularly favored over other terms in reliable sources. When some media put "storm" (verb) in their headlines, that was not indicative of "storming" as a chosen descriptor. The notion of the event as a whole and the primary action driving it (the verb "to storm") are not the same thing and should not be confused. Now it's evident that "storming" has not become the common name. 

All of this can be gleaned from what the deciding administrator said in his closing message: This is a stopgap measure, and is not meant to be a permanent solution. Once the issue calms down, I encourage folks to tackle this again. Please wait at least a week until further renaming, so that the media can agree on a WP:COMMONNAME. I also suggest that if an RM is going to have multiple options to use things like "Option A" or "Option 1", so that it is easier to close :)

Regardless of this, the current name isn't terrible. This is not about how "storming" is bad, but how "insurrection" is better; and not only better - that it's sufficiently better to warrant a move; and not only that - that it's exactly the best name, because it's the common name. This discussion is not how what happened was not a storming. Yes, arguably, it was also a storming. It was several things. This article is most certainly dealing with the whole phenomenon, evidenced in the inclusion of the pipe bombs and events in other cities. Still, this discussion is also not about how "storming" might have certain problematic connotations. This discussion has nothing to do with criminal adjudication for some crime of "insurrection" as that's not an element to the notion of insurrection, which is a fact of physical and social reality, that criminal law is only a minor facet of; criminal law does not answer "what is real" but "is X criminally liable for Y". An insurrection can happen in a tribal community or in a territory without a criminal justice system. This discussion has nothing to do with the current impeachment proceedings whatsoever; it's not about Donald Trump's role and incitement, as there can be an insurrection without incitement. This discussion is not about guns, and insurrectionists being armed or "well-armed", as this is not required for there to be an insurrection under most definitions, and since some or many indeed were armed, the remaining definitions are met too. 

Either way, this discussion has only a little bit to do with definitions (only in the context of preciseness), but it has everything to do with the common name, as previously discussed.

Conclusion: Be bold. Don't glorify the status quo as a result of a previous wonderful Wikipedia consensus-reaching process. The process was fine for what it was, but it wasn't excellent or conclusive by any means. Now we can have a truly excellent process. This is the only way to stop the torrent of RMs. Not "moratoriums" on discussions. This is the decisive action that this article needs to become the best it can be for a long time to come. Alalch Emis (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Addenda

1. "Riot" can not always be inferred from "rioter" as the term chosen by an organization: Washpo pairs "insurrection" with "rioter", not "insurrectionist" — Alalch Emis 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

We are discussing this at some length above, it does no one any favours to have it discussed in three or four separate threads. Can we please combine it all into one?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a formal move request resulting from existing discussions reaching a natural endpoint and essentially converging on "insurrection". Alalch Emis (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per own RM Alalch Emis (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

comment was posted for the purpose of formatting; struck own nominator comment per WP:RMCOMMENT — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Neutral. There isn't anything I can add to Alalch Emis's excellent treatment of the rationale to rename. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Update: Changing to neutral. I still think that "insurrection" is a better term than "storming", based on the rationale in the proposal that restricts a vote to a choice between those two terms, and I would be happy if the article was renamed accordingly, knowing that a further rename may be needed. However, given the discussion below, particularly about news search hits in the last 24 hours, "riots" may be a better choice. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm still drinking my morning coffee here on the West Coast, so haven't read this all yet... but wouldn't United States Capitol insurrection be more WP:CONCISE than Insurrection at the United States Capitol? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu: This is already addressed in the second paragraph of the proposal above. A minor variation of the same title is considered the same title for the purpose of this vote, and can always be changed later. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Anachronist, ah yes it is. Need to finish my coffee and put on my reading glasses... – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Alalch Emis. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the discussion up the page that so far has preferenced including the year 2021. I am not necessarily opposed to the storming/insurrection change, but I think the year inclusion is a major point of debate. I would also say "United States Capitol insurrection" is the more concise phrasing. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  To my ears "United States Capitol insurrection" sounds like "O.K. Corral Gunfight" instead of "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral", i.e. somehow unnatural. Less encyclopedic. I think that this difference is completely neutral and technical, so it isn't informative on commonness. That's why I didn't ask people to use Option A and Option B, as the quoted administrator suggested. If the RM was dealing with multiple descriptors, then I would have done so. About the year idk, that part is discussed mostly in terms of a previous storming, but if the descriptor is insurrecton – then i don't think there's a relevant existing discussion. This is the first insurrection at that location. Alalch Emis (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  While this might be the first true violent insurrection, I feel the term is often used metaphorically, similarly to "rebellion" or "revolt", to indicate any sort of disobedience to authority. Maybe including the year would be more clear to ground the time period of the event, although it's not the sort of hill I'd necessarily die on - nonetheless, in one of the previous discussions where people wanted to establish phrasing for the RM, the one including the year was getting the most support votes. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I appreciate (or at least try my best to) the ongoing discussions and the past ones. I'm just of the mind that the year discussions with respect to the descriptor "storming" are not relevant for a title with the descriptor insurrection. Nonetheless I get your different perspective on this and how insurrection could be used metaphorically. Personally, I think "rebellion" and "revolt" are indeed often used metaphorically, but perhaps insurrection not so much. People have even been saying how they aren't even terribly familiar with this word; now it's a part of everyone's everyday vocabulary, almost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  The discussion above I am referencing was specifically about the phrasing of the "insurrection" title, rather than the storming one. Inclusion of the year still got the most support, although it wasn't the biggest discussion. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  "Any sort of disobedience to authority" is not equivalent to insurrection. Misuse of the term by others shouldn't lead us to avoid the correct title here. Inkwzitv (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure metaphor is akin to misuse, but I get your point. But if we are accepting that some people might misunderstand the term, doesn't that actually benefit the argument that including the year might provide clarity? This is an old building that has seen much history. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  What other "insurrections" at the US Capitol are you thinking it needs to be distinguished from? Inkwzitv (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm thinking about this more and I also think part of why I prefer the year is that "United States Capitol insurrection", on its own, sounds more like an overview of insurrection that has happened at the Capitol throughout its lifetime, rather than a specific event. Including the year makes it clear that this is a singular, event, as well as the rationale of clarity, as mentioned above. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Alalch Emis. Leaving the year out is a good idea; don't want to suggest it'll be happening again, and it hasn't happened before. Inkwzitv (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Inkwzitv: Arguably, the building was in fact stormed during the Burning of Washington in 1814. It was certainly looted and burned by enemy troops. -- Beland (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh wait, but that wasn't an insurrection, which is what this is supporting. Nevermind! -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The claim "there is an established common name for this event" is absolutely wrong. A search for "capitol" news on Google currently brings up headlines with the terms "capitol rioters", "capitol riots", "capitol mob", "capitol attack", "capitol violence", "capitol siege". The word "insurrection" first appears in this result, which is currently the 20th (last on second page). A search for "capitol" news on Bing shows even more clearly that "Capitol riot" is the most common term, with "Capitol attack" in second place. Yes, we can argue about the title, but the discussion must be based on facts. Not on claims that are obviously false. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You didn't see the section at the top of this page, did you? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Of course I saw that discussion. The main argument for "insurrection" brought forth in that discussion seems to be a list of sources using that term. Unfortunately, no-one made a similar list for "riot". Currently the terms "capitol riot" and "capitol riots" are much more common in reliable sources than "capitol insurrection". Renaming the article to "insurrection" would be a mistake that we'd have to fix with yet another move request. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Chrisahn: The discussion here is about whether "insurrection" is better than "storming". If you are arguing google news results, then use a valid comparison: there are 47.9 million results for "capitol insurrection" and 18.3 million results for "capitol storming". On the basis of Google news results, wouldn't you agree that "insurrection" is an improvement? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, "insurrection" would not be an improvement. If we choose that title, we'll have to start a new renaming discussion right away, because it obviously isn't the most common term and does not conform to WP:NCE. That would be a waste of time. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Anachronist: Where did you get those numbers? Google says there are ~7 million results for "capitol insurrection", but 63 million results for "capitol riot". — Chrisahn (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Adding "&tbm=nws" in the search term finds these results:

  148 million results for https://www.google.com/search?q=capitol+riot&tbm=nws

  48 million results for https://www.google.com/search?q=capitol+insurrection&tbm=nws

  18 million results for https://www.google.com/search?q=capitol+storming&tbm=nws

  Inkwzitv (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, Inkwzitv. These numbers prove my point: "insurrection" clearly isn't the most common term and does not conform to WP:NCE. Renaming the article to "insurrection" would be a mistake and a waste of time. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Chrisahn: Actually, it proves my point that "insurrection" is better than "storming" based on those results. There are two outcomes to this discussion: either the title stays as "storming", which according to your criteria is the worst of those results, or it changes to "insurrection", which may not be optimal but it's an improvement. I asked if you agreed that "insurrection" is a preferable outcome to this discussion, and you did not answer. The word "riot" is not under discussion here. Which of the two outcomes to this RM do you prefer? Remember there can be further discussions after this one, whatever name is settled on isn't carved in stone. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Anachronist: I answered your question here. To reiterate and reinforce my point: Renaming the article to "insurrection" would be a mistake because it would violate our policies, in particular WP:NCE, because "insurrection" clearly isn't the most common term. It would also be a waste of time because we'd have to start a new discussion right away to rename it to a term that actually conforms to WP:NCE. Which outcome to this RM would I prefer? I think it should be closed immediately because it is based on a false claim. Let's be better than the Trumpists. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  A difference in opinion on individual policy-based matters is not constructively managed by accusing the other side of "violating our policies" and "false claims" in bold letters. Ironically, your idea to immediately close this section goes against policy. Alalch Emis (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Alalch Emis: Your claim that "insurrection" is the "established common name for this event" is simply false. The sources clearly show that it isn't. That's not a "difference in opinion". I do think you're acting in good faith, but you're simply mistaken about the prevalence of the term "insurrection" in reliable sources.

  You're probably right that an admin closing this request because it's based on a false claim would go against policy. I'd ask you to withdraw the request. (I assume that's allowed? I'm not sure.) It currently seems unlikely to pass, and even if it does, we'd have a new discussion right away. Let's save time, stop this discussion, and start a new one to rename the article to a term that actually conforms to WP:NCE. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  It isn't allowed. The request isn't a topic of private interest but merely started a process that has it's course now and is in the domain of the community as a whole. I appreciate your perspective, but there's seven days to go. I think it will result in a move. In either case a subsequent move discussion is not a problem. I adhere to the same policy as you and find no false claim on my part. If we are dealing with a riot, how is this true – Goals: Disrupt, delay, and change the Electoral College vote count in Trump's favor, Capture and destroy the certificates of ascertainment of the Electoral College votes[3], Pressure Congress and Vice President Mike Pence to overturn election of former vice president Joe Biden. That does not a riot make. Or rather it goes way past a riot. It's a matter of preciseness WP:PRECISE. Commonness is not the only criterion. If you have two common descriptors, the one which is more precise is better. Alalch Emis (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I wasn't talking about WP:PRECISE. Your claim regarding WP:NCE is simply false – "capitol insurrection" is not the "established common name for this event". So far there is no established common name, but "capitol riot" is currently the most common (and comes closest to being "established"), while "insurrection" is at best in a distant third or fourth place (roughly ten times less common than "riot"). Yes, there are multiple criteria, but since "insurrection" is so clearly the wrong title according to WP:NCE, it doesn't really matter how well it meets other criteria. (By the way, I do think "riot" or "attack" are more WP:PRECISE and WP:NDESC than "insurrection", but that's indeed a matter of opinion to some extent, and I won't get into these issues right now.)

  Anyway. We can't have another move request while this one is open, so I'm afraid we'll have to wait seven days until it fails, and then we can have a new request that meets WP:NCE and has a better chance of succeeding. Well, so be it. As you said, the current name isn't terrible. We can live with it for another 14 days. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. @Alalch Emis: "Either way, this discussion has only a little bit to do with definitions [...], but it has everything to do with the common name" — These are your words. The most common name by far is "capitol riot", so according to your words, that should be the title. Why are we even having this discussion? — Chrisahn (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Chrisahn:, @Anachronist:, and@Alalch Emis:, et al: The numbers we've given above are Google's search results for all time. I don't know how to get the count of articles for (say) the last week or last 3 days. When I add "&tbs=qdr:m" (or some other time period), Google no longer reports the number of findings. Does someone know how to get those numbers? Inkwzitv (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Inkwzitv: Yeah, I noticed the same thing, to my frustration. It's far more meaningful to get a count of news published in the last 24 hours or even the last week, but the count doesn't appear. I tried other search engines (DuckDuckGo, Ecosia, Bing) and they don't provide hit counts at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Inkwzitv: Good point. https://serpapi.com/playground should work. Set tbm to "News" or "Google Search", and set tbs to "qdr:d" (previous 24 hours) or "qdr:w" (previous week) etc. See total_results in JSON result. Current numbers with "qdr:d" (I also set location to "United States"):

  News search, exact matches (search terms in quotes): "capitol insurrection" 6,930, "insurrection at the capitol" 5,210, "capitol riot" 1,360,000, "capitol riots" 13,400

  News search, inexact matches (without quotes): capitol insurrection 1,140,000, insurrection at the capitol 1,320,000, capitol riot 1,850,000, capitol riots 650,000

  General search, exact matches (search terms in quotes): "capitol insurrection" 635,000, "insurrection at the capitol" 27,700, "capitol riot" 2,050,000, "capitol riots" 824,000

  General search, inexact matches (without quotes): capitol insurrection 7,370,000, insurrection at the capitol 6,840,000, capitol riot 11,200,000, capitol riots 12,000,000 — Chrisahn (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  When I run that Google search, "insurrectionists" appears in the title of the 8th item and in the body of 2 of the earlier ones. Things are fluid there. Inkwzitv (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Updated.Inkwzitv (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sounds like a headline, not a title. Title chosen should make clear that this is an article about an individual event. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is sufficient evidence to call what transpired on January 6th as an insurrection,especially with the new information coming out,that it was planned Alhanuty (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Evidence provided in this thread and further up the page seem to establish "Insurrection" or "Riot" as the common names for the event, more than "storming". Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure that the invasion and vandalizing of one building counts as an insurrection. It was a riot, pure and simple.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  This was not merely entering and vandalizing. What makes it an insurrection is that there was an attempt to kidnap and kill government officials in order to facilitate unconstitutional continuation of the current regime. -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think there's still enough uncertainty and disagreement about whether it was an insurrection that it's better for the title not to pre-judge the question. "Attack" seems like the natural word to use. Like 9/11 attacks. I also agree that the year should be included to make it clear it's talking about a specific event. Binarybits (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Attack in itself is a very unspecific descriptor. When applied to an event consisting of flying planes into buildings, there isn't a specificity/preciseness problem, because there isn't a common more precise term (i could invent "hijack-crashing" on the spot but it isn't common). When applying "attack" to this event, there is a really big problem of this sort, as "attack" could really mean anything. Despite it feeling somewhat natural to go around using more general words and relying on context for the specifics, I don't think that's a useful impulse right now. Alalch Emis (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It's consistent with the body of reliable references. --Cold Season (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Given that this seems to just be weighing if insurrection is better than storming or not, I am inclined to believe that insurrection is more accurate to use. There is a talk page section detailing reliable sources called The "coup" & "insurrection" discussion. Said section hows support that coup or insurrection could be more accurate. The proposal explains that there are potential issues calling this a coup that do not exist when calling it an insurrection. Given that we have a significant number of reliable sources using a term that does not require worrying above if it failed or succeeded compared to a name that was decided on at the time due to early reports, I believe that insurrection is clearly better than storming especially when WP:COMMONNAME is considered. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support strongly: as I have consistently, and as increasing numbers of reliable sources have come to characterize the incident in recent days, as more evidence has become available. soibangla (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: "riot" is easily beating "insurrection" in reliable sources. See this excellent infographic. StAnselm (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link, StAnselm! It's unfortunate that they included fringe sources like Breitbart and Epoch Times but excluded NPR and Huffington Post. As far as I can tell, the latter are the only major outlets who still regularly use the term "insurrection". It would be better to include them in a count, if just to show that even that wouldn't change the outcome: "capitol riot" is the most common name (by a large margin), and "insurrection" isn't even in the top three. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think they include the Epoch Times precisely to show that is is a fringe source. StAnselm (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Epoch Times and Breitbart are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as unreliable, because they have intentionally published falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Epoch Times is a propaganda outlet for Falun Gong. The selection of sources by Visualcapitalist does not follow stats from other sites on the most popular news websites. According to [31] only 38% of Americans get their news from web sites, so more weight should be given to TV, radio, and print sources (though these overlap with web sources). -- Beland (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Makes sense. Good point. @Beland: I agree that fringe sources like Epoch Times and Breitbart should be excluded from such a count, but it wouldn't change the outcome: "capitol riot" is the most common term (by a large margin). As far as I can tell, "insurrection" isn't even in the top three ("attack" and "siege" are more common). — Chrisahn (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Sure, but that count is completely missing mainstream radio, TV, and cable news sources like NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and MSNBC. It's also unclear if these words are used as the name of the event or to describe its component actions or as synonyms after the name has already been used. -- Beland (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beland: Correct. These numbers are just a start. To get a better picture, we'd have to gather our own data. I've counted search results, headlines and occurrences in articles in several (albeit somewhat unsystematic) ways, and I'm pretty sure that a thorough evaluation would show that "capitol riot" is currently the most common term, followed by "attack", with "insurrection" maybe in third or fourth place. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral I generally feel this would be a good name change, we already make clear it is a riot, insurrection is debatable however I do feel like it could be a generally good name title possibly. Then again it could be argued to POV pushing however almost all reliable sources describe it as such. I do think it should be renamed possibly not with this however. Des Vallee (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative oppose. While I don't necessarily agree with the term "storming" (I think it rather glamorizes the event and would prefer the term "riot"), it is used far more often than the term "insurrection" in reliable sources, as mentioned by StAnselm. I also think the year should be included to avoid confusion with events such as the Burning of Washington. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as insurrection is not NPOV. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  What POV does "insurrection" represent? Reliable news sources from NPR to Fox News use it. (See e.g. the body of [32].) -- Beland (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

But they use a better word "riot", in the headline. Insurrection, being a crime, shouldn't be used until there has been due process, a trial, etc. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Rioting and storming a restricted area are also crimes. Fox News follows the general U.S. media practice of using "allegedly" to avoid implying the guilt of a particular person before trial. It did not use "allegedly" in either case in this article, I assume because it does not attribute any specific act to any specific person. But regardless of whether you prefer "riot" or "insurrection", would you agree that both are neutral, given they are both used by both conservative and liberal leaning media sources? -- Beland (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The news media should have used 'allegedly', but they did not. The term 'riot', in general, is not as 'damning', as the word 'insurrection'. I do not believe that either term is neutral, really. Parsing the words here, for this article, is a difficult choice. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the term has negative or positive connotations depending on the feelings of the reader about the act itself. Some find the insurrection glorious, some find it horrifying. I agree with the editorial judgement of the politically-diverse, reliable-source, professional newsrooms who use "insurrection" as a neutral term without "allegedly". -- Beland (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely, it depends on which side of the fence that you are on, politically. That is why I'm opposing the use of the word "insurrection", as it is not a neutral term, as required in NPOV. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

By that argument, all words are NPOV. For example, "banana" would be non-neutral because some people like them and some people do not. Given that news sources of various political biases use the word, it does not seem to be objectionable to any particular point of view, just the same as that no news source shies away from the word "banana" even if they think they are yucky. -- Beland (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not an improvement on the current title. “Storming” is a more accurate description of what happened than “insurrection”. After this RM is closed, if someone wants to start an RM for “2021 riot at the United States Capitol”, I would agree with it, and I see that some others here would prefer "riot" as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The OP says the event meets the definition of “insurrection”. That is incorrect. I recommend that people actually look up Insurrection. It has no article of its own; it is a redirect to “Rebellion”. That article gives one brief definition of “insurrection,” saying “An armed but limited rebellion is an insurrection,[2] and if the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency.” Note that according to this classification, an insurgency insurrection is supposed to be “armed”, and the established government is supposed to recognize the rebels as belligerents. The current incident did not meet either of those conditions. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your parsing of that definition is off the mark. You seem to have misread this part: "...if the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents...". Does not recognize. In an insurrection, the government does not recognize the other side as belligerents. What took place was by all accounts an armed and limited rebellion against the United States government. I don't put an emphasis on the armed part but some or many were armed, and there were pipe bombs. Other definitions don't put an emphasis on this part either, but on violence. That excerpt from a WP article is not the best source (not bad either, but not the best) and does not even try to present a ground-up definition of insurrection but derives it, differentially, from rebellion, which is the topic of the article. Alalch Emis (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No, yours is off the mark. Please reread the whole phrase you quoted part of. It says, "if the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency." Again: when the government does not recognize the other side as belligerents, that is an insurgency. Not an insurrection. If it does recognize the other side as belligerents, then it could be an insurrection according to this definition - but the government did not do that in this case. An insurrection is an armed but limited rebellion where the government does recognize the other side as belligerents. That's not what happened here. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I see my error: I said "insurgency" when I meant "insurrection" in my first note. Sorry about that. I have fixed it. The bottom line remains: even if you grant the "armed" part, which I hesitate to do, then per the distinction quoted this was an insurgency. It was not an insurrection. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

wikt:insurrection defines it as "A violent uprising of part or all of a national population against the government or other authority." wikt:insurgency defines it as "rebellion; revolt; the state of being insurgent". Neither of these definitions requires "armed", only "violent", though the mob storming the capitol was clearly violent and partially armed, as arrest records show. This event meets both of the Wiktionary definitions. Wikipedia's definitions also leave open the possibility that something can be an "insurrection" and "insurgency" at the same time. -- Beland (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per it's too soon to be worrying about it. It came up as the top google hit, so people can find the article as it is titled now. Let some time past to see how news sources converge on describing it. NE Ent 21:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed name expresses a judgmental POV and gives the impression of a more organized rebellion than is accurate for the actions of this confused and disorganized mob. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME, for reasons already stated. In my personal opinion the current name is satisfactory; the determination of whether the event constitutes an "insurrection" is something for the US justice system to decide, regardless of reporting on the subject. AlexKitfox (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Charges of sedition have been filed so I think it's pretty clear that this could qualify as an insurrection. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Congress has already decided to call the event as an insurrection in the Article of Impeachment. Z22 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: can someone who supports this change provide me with a reliable source that this is the unique insurrection at the Capitol to date? For instance, this edit claims that the U.S. Capitol has been occupied six previous times to this incident; so what makes us so confident this is the first insurrection? Absent such a source, we would need to add "2021" or some unique identifier to the proposed title. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Here you go, use Ctrl+F "Capitol". None of the included incidents were an insurrection, nor do they remotely resemble an insurrection. Simply: nothing like this has ever happened before. Alalch Emis (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: here is a historian sharing his nuanced view on the unprecedented nature of the event (not calling it insurrection directly; uses "rebellion") — Alalch Emis 03:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: firstly, a very interesting read. Much enjoyed it. But it doesn't quite convince me that this is undisputedly the first "insurrection at" the Capitol. The professor describes "right before Lincoln’s inauguration an attempt by Southern sympathizers to storm the Captiol [sic]". And sure, they didn't breach it, but it seems like an insurrection attempt at (not in) the Capitol as much as this one. — Bilorv (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: glad you liked it. Here's a historian's account of the said attempt: the 1861 plot to storm the capitol that didn't materialize. On Feb. 13 there were protests outside, but no violence. The lack of violence clearly distinguishes this episode as not-an-insurrection. An insurrection is a public phenomenon that either is or isn't. An "attempted insurrection" is an event with all the features of an insurrection that didn't produce the intended outcome, but we simply call it an insurrection (as most insurrectons fail anyway). An insurrection that didn't progress past the planning stage or the protest stage is not an even an "attempted insurrection". That event lacks recognition today, so it isn't mentioned in the First inauguration of Abraham Lincoln article. But, yes, the parallels are certainly valid. — Alalch Emis 20:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - If I may plagiarize from my statement in Archive 1, numerous people in the "storming" discussion had spoken about this title, myself included. It's the most accurate. It's not a "storming" because most people are interested in staying outside, whether peacefully or not, and of those people, indeed, there are many who have chosen to remain peaceful. Insurrection will not force those who are not being violent to be included with those who are. My proposal: mention in-article the division, that there are a small group of the "protest" who have turned the effort into an insurrection, though they are just that, a small group within. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 23:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per Alalch Emis. Edouard d'Erasme (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Oppose: Insurrection is better than Storming. The word insurrection is defined as a violent uprising against an authority or government. Insurrection is a concise, accurate, NPOV word that best describes the event. Insurrection is the wording used in the impeachment article associated with this event. 2021 in the title is not necessary and will not likely be necessary years and decades from now. Jared.h.wood (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Changing to oppose per WP:COMMONNAME arguments that 'Riot' would be better. If used, 'riot' is general enough that the year would be important to include. I support 2021 United States Capitol riot Jared.h.wood (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Support - Everything that has come out since the event has pointed to it being an insurrection. The definition of the word is met, with citizens rebelling against the seat of the U.S. Government to prevent it from conducting business. The event was being called an insurrection on the House and Senate floors after order was restored, and government officials continued describing it as an insurrection over the following days. Also, Trump was impeached for "Incitement of Insurrection," further defining the event as an insurrection. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: in restricting the choices between "storming" and "insurrection", this RM is heading towards being a classic candidate for a move review. Lots of people are opposing on the basis that "riot" is better, but lots of people are supporting on the basis that both "riot" and "insurrection" are better than "storming". So - is the closer free to move it to "riot"? If not, it would seem that the obvious argument at WP:Move review is that "riot" is actually the most favored option. Why was it arbitrarily excluded from the premise of the discussion? StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not exclude it perfidiously it to wrest it out of the picture. I did what I thought was the best in terms of procedural and material policy, and with mind to physical constraints, knowing that this section can't ever be "succinct" in the slightest which is very important for the people who will do the heroic task of closing this. Adding Option A (insurrection) and Option B (riot) would have added a lot of extra weight, and probably have led to formatting and length issues as more protracted micro-discussions and "Comments" would emerge. This is more structured and cleaner. Kind regards from the OP Alalch Emis (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't need to provide specific options. But what makes this a poor (i.e. MR-worthy) RM is that you said "Please only advocate in the form of "Support" or "Oppose" without suggesting alternatives." That is not how we usually do RMs. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Strongly - "Storming" is a perfectly apt term and was used extensively throughout the event on live news, as well as long after the event was over. Besides that fact, it is evokes the correct image for the reader. You don't hear people use the term "insurrection" in regards to failed insurrections. That's why the news has clarified their statements with "attempted insurrection" or "wannabe insurrectionists" when describing the rioters. "Storming" is far more apt, and the event has been logged in public consciousness as the Storming of the Capitol. WP:COMMONNAME and all that jazz. RobotGoggles (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  If you look at List of revolutions and rebellions, the terms "rebellion", "revolution", "revolt", "uprising", and "insurrection" are all in use. I don't hear people on the street saying any of these things, because they are relatively rare in modern U.S. history compared to the many political protests and movements. The dictionary definition of revolution implies success, but insurrection does not. The Wikipedia list includes both successful attempts, like the Wilmington insurrection of 1898, but mostly unsuccessful events like Łódź insurrection, Razlovtsi insurrection, and the 1733 slave insurrection on St. John. While I do see some stories using the term "attempted insurrection", many stories describe it as an insurrection that has in fact happened, even if there was a failed attempt at overturning, overthrowing, or pulling off a revolution or coup. Given the dictionary definition, "attempted insurrection" seems like an over-correction error. See for example [33] [34] and [35] that do not use "attempted". -- Beland (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I already made this comment on a different thread but putting it here for completeness. I think the word insurrection is now used everywhere. The list of examples can be seen on that thread.[36]

My key support is that an important reliable source is from the Congress itself. The Article of Impeachment describes the event as an insurrection which had 4 elements in it:[37][38]

• Beaching and vandalizing of the Capitol
• Injuring and killed law enforcement personnel
• Menacing the Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel
• Engaging in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts

I think the word breaching is similar to the current word "storming" that is used as the title. That is just one element of the overall event in which it is known in the article as an "insurrection". By leaving the title to just one element of the event, it may not capture the overall picture of what it is. Many reliable sources (including a key reliable source from the Congress which will be used in studies in the future) now describe the overall event as an insurrection instead of just as the "storming" part of it. Z22 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Article of Impeachment describes the event as an insurrection This is the best argument I have seen yet for "insurrection". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the article of impeachment was written with firm political and legal goals – rather the opposite of WP:NPOV – this could be seen as an argument against using "insurrection" here... — Chrisahn (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's not beat around the bush about this. This impeachment, just like the three other presidential impeachments in U.S. history, as well as every single decision made by the House or the Senate, was of a political nature. It's why anyone could've been confident that the articles would pass the Democratic-held House, and why myself and many others are willing to predict that the articles will not pass the Republican-led (soon-to-be Democratic-led) Senate with the 2/3 vote necessary. Taking the wording of the articles at face value as necessarily factually true is to accept the House's premise (and, notably, not the Senate's), which in WP:WIKIVOICE we cannot due. It's why the article on Bill Clinton doesn't say definitively that he perjured or obstructed justice—those are legal definitions that need to be settled in court. The impeachment vote is merely the opinion of whoever's lucky enough to be the ruling party. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support because of how commonly "insurrection" is used in sources; I have seen few use the word "storming" as a common name for the event, but many use the word "insurrection" Nekomancerjade (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: "insurrection" isn't neutral. It implies that all the rioters had the intention to overthrow Congress, which I believe is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I made the earlier successful requested move to the present title (from the earlier "protests"), but I am not wedded to the title at all, and the usage in the reliable sources has shifted decidedly to "insurrection" — e.g.:

• Washington Post today: "the wake of the Capitol insurrection"
• NYT yesterday: "found to have aided the insurrection"
• AP yesterday: "an insurrection meant to stop [Biden's] ascension to power."
• WSJ a few days ago: "the insurrection at the Capitol" (also uses "storming of the Capitol last week by a pro-Trump mob" and "the riots")

Sure, riots, siege, and storming are all used to some degree in the RS, and each could be decent titles (they all refer to the same event and are used interchangeably within source material), but "insurrection" seems the best fit here. Neutrality^talk 02:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The usage has actually shifted decidedly to "riot"; "capitol riot" is between 2 and 200 times (depending on how we count) more common than "capitol insurrection". See numbers above. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the word "insurrection" in the NYT pieces is only used when either quoting someone else directly, or continuing discussion of that quote. For all "NYT voice" references, they use the word "riot". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Two of the four links you posted use the term "Riot" in the headline, zero use inssurection. You're cherry-picking. Miserlou (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Berchanhimez, that's not correct. NYT Jan. 12: "in light of last Wednesday’s insurrection"; NYT Jan. 9 and Jan. 13: "But the insurrection failed."; NYT Jan. 11: "a reference to the insurrection at the Capitol." Neutrality^talk 16:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think using raw counting is one measure, but when a reliable source started to define a news section as "Insurrection at the Capitol" (see [39]), that should give a weight. Z22 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support because this is an obvious improvement. "2021" must go (I do not think anyone above objects to this). "Insurrection" is slightly better than "storming", the "riot" is just as good as "insurrection". My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support however I would add the curent year to the title as well, so it would be "2021 Insurrection at the United States Capitol". District9123 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose (Strongly), not only is the proposed title confusing and would be worded as "United States Capitol insurrection", but it's not anywhere close to the WP:COMMONNAME. I also recommend Wait as the results of the impeachment trial and Trump's involvement will heavily flavor the way the event becomes known in the future. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly, the proposed title sounds more like a headline, omits the year, and uses a word (insurrection) that is not the most, as claimed by the proposer, widely accepted or even the most common. Riot remains far more common in news sources. Furthermore, there are currently zero articles on Wikipedia titled "Insurrection at X". On the contrary, a perfunctory search finds at least 12 articles titled "(year) Storming of X", including quite similar events such as the Storming of Kempton Park World Trade Centre, Storming of the Venezuelan National Congress, 2020 storming of the Kurdistan Democratic Party headquarters, and 2017 storming of Macedonian Parliament. Dylanvt (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not oppose renaming with attack or riot(s), but insurrection is undeniably the wrong word to use here. Dylanvt (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Those events are not similar at all. Except for the the Macedonian example, which is indeed a storming of the legislature, and is more of a real storming than the subject of this article. However it was not an insurrection – the goal there was to cause a ruckus and beat up some politicians. There was no constitutionally interesting aspect to it. Also all those articles you came up with are Start-Class or unrated and are not authoritative for anything. Ultimately, this discussion is not about how "storming" is bad and unusable language that can't be applied to a storming. That's just missing the point altogether. Alalch Emis (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is the Storming of the Venezuelan National Congress, for example, "not similar at all" (or the 2017 Venezuelan National Assembly attack for that matter, which uses "attack" instead of "storming", which I think would also be better than "insurrection" in this case)? In the case of the Storming of the Venezuelan National Congress, protestors outside were angered, became a mob, tried to enter the National Congress and were repelled by guards. 4 people were killed: the vice president and three MPs. This sounds very similar to me.

In any event most of the (very few) articles that have "insurrection" in their titles involve hundreds or thousands of casualties, and militaries, which doesn't seem to describe this at all. You could perhaps, at best (or at worst?), call it the 2021 attempted insurrection at the United States Capitol. Dylanvt (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dylanvt: Whiskey Insurrection 3-4 killed — Alalch Emis 23:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Whiskey Rebellion Dylanvt (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Rebellion is a more severe version of insurrection so your reply is counterproductive to your position. If Whiskey Rebellion/Insurrection can be called a rebellion then – even more so – this more severe event can be called an insurrection. — Alalch Emis 23:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The guiding principle is WP:COMMONNAME and there is little evidence in this discussion that the proposed name is the most common name. (I'm not sure that the current name is the most common one, either, but it's the status quo and it's not egregiously wrong.) The close of the previous discussion explicitly noted that COMMONNAME is the guiding principle so it's frustrating that it's scarcely referenced in this discussion (and not at all in the opener's statement!). Gwennie-nyan and others are correct that this event is still developing and whatever clarity will emerge is still emerging; I suspect that it may crystalize as further charges are filed and some progress to trial which will take several months at least. Finally, it's very disturbing and annoying that the opener of this discussion is attempting to limit the discussion and the options of other editors; this is not only inappropriate but also counterproductive. (I'm not watching this article so please ping me directly if you'd like a reply from me.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and Procedural Close The article was recently renamed and there should be a 30 day moratorium on RM requests. We cannot constantly be having RM discussions over and over again. The previous consensus should stand for at least 30 days. Also, the proposed title is not WP:CONCISE. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as this moratorium you speak of. It takes more effort to stifle an open and substantive discussion than that. The proposed title has fewer characters than the current title and fewer syllables than "Twenty twenty one storming of the United States Capitol" Alalch Emis (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's disruptive having RM discussions every few hours, also your proposed title in addition to not being WP:CONCISE is also not WP:PRECISE either. "Insurrection" is too vague without the year. "The Trump Insurrection" is both precise and concise. I would support that title but not the one you proposed for the reasons stated. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What's disruptive is your "procedural close" on something that will most obviously never be procedurally closed. Alalch Emis (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be 6-month moratorium for moving this article in order to ensure that the stability of the article. 118.96.188.169 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose How could 8,000 unarmed rebel against a nation of a population of 328,000,000 ? A protest gone out of control or insurrection or uprising ? It is growing to a unencyclopedic war of words. The storming is what happened; insurrection or more, adds a political rating. --Robertiki (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Robertiki: note that insurrection did occur at this event, we have plenty of reliable sources for that, however storming is more neutral I agree. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• The relative numbers of people involved are irrelevant. Not all insurrections succeed, or could even plausibly succeed, but that doesn't stop some people from doing it anyway. That said, forcing a change in national government does not require fighting 328 million people. Many coups have succeeded, at least in the short term, by killing national leaders with a small number of fighters. "Storming" is just entering a building or area quickly, by force. "Insurrection" is certainly a political act, but the mob, some of whom were armed, did not storm the Capitol just in order to vandalize it for fun. They had the explicit political goal of forcing Congress to unconstitutionally certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 election. They were shouting that Vice President Mike Pence should be hanged, and even erected a noose. Had they been more determined and killed a substantial number of members of Congress, they could have changed the balance of power in the federal government after the riot was suppressed and governors appointed replacements not necessarily of the same party. -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

With such a large difference of numbers ? I agree that, if there is internal help (which looks not the case), a thousand armed people would make the difference, but unarmed need a really bigger support, like the 100,000 at Wisconsin in 2011 (and that changed the status). More over, from the videos I don't hear chants asking for killing anybody. The fact that someone talked (mostly on blogs, for what I understand, of killing or hanging does not mean it was the crowd intention, like you suggested in a insurrection. And that crowd did not act like a mob (please look at videos of the real mobs acts), not more than at BLM protests. Simply stating disappointment at the Congress members or pressing them to change position, is not a insurrection, otherwise, what should it be about 2011 Wisconsin protests on 20 February 2011 ? --Robertiki (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A comment on this: the crowd absolutely did call for killing Mike Pence—it did not come from the blogosphere. Here's audio of the event: they literally chant "hang Mike Pence" several times. As for the point on there being "internal help," whether by members of Congress or police, prominent individuals have already alleged that there was, which is currently being followed by reporting and investigations, and could then potentially culminate in political or legal action. That situation is currently developing, but I certainly don't think there's enough to say it doesn't look like the case at this time. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Like others have said this title sounds like a headline and does not include the year. Riots would be a better option than the proposed naming but even the current title is widely reported. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support with the caution that this might need a date attached at some later point should it become the first of more than one attempt. After all, there were three Russian Revolutions. That the first two did not succeed does not make them irrelevant. We do not yet know that this will be the only insurrection. WordwizardW (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - There are several false statements by the OP above:

"This is the big RM that people have been waiting for, for the past week or so." No: The consensus of editors in the discussions above is to wait. "If you think a very close variant of the above such as "United States Capitol insurrection" is better, type "Support". A bold editor, or a subsequent technical move process will take care of this detail." No: Any tittle change would require another formal requested move. "Policy statement: WP:NCE, there is an established common name for this event, based on "where" (United States Capitol) and "what" (Insurrection). The differences in the exact phrasing of the common name variants are neutral and unimportant." " "Riot", "breach", "siege", "attack", "assault", "invasion" are inadequate for not meeting the above standards either partially or at all." No: The phrasing of the title is very important and again it is falsely asserted that 'insurrection' is the common name. 'Attack' and 'Riot' are the most commonly used terms by sources. (Per my Google news searches above, another editor's search in this section and the Associated Press article below) Riot? Insurrection? Words matter in describing Capitol siege By DAVID BAUDER Associated Press [[40]] "The use of “riot” as a descriptor is almost universally accepted, even though the word has become fraught with racial connotations and despite the relatively gradual way the story unfolded." "The near unanimity came despite riot sometimes being a loaded term, and a subject of debate for how it was applied last summer to unrest following George Floyd’s death and Black Lives Matter protests." "In its coverage, the Times has called it a “mob attack,” “deadly riot” and “violent assault,” and said Trump supporters “laid siege” to the Capitol. The Post has talked of a “horde of rioters” and “terrifying attack.” Another criteria for article titles is being 'recognisable.' The following quotes from the Associated Press article shows that 'insurrection' fails to meet this: "The coverage has sent Americans scurrying to the dictionary and news organizations carefully considering terminology." "The past week has brought phrases not commonly seen into use. One is insurrection." "Merriam-Webster said the top words looked up in its online dictionary on Wednesday were: insurrection, fascism, impeach and sedition." Another title criteria is 'naturalness' - per the above, not even close. As to procedure, it is confusing to have discussions in 4-5 sections and a WP:RM du jour. On a lighter note, #Trumpsurrection hashtag is now on Twitter ;) "It's not a "protest." Call it what it is: A Trumpsurrection. A violent revolt by white supremacists defending a con-man's ego. That is literally what this is." Trumpsurrection - Urban Dictionary: "The end of the line for the worst president in recorded history; no further delusionary explanation required." Stay healthy! Best, IP75 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The reader should be advised that you deleted my following reply from the talk page and I am entering it again: /<- it's of no import/ There was no consensus to wait. If there are several people who want to wait, and they say "wait", the people who don't agree won't say "no let's not wait, let's act", they will simply act. Everyone is entitled to act in ways which don't contravene policy and doesn't need to get permission from person xyz and get into protracted discussions with them just because they said "wait". Therefore, only the "wait" group's opinions on this matter will be visible, and the "act" group will be sporadically visible through their actions. This can lead someone to believe there is consensus to "wait" where there is nothing of the sort. To believe so is naive, and shows a lack of sense for the broader process. As for the rest of your post, you misquoted me. Alalch Emis (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Regarding "The reader should be advised...": I'm sure you meant no harm, but I think you went against WP:TPO when you moved IP75's comment. Your response was lost when IP75 restored the original version. Also without ill intent. Anyway, you restored your response, so all is well now. Take care! — Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I followed the "Sectioning" guideline of that policy explicitly but failed to cite the policy which was probably unwise. I took the remark back. The intent was purely positive, and I gave the section a somewhat favorable title. Thanks and all the best. Alalch Emis (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The seizure of the Wisconsin State Capitol, a more direct threat to the process of constitutional government, is at 2011 Wisconsin protests. Last summer's anti-police riots, which were more violent, are at George Floyd protests. I would support Capitol riots. 5440orSleep (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

— 5440orSleep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I skimmed that article, but don't see anywhere that says the Wisconsin capitol building was seized. Am I missing something? -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Beland: A couple of quotes: "By February 20, protestors had undertaken a physical occupation of the Capitol building..."; "...after occupation of the Capitol for more than two weeks..."; "The crowds grew to thousands, surging into the Capitol. Police did not attempt to remove them." See the article for details. As far as I can tell, "seizure of the capitol" is a reasonable description. 5440orSleep's claim "a more direct threat to the process of constitutional government" appears to be quite wrong though – there was little violence, no one was killed, no lawmakers had to hide from attackers. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current title is a little clunky, but it usually takes awhile for a common name to settle for major events and it's not currently nor is it likely to ever be "insurrection". I wouldn't say that's a wholly incorrect word, but it's certainly a reactionary one. Thadeuss (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Current title is closer to NPoV. While many sources do use the phrase "Insurrection", it's not unanimous -- so us using it would be undue. The current title would also be closer to WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello 15:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czello If the words in the title don't naturally gel with the prominent words in the content in how strong a language is used, then the burden of NPoV is merely shifted from the name to the content (or vice versa), creating an uncomfortable disbalance where the content doesn't meet the expectations set by the title, and the language of the article begins to look off: suspicious, judgmental, etc. The function of NPoV is thus undermined. As things stand now, there is a significant desync, because: how does "storming" match Methods: ... shootings ... tactics of terrorism (attempted bombings, ... intention to take hostages, kidnap and execute) (I could cite half the infobox here)? Those words are much stronger language, and there's a whole aggregation of them. "Insurrection" is much more flexible and creates some breathing room for that inescapably harsh language, while not being all that strong. That means that "insurrection" brings the whole article (title + content) closer to NPoV. Therefore "insurrection" is better with regard to NPoV. Alalch Emis (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Yes, the words in the title should be consistent with the the text. That's why the title should not be "insurrection", but "riot" or "attack". The word "riot" appears over 220 times in the article (including ca. 90 times "rioter"); "attack": ca. 50 times; "insurrection": ca. 40 times (including ca. 10 times "insurrectionist"). That's a five to one ratio of "riot" vs. "insurrection". (The ratio in WP:RS is similar, maybe higher.) The first sentence says "...a riot and violent attack...", and that has been the consensus for about a week now. Words like "coup" or "insurrection" were inserted into the first sentence a few times, but they were reverted quickly. Putting "insurrection" into the title would create exactly the "uncomfortable disbalance" you mention. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you see how many mentions of "insurrection" there are in the article? Precisely that is one factor of disbalance (and only one of many), because if you're reading an article titled using "storming" or "riot" why should you expect to see "insurrection(ist)" anywhere in wikiwoice? There should be precisely 0 such uses in wikivoice. On the other hand, if you have "insurrection" as a title, it's perfectly valid and reasonable to have as many uses of "riot" because riots are a natural component or precursor to an insurrection. This is the simplest set theory problem. "Insurrection" is tonally apt for all those words, it takes them in no problem, and "Storming" spits many of them out, as does "Riot"; particularly the quoted part of the infobox and other prominent (valid) dramatic language regarding threat to life, terror tactics and constitutional calamity. The NPoV of those prominent elements of the page is in question as long as the NPoV burden is unduly shifted onto them, while the conveniently neutered title carries none. That's a cop-out and won't work in the long run. It will cause degradation in the page as people will chip away at the small bits of strong (and 100% valid) language to intuitively "fix" this disbalance. Alalch Emis (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Your reasoning is flawed in several ways.

1. if you're reading an article titled using "storming" or "riot" why should you expect to see "insurrection(ist)" – An article titled "riot" can of course contain the term "insurrection(ist)" in the text, just like an article titled "attack" can use the term "terror(ist)". Our article on 9/11 is titled September 11 attacks, not September 11 terror attacks.
2. riots are a natural component or precursor to an insurrection – No, they aren't. Insurrections often occur without any riots, and most insurrections last much longer and are more organized (and often more clandestine) than riots. For example, see Insurrection of 10 August 1792; Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882; Yên Thế Insurrection; Norte Grande insurrection; Anarchist insurrection of Alt Llobregat; 1971 JVP insurrection; 1987–1989 JVP insurrection; and many others.
3. This is the simplest set theory problem – No, it's not. We're talking about empirical and linguistic questions, not mathematics or pure logic. Neither "riot" nor "insurrection" has a precise intensional or extensional definition that everyone agrees on. Neither term includes all instances of the other.
4. conveniently neutered – As many others have pointed out, neither "riot" nor "insurrection" are neutral terms. But "insurrection" tends to have more positive connotations than "riot". For example, the American Revolutionary War is sometimes called War of the Insurrection. I guess the mob of January 6 would actually prefer calling it an "insurrection" rather than a "riot".
5. people will chip away at the small bits of strong (and 100% valid) language – That's unfounded speculation. Many WP:RS use "insurrection" to refer to the events of January 6, and that won't change, so we won't have a problem keeping words like "insurrection" in the article. But currently "Capitol riot" is the WP:COMMONNAME (more precisely: it's the most common name by far), and thus the best title. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly second the points made here by Chrisahn. Dylanvt (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to use too much space countering these refutations. I will only concentrate on the last point. This is what one user said down below regarding the disbalance i've spoken about: "May be the article could be improved in that respect, but editors are inclined to rely on what are deemed to be RS, and sometimes let political statements appear in Wikivoice." – you see, the instinct is to modulate the tone of the content, in the parts that appear like political speech, and to presume that there is political speech, when there may be none. And indeed in this case, the parts of the article I highlighted to them aren't political statements, they are in wikivoice through and through! When the language of both the title and the content are functions of NPoV-setting, and only one of the two is changeable (at some point the name becomes set and virtually unchangeable, but the content is always malleable) – whenever there is a tonal disbalance, it will be perceived as "this could be phrased more neutrally", and an instinct will be to change the content, not the title (because it's near impossible). The fulfilment of this impulse drives the need for various rationalizations such as: "political statements" etc. It's actually kind of sad and hilarious at the same time. It was an experienced editor who said that. In this case it's not that the article could be improved (it certainly could, but in other regards) – the title could be improved. — Alalch Emis 06:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

political statements (19:37, 22 January 2021) refers particularly to politicians quoted in sixth paragraph (as now corrected): 'The events were widely condemned by political leaders and organizations in the United States and internationally. Mitch McConnell (R–KY), Senate Majority Leader, called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" provoked by the president's "lies" and said that the Senate "will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation" ' and the like. Qexigator (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose An alternative would be 2021 riot at the United States Capitol. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Insurrection" is the most appropriate description, and one used by reliable sources. It moved beyond being a riot once they breached the Capitol. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Storming" is a more neutral descriptor than "insurrection". ... discospinster _talk 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren't obligated to remain neutral. We are obligated to call it what others are calling it.

• Oppose – The current title is fine as is. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• I support as long as the year is included; as for calling this a riot, a riot is a bunch of idiots causing damage for no reason; these guys intended to kill members of Congress, intended to get the election results overturned, This whole thing was political SRD625 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per Alalch Emis arguments. Bark (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is not a vote, merrily writing support is not helpful in reaching a consensus. --Robertiki (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  The way this specific proposal is worded, it is, in fact, a vote. A vote is exactly what it asks for, just a support or oppose based on the rationale given. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, this isn't a vote. See WP:RMCOMMENT: The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  This debate was framed as a vote, regardless of RMCOMMENT, which itself is framed as a request, not a rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  WP:RMCOMMENT (part of WP:RM) says: The debate is not a vote. That part is not "framed as a request". It's a rule. A user can't simply "frame" a WP:RM as a vote. No RM is a vote, so this one isn't a vote either. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I support a name that substitutes insurrection rather than storming, but I think the new name should include the year 2021. Geo Swan (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Bilorv, and others, who documented that there have been earlier insurrections, and insurrection-like events. They reinforce for me that whatever name we choose, it should contain the year it occurred. Geo Swan (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No such thing has been documented in this discussion. I have taken part in those discussions, and provided firm evidence that this has been the only insurrection at the Capitol. — Alalch Emis 03:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Both Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell have called it a Insurrection. Most everyone is calling it that. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongest ever support I also support the title Capitol insurrection. Insurrection is the most commonly used word based on what I can see from my searches and the evidence shared above by Neutrality. Media, FBI and even politicians are calling it an insurrection. President Trump just got impeached for "Incitement of insurrection". No more pussy footing, grab em. Walrus Ji (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We have to specify that it is the United States Capitol - the United States has instigated far more insurrections in foreign capitols throughout the cold war. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet, none of them are called capitols. Kindly check your information first. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No more pussy footing, grab em – That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a place for activism of any kind. See WP:NPOV. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wot? How is putting in facts activism? NPOV does not mean Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to facts and whitewash the terms to make it more appealing to "both sides". NPOV means Wiki should follow Main stream media. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1. You're missing the point. No more pussy footing, grab em is incompatible with WP:NPOV. It's fine if you're an activist elsewhere, but please try to remain neutral while editing Wikipedia. 2. Yes, Wikipedia follows mainstream WP:RS. As has been pointed out numerours times in this discussion, based on lots of data, mainstream sources currently overwhelmingly use the term "Capitol riot" for the events of January 6 in headlines and articles. So per WP:COMMONNAME, the title of this article should be something like "Capitol riot", not "insurrection". — Chrisahn (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

[Meta discussion moved to User talk:Chrisahn ]--Walrus Ji (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the discussion from my talk page. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. In reliable sources, "riot" and "attack" and even "siege" appear to be beating "insurrection". I made a table below by looking through the Google results (headlines and clicking through body text) of some perennial ones. Feel free to add on to it.

AP	Quite mixed, with common labels being "Capitol attack", "Capitol riot", and "Capitol siege".
BBC	Clear coalescence around "Capitol riots" or "Capitol riot".
The Guardian	Use of both "Capitol riot" and "Capitol attack".
NYTimes	Use of both "Capitol riot" and "Capitol attack". Article category is named "Capitol Riot Fallout".
Reuters	Quite mixed, with common labels being "Capitol attack", "Capitol riot", and "Capitol siege".
WashPo	Use of "Capitol riot".

"Storming" and "breach" seem to be the universal terms for the actual breaking-in part of these events. Based on these results, "2021 United States Capitol riot" would be my personal suggestion for a future RM. — Goszei (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Goszei Thank you for providing WP:RS. However, your list is not complete. I know that CNN is now generally (or at least frequently) calling it an insurrection.[41][42]. Two of their first three special reports had insurrection in the title.S2021 E1 1/10/2021S2021 E3 1/16/2021. I'd like to see a more complete list--especially from those who say it should be called an insurrection. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That claim does not appear to be true: see [43], which is the same search that I applied above. As appears to be the case with every RS that I linked, CNN uses "insurrection" sometimes, but less frequently than "riot". — Goszei (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree CNN often uses the word "riot" as well, sometimes interchangeably in the same reporting, and they have used other words like "attack." I believe they originally did not use insurrection as much, but have moved in that direction as more information came in about the rioters, who helped, how much they knew, what they planned to do [e.g. kill legislators], etc. Please keep in mind, I'm basing my determination on CNN's reporting more on what I have heard from watching a number of hours of CNN each day for the last few days, rather than from Google searches. Also, I'm a little more partial to insurrection as it seems more descriptive of the facts. This was not just random mayhem--the violence was directed at elected legislators. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This comparison has excluded titles containing only "Capitol", without "US" ("US Capitol"), and is not very representative because all "at the Capitol" forms are thus excluded. If one searches for "at the Capitol" separately, he sees that insurrection fares much better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, but it then follows that "Capitol" is the most neutral search term (not "at the Capitol", or anything more specific, as that reflects cherry-picking). Using "Capitol" in the searches above, the results are virtually identical to what I listed in the table. — Goszei (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Goszei that this was clearly a "riot" in common parlance. Furthermore, I would suggest changing the name of the article to "January 6, 2021 Capitol Protests" or the like, and having the riot be a subsection—right now there's nothing but 2020–21 United States election protests#January 2021. Lost in all this is the obvious fact that the riot involved a small number of bad actors in the midst of a much larger, mostly peaceful protest that involved speeches and thousands of people peacefully marching to the Capitol. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 2#Requested move 6 January 2021: "2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol – The protests preceded a much more noteworthy event, which will be the focus of the bulk of this article: the storming of the Capitol by an armed mob" — Chrisahn (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have stated, there is no uniform description of what happened at the Capitol as "insurrection." It has variously been referred to as a protest, a riot, a coup, sedition, insurrection, and other terms. "Storming" is a neutral description of the action that took place, without the risk of violationg NPOV by putting politically charged langauge in the title. Whether it was one or more of these things is better discussed in the lede and body of the article, which it is in sufficient detail. TempDog123 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose using non-neutral / jugmental terms like "insurrection". Wikipedia is not a court to pronounce verdicts. Ghirla^-трёп- 11:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support The main thing this event will be remembered for long into the future was the historic second impeachment of a US president. The charge was incitement of insurrection. The second biggest thing this will be remembered for is the occupation of the offices of the Speaker of the House and search for the Vice President by the mob, for which insurrection is the best descriptor. Riot may be a good genus description of the type of thing that happened, but insurrection is a more specific species. Not all riots, mobs, or attacks are conducted with the purpose of hunting down government officials acting in their official capacity. That's an insurrection. Univremonster (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Basing a decision on what you think the event "will be remembered for long into the future" sounds like the exact definition of WP:CRYSTALBALL. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I stand by my original statement and disagree, for at least two reasons. First, Crystalball relates to articles, not talk. Deciding what title is most appropriate in this instance (and all similar instances) requires us to predict what terminology will be settled on in order to be descriptive. Furthermore, even if this were an article and not a talk page, Crystalball relates to "unverifiable speculation or presumptions" about "anticipated events." One need not be Nostradamus to predict that the second impeachment of a president, and the first seizure of the US capitol in over 200 years, will be remembered throughout history. An ounce of speculation mixed with a pound of truth doesn't make this ball-gazing. Univremonster (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom; "Insurrection" is better than "storming". I'm sure we'll have another round of discussion as soon as this one closes. I'm currently undecided if "riot" vs. "insurrection" is better, which I expect will be the subject of the next discussion. (Unrelated: "capitol riot" would have been a good name for a punk band up until this year.)-Ich (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think the current title is the most accurate of all the suggestions, everything else is politcal language in either direction, as is the intention of this move. Prevelance in media is not an encyclopedic metric. Miserlou (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Neutrality. The initial appearance was indeed of a disorganized mob riot, but that is now an outdated view. As more information comes out, we're learning it was partially well-organized and planned insurrection, using vandalism, violence, hostage taking, and killing as means toward the goal of overturning the legitimate election result. -- Valjean (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Valjean's comment directly above mine, and Alalch Emis' excellent points. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note: User:Chrisahn seems to have taken it upon himself and is actively striking off comments that he does not like. He is neither an admin nor has any basis to do that. Accordingly I have reverted him. Others might want to keep a check on his actions on this thread. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I had struck (as in struck) three comments that were not sustained by arguments (except "per User X"). I thought striking such comments was common practice, but I was wrong (striking is only allowed for duplicate comments by the same account, and a few other rare cases). Walrus Ji reverted these comments to their original state, which was the right thing to do. Thanks. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

[Meta discussion moved to User talk:Chrisahn ]--Walrus Ji (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the discussion from my talk page. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe there is too much disagreement about what this event should be called among reliable sources, but "riot" is used frequently above all else and is an accurate assessment of what occurred, without any other connotations. I would support "2021 United States Capitol riot" per Goszei, or keeping the current name. Spengouli (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It was a deadly and violent mob, that hunted down members of Congress and the Vice President and had the means to kidnap and kill them, that blocked Congress from fulfilling a constitutional mandate for the transition of power, and that forced the deployment of the National Guard. —Jade Ten (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:RS, wording mentions by Ish and Valjean, and arguments by Alalch. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would prefer the current title, as it is more WP:NPOV. And per the frequency analyses in Chrisahn's comment, StAnselm's comment, and Goszei's comment, insurrection doesn't seem to be WP:COMMONNAME anyway. If the RM suggestion were "riot" instead, I would probably support. I would also be fine with leaving it as "storming". -- Ununseti (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. 71.190.95.85 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per the actions in the event and the textbook definition. While many articles may not use insurrection, TV media and social media have vastly used "insurrection" to describe the events. Additionally, "storming" is too general and vague to use for the event. Storming could be used for many types of situations, whereas "insurrection" clearly identifies the situation based on the specific circumstances of the event, as well as the purpose and intent of the instigators.2601:580:4301:7730:3821:9F32:293E:68C0 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support An insurrection is defined as "a violent uprising against an authority or government" which would make that an accurate descrption of this event.JoeyLyles (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The Storm is probably just a nickname for Stormfront. Insurrection is to "big", about 300 people entered the Capitol Building. "2021 United States Capitol riot" per Goszei and StAnselm.--217.234.65.18 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "insurrection" is correctly applied to the actions of certain groups of people during this event; however, the term does not properly generalize to the whole event. Those who entered the Capitol were certainly participating in a violent riot, and are reasonably assumed to have been united in the desire to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. However, in the absence of evidence that the mob as a whole acted with the primary intent, or acted under the sole direction of those with the intent, to depose the US government or take any effective action to overturn the election, it is not strictly accurate to characterize the storming of the Capitol itself as an insurrection. The term "riot," which is used frequently in the article, encompasses both the insurrection that took place during the storming as well as the other aspects of this event that fall within the scope of this article. Eigenhector (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support 1. Better meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Article titles. 2. Supported from WP:RS. See:

• Gaurdian
• BBC
• NPR
• CNN
• NPR
• Economist
• ABC
• CNBC
• USA Today

3. Accurate. This was "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Remember, wikipedia does not Wikipedia:CENSOR. 4. Given the connection of "storm" to QAnon, title is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See storm Casprings (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

How does point four not go against point three? You say WP doesn't censor, and then recommend changing the title anyway to appease a bunch of conspiracy nuts. IMO, you're giving a WP:FRINGE belief WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Supporting the above Bbbzzziii (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, for WP:NPOV reasons. Storming describes the physical reality of what happened. Moncrief (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Many RS have used the term "insurrection," along with members of Congress of both parties. The "storming" wording is awkward and does not fully capture the nature of the events. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - The article for impeachment was called 'incitement of insurrection' Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 00:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - suggested replacement is worded poorly and sounds more like a headline than an encyclopedic article title. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support —Ooligan (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current title is fine and NPOV. Others have marshalled sufficient evidence that "insurrection" is not in fact so widely used as to qualify as a "name" for common name purposes. It is narrower and definitely worse as a description than the current title. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rule of thumb that should be followed here in determining the name of an article is which, of the suggested names, is the simpler and the less convoluted of the names suggested. The current title, in my view, meets that condition. Perhaps, though, a Redirect can still be used under the alternate name here suggested, directing its reader to this article. BTW: The word "insurrection" means simply "rebellion," and usually implies rebellion against a state or government. Therefore, having this word used in connection to a specific place (e.g. at the US Capitol) seems a bit awkward in its usage. Davidbena (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like reply to your last point: That is the reason why "Insurrection at X" is better than "X insurrection. The former underlines that it's indeed an insurrection against the government, that happened in one very distinct place, and "X insurrection" confers a moer vague relationship between the two parts of the name and doesn't get this point across so well. But "X insurrection" is still okay. Alalch Emis (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Greater impetus for name change after impeachment charges, and "storming" doesn't seem right. Something like "Trump supporter insurrection" might be preferable. Drsmoo (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. --87.16.159.58 (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support given that this is the only time in history this has happened, and hopefully given it won't happen in the near future, I would support this title change, especially removing the year in which it happened. Other than that I would actually be pretty neutral on the subject. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I agree that "Storming" is the wrong title, but I too feel that "Riot" is the more common name. Can we have some sort of poll between these two options? --LordPeterII (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• tentative Support per sources above and sources in #The_"coup"_&_"insurrection"_discussion and based on how I have seen CNN cover it, including my reasoning above here. CNN generally (or at least frequently) now calls it an insurrection both in titles and in their live coverage.[44][45] Two of their first three special reports had insurrection in the title.S2021 E1 1/10/2021,S2021 E3 1/16/2021. I'm less familiar with the other sources. I would like to see a more complete list in tables.

I prefer "United States Capitol insurrection" to the long-winded versions per Muboshgu. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC) [revised 07:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)]

• comment: Why is the initial request so verbose? I didn't read all of that. Alalch Emis appears to be a new editor (in terms of edit counts). I would advise him/her to look at other move requests. It may be too late bring this one down to size. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The final paragraph of the lead section states that the events have been described as various things, including insurrection. However, the impeachment of Trump for "incitement of insurrection" implies that the government has recognized the events as an insurrection, so I don't really know. I suggest maybe "2020 occupation of the United States Capitol"? ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 08:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Support: The word "storming" is inaccurate for this event, because it does not fully capture its scope. The event's purpose was not merely the unauthorized entry into the Capitol, but to pressure members of Congress into overturning the 2020 election results [46], and potentially to harm Vice President Pence and non-complying members of Congress [47]. The prefix "2021" in the article title also implies this event either has happened before (it hasn't) or will happen again (which no one can predict). I strongly support the move. Radio Adept (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral with a hat tip to Eigenhector. There is a very important point most people are not addressing at all. The fact of the matter is, neither "storming" nor "insurrection" fully encompasses the entirety of what occurred. There were protests outside leading up to the event, such as the one Alex Jones led, or the group Trump told to "fight like hell." While several of those people did storm, insurrect, riot, loot, vandalize, trespass, etc., not all did. This is a major distinction here, which if we're not careful could veer into libelous territory from those involved. I participated in a similar (albeit much more microcosmic) version of this debate earlier, over who to include as a "participant" in the event (called a "storming" by the article both then and now) in the template, with the conclusion being that people who were reported as being present but not within the Capitol complex itself, like Jones or Justin Hill, can not be labeled as participants in a "storming." The same would still hold true for an "insurrection." As the title stands, and as it would stand even if this move is granted, the article is not allowed to fully address the entirety of the event beyond a "storming" or "insurrection," because it will become pigeonholed by the title itself. A better title is needed, though, to be clear, I'm not sure that what that title would be. As for the current debate—between "storming" or "insurrection"—I am indifferent, but would like to vocalize a nuanced viewpoint. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: Looking at Google search results, Attack comes back with the highest at 119 million [48], Riot comes back with 107 million [49], Insurrection with 55 million [50], and Storming with 24 million [51] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have always liked the use of google search to find WP:COMMONNAME, I don't get your logic. Still a step up. However, a really good argument for another move request for Attack.Casprings (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This comment is evidence about "insurrection" having become a common name. How could such a less-used word have so many results, if it wasn't becoming very widely adopted in recent weeks. Naturally, "attack" as generic term will always yield more results, most of which are completely irrelevant, while "riot" is somewhere in the middle, but it should be noted that while there were past riots at the Capitol, there weren't past insurrections, so this will inflate the results in favor of "riot" by including many irrelevant results. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose While many of the Trump supporters may have desired insurrection, not all of them did. "Storming" is the larger term that includes both the insurrection element and the general mayhem, rioting and clueless trespassing. NotBartEhrman (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I respond to your concern that not all Trump supporters desired insurrection in my comment below in reply to Rich Farmbrough. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Isn't really a major storming when most of the protestors were outside and only a select few were actually inside, sure it was rather chaotic at its peak but the majority was alright with most of the deaths being accidental rather than intentionally, + shouldnt this be also considered for the BLM Riot in D.C in May? Storming is a more appropriate title anyways. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose at least at this time. Others have made it clear with their detailed and very clear analyses that there is no overarchingly common name at this point. As such, we should remain at the most neutral title possible, of which either "storming", "riot", or "attack" would qualify, until such time if insurrection becomes the clear common name. I will note that a majority of support votes here are based more in personal opinion (and/or original research) than in policy or analysis of common-ness of the names. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. There isn't a common name at this point. It was a storming and using that as the title is fine. However, due to recent developments regarding many of the participaints using zip ties, a noose, etc., it's safe to say that this event was much more than a storming. It was a failed coup d'etat. Many reliable sources have described it as such. cookie monster (2020) 755 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is the best option. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Any insurrection would be a subset of the storming, just as the storming is a subset of the protests. It would be extremely hard to write about at the moment, and would require us to jettison large parts of the article, under BLP, if nothing else. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC).
  

Rich Farmbrough You and others make a valid point that not all of the protesters wanted an insurrection. It's possible that more than half of the thousands of people who were instructed to "march to the Capitol" did nothing (knowingly) that was illegal. A large portion may not have gone past the breached security line, and of those who did, many in the back may not have been aware they were passing a police line, because those in the front had pushed aside the fence and the police had retreated.

Even so, my belief is that the coverage (at least on CNN) is not primarily about the non-violent protesters who followed and/or reasonably believed they were lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. A 10,000 person protest in D.C. gets only so much coverage. And even the Million Man March did not require 25,000 reservists to defend the capitol from another coup attempt. The coverage I have seen is devoted primarily to the huge breach of security, the real danger to the lawmakers, the planning, the violence, the insiders who gave tours, etc. In other words, the bulk of the coverage is about the people who knowingly tried to stop the certification of the vote, and wanted to overturn the election and who wanted to kill Pence and other lawmakers. These are the insurrectionists.

One solution to your valid concern of improperly suggesting all protesters backed backed an insurrection is to bifurcate the insurrection aspect from the rest of the rally that was non-violent. However, I think that would be very messy, so I'm not inclined to support that unless someone could make a clear break that makes sense.

So, although, I think your concern is valid, I still think the news aspect of this is the threat to U.S. democracy by those who wanted to thwart and/or kill the legislators who refused to back Trump. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Storming is by far a more accurate word. It's neutral (I don't think there can be any debate as to whether the capitol was stormed; it was breached on video), it doesn't have melodramatic connotations, and let's be real: why change it to begin with? To make the title more controversial? MeanMotherJr (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose First of all, I think any page move should keep the year in the title. Secondly, while I agree some were insurrectionists from the get-go, not all of them were. Not all had the same intent, so you would have to name names. And then we have BLP issues. — Maile (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Storming makes way more sense than calling it an insurrection. SilentRevisions (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Current title is fine and NPOV and terms Attack and Storming are more common than insurrection.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Insurrection" is more common than "storming". Attack is not a real contender because it fails the specificity standard of WP:DESCRIPTOR.— Alalch Emis (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Mark Milley, chairman of Joint Chiefs: “There was some indication that an unknown number of veterans associated with the insurrection.”[52] soibangla (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calling it an "insurrection" is laughable, and blatantly violates WP:NPOV. If this was an "insurrection", then so is every protest that takes place in defiance of government orders. "Storming" is also a poor choice. This was a riot. The rioting erupted after but was distinct from the rally and protest march, which perhaps should be a separate article. If there's to be article titled "storming" then all the stuff about Trump, what he said, etc. must be taken out of the lead and referred to only as background information. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "2021 riot at the United States Capitol" is a much better choice". Why? The definition says so; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot. 174.74.236.174 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a storming of the Capital so Insurrection at the United States Capitol can just be redirected to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Bear6811 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the time being. "Storming" is perfectly adequate. Although I acknowledge "insurrection" may become the commonname, I don't think it's there yet. I would strongly object to "riot" since it isn't adequate to the event. Consequently I propose leaving it at "storming" for about six months then if another term becomes commonname, reopen this discussion. But leave it at "storming" at the time being. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: the coverage has shifted the farther we are from the event, with "insurrection" now being dominant in RS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't. But feel free to provide some evidence to make me change my mind. StAnselm (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: change from ‘Storming’ (and riot). As I said before, “A”, if not “the” mainstream view is that it was a coup attempt. Instead the word “coup” has been entirely whitewashed from the first half of the article, where it is called a mere riot, and in the title, where it’s just a Storming. Official and OS intelligence is coming out indicating that this was far from an entirely disorganized event such that its nigh obvious. People don’t show up to take part in a mere riot with dozens of handcuffs (other than law enforcement) or to a protest loaded down with offensive military gear such as batons.

C’mon, people. Again: It really is applicable here (even if graphics aren’t the only focus of the current censorship). --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Storming is a more broader, and a more neutral term, that has been used by most media outlets, more so than it being called an insurrection. 02:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per the actions in the event and the textbook definition of «insurrection». In addition to all the reliable news sources calling it so, even if they didn't do so at the start, as more and more information is being dug up. Calling it anything else is in my opinion simply whitewashing it for those that incited to and participated in this horrific event. Hekseuret (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment (by nominator) American Political Science Association called the event Insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 7; I just found it out. — Alalch Emis 03:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, definitely a NPOV issue. Also it's not in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Lets with just stick with storm, it's more broad. Also, not everyone there was likely committing an "insurrection". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (as to noun only): The successful tresspass of the Capitol is what makes the event notable. Insurrection fails to capture that. Suggested nouns: invasion, assault, attack, storming. Bert Macklin (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

And "Goals: Disrupt ... Electoral College vote count ..., Seize ... certificates ..., Pressure Congress and Vice President ... to overturn election of Joe Biden; Methods: assault, shootings, arson, tactics of terrorism (intimidation, intention to take hostages, kidnap and execute)" and dead people is not what makes it notable – it's the trespass. Sorry, don't want to be that guy, but I just had to — Alalch Emis 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as an NPOV issue, 'storming' provides the most absolutely neutral position which doesn't hinder a reader from understanding the nature of the events themselves. Inconsistent usage of the term 'insurrection' remains in mainstream and reliable sources including wire services like AP, Reuters, where the term may have been used in editorial/feature/opinion pieces, but less readily in news articles which are from a more neutral POV (Wikipedia NPOV means we should be aligning with these articles, not opinion pieces on the same site). Donkeypeep (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storm" is a more literal, appropriate, and objective description of what occurred. "Insurrection" implies a broader movement or uprising of which the storming may have been a symptom, but is not an appropriate title for the description of that day's events 91.113.97.105 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I support a name that substitutes insurrection rather than storming, but I think the new name should include the year 2021 to make it distinct from the [Wilmington insurrection of 1898]. It would also make sense to include the word 'republican' in the title to counter the false claims on Fox news that these were 'Democrat imposters' so "Republican Insurrection at the United States Capitol 2021" Paraphrased (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. "Storming" is the term being used by far right media trying to romanticized the event and gain support for the participants. Wikipedia should pick some neutral title.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Suggestion for future naming discussion; 2021 Domestic Attack on the United States Capitol [53] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1. If we our using the defintions term for intersection then basicly all riots are considered Insurrection, CHAZ was far more of an attempt to rebel against the goverment then this. 2. Events far worse then this are considered protests in the eyes of wikipedia for example in the 2020 Guatemalan protests the cogress of Guatemala was set on fire.3 The term riot is used far more often then insurrection in the media.--Garmin21 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly support Many people here are suggesting that insurrection is just the same as storming/a riot, except more significant, and as such there is little purpose to making the change. However, the term 'insurrection' specifically carries connotations of planning and intended damage, as opposed to simply an otherwise peaceful protest which happened to turn violent. It is common consensus, as is evident by the impeachment proceedings against President Trump, that this event was very much premeditated, and the name should not imply otherwise. Furthermore, if the case is that the new name is 'no better' than the old one, surely the objective facts about it (as listed in addenda above) such as being shorter and more memorable make it a superior title? Also, some people suggest that we should go with the more general term (i.e. 'Storming') in cases of disagreement, however, Wikipedia generally tends to prefer more specific info over less specific. Furthermore, what makes this notable (as opposed to other Washington DC riots, which often have a very similar purpose of achieving the attention of lawmakers/congresspeople) is the history behind it and the aspect of planning, involvement of Trump, and the aftermath which followed - not necessarily the night itself. + agreeing with all of the above points Gkerecs (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gkerecs: As to how planned the storming was, that is still under active investigation — I think that's a quite significant to whether this becomes an 'insurrection' as opposed to just a riot. It's difficult to establish with certainty as to how organised the crowd was and how significant the crowd attempting to do damage was. There are obviously photos going around and reports of some rioters coming in with restraints and other items which would escalate this above a riot. But mainstream and regarded sources still haven't established how prevalent this was. We should only move if mass co-ordination and planning has been established by published sources, which it hasn't. Trump's motive when making his incendiary remarks, is also something which should be relevant to whether they were intended to incite a successful insurrection. Donkeypeep (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - The most compelling reason for me to support is "Insurrection" in the title of charges levied against Trump by the House. Both sides of the argument here cite WP:COMMONNAME though. My stance is a weak oppose as it appears that more recent sources are using "storming" rather than "Insurrection" out of an abundence of caution. Other editors also cited policy arguments here but failed to explain how the policy applies to x where (such as WP:NPOV). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Please take a look at the NPoV rationale in my replies, particularly this one: (Search for this term:) @Czello If the words; also in the opening post (how it was used by authoritative sources days before the articles of impeachment, and a controversy surrounding this term hasn't been reported in reliable sources), how it was used by politicians on both sides on the spectrum, and how "insurrection" is not known to be a strong word. — Alalch Emis 22:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It looks that IPs and SPA are joining the discussion of this RM, which it more distruptive since it involves view from alt-right users against more established users. But i neutral to taking position about moving the article. 180.242.50.227 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - "Insurrection" is more used in news after the event and 2021 is not needed considering there hasn't been other event known by that name (other incidents in the US Capitol have different common names so the year is not needed). --B1mbo (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – I feel the current title is fine. Storming is a broader term. Not all of the protesters wanted an insurrection, in the sense of taking control of the legislature by violence. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - at least for now. It is more in line with how both the media and public are currently referring to the event, but the article title as it is now is fine. "Insurrection" is a very strong word to what amounted to a bunch of angry rednecks breaking into a building. Compare it to an actual insurrection like the 80s JVP insurrection which left over 60,000 dead. If a change were to be made I'd prefer something along the lines of like 2021 [riots/insurrection] of the United States Capitol or simply 2021 United States Capitol conflict. I also agree with Anameofmyveryown's idea to wait a few months and see, such events rarely have a decided name this soon after they happen. Maybe in a few months time it'll be considered an attempted coup instead. 109.78.70.187 (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Vast Support: The highest rank of evidence/source is the U.S. House of Representatives impeached him for "incitement of insurrection" with 232/197 votes.... other sources are futile. Please stop these nonsense and change it.
  
  "Insurrection at the United States Capitol" sounds proper, formal, and official.
  
  "storming" sounds very immature and I keep thinking about a thunderstorm arriving there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

— 99.178.127.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

      ....I made no other account, Emis and I are different people.... Admins can check the IP and such.... whoever added that, shame on you.

      The House evidence is accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC) 

• Oppose (Strongly) Not even the impeachment accuses Trump as having planned insurrection, and by implication that he did not. So who did? Does that reduce to 'by person or persons unkown'? Which in this context is absurd. Given hard information available on the internet, it would be surprising if the FBI has not so far got enough evidence to pin it on some conspiring insurrectionist plotters, and more evidence than Comey had for the discredited FISA applications. Qexigator (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: You replied to the user above, but didn't indent your post accordingly. The post you replied to does not represent the reasoning behind this RM. Your "oppose" therefore lacks substance, because it doesn't include anything that really pertains to the proposal, and you didn't comment on the actual rationale for the move. The proposal is expressly not based on Trump having planned the insurrection. The proposed name does not include "Trump". — Alalch Emis 17:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe most taking part in this discussion will be able to see that Alalch Emis's comment, perhaps inadvertently, misses the point, viz., if there is no person or persons insurrecting, there is no insurrection. There was indisputably a riot within the Capitol following what is reasonably called a 'storming', for want of any more suitable word, and it is now public knowledge (if not earlier) that at least some who were active in the storming and riot had gone there with criminal intent, before the Trump supporters had gathered at the Ellipse for their rally. Qexigator (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

How can there be no person insurrecting if this very article uses "insurrectionist" in relation to various actions. If there was no person insurrecting then who was this person who had the goal to: Disrupt ... vote count ..., Seize ... the certificates ..., Pressure ... to overturn the election. What you're saying stands in stark contrast to what's contained in this very article. Did you even read it? — Alalch Emis 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, good question, given the utterances of politicians quoted in second sixth paragraph. May be the article could be improved in that respect, but editors are inclined to rely on what are deemed to be RS, and sometimes let political statements appear in Wikivoice. All the same, the riotous storming as such was not an insurrection as compared with events historically so described, such as the rebellion of the confederated colonies against the British Crown or others in List of revolutions and rebellions. Qexigator (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC) correction Qexigator (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Check out Whiskey Insurrection. Tax rebellion, 3-4 killed. The insurrection at the Capitol is a more severe event that strikes at the foundations of the constitutional order. — Alalch Emis 19:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

From tea tax to whiskey tax. Of course, numbers alone are not determinative, and criteria for the 'severity' of such events are debatable. It may be notable that so far 'RS' have said little or nothing about subversion -- may be too scary for the political leaderships, and too closely associated with McCarthyism and the like. Perhaps we can leave it there? Qexigator (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weakly Oppose It would not surprise me if there will be a standard name for it formed off wikipedia that we should copy and I would rather not have the article be moved a bunch of times, as such I do not fully agree with "Enough days have passed". That said, I do think 'Insurrection at the United States Capitol' is a better name for it than the current one (but I suspect using the word "riot" would be better, as others have more confidently asserted). Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. We're supposed to be a tertiary resource of facts gathered from the most unbiased secondary resources available. Do we really think we can meet this ideal by polling the blatantly pro-Trump or anti-Trump editors in this forum, or randomly in a Google search? Leave your politics at home. Every secondary resource that actually talked to the Trump supporters in question reported that they said their motivation was a demonstration, and that they were demonstrators. Ascribing any stronger or weaker names to their motivations, even "storming," puts a political spin on it. Shame on those who are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Nearly every demonstrator there was demonstrating their support of a lawful United States government, and expressing their concern about what they believed to be vote fraud. Every large demonstration is infiltrated with agent provocateurs and people trying to make the movement look bad, but an unbiased resource treats that tiny percentage as a side note, and certainly does not name the entire event after them. Jack Autosafe (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

One should understand WP:FALSEBALANCE in situations like this. — Alalch Emis 23:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith here, but let's be honest, this user account User:Alalch Emis who initiated this RM discussion was only created on January 7, 2021 and yet it's user has extensive knowledge of Wikipedia editing procedures and policies. Can the owner of this account please state if they have other accounts on Wikipedia as required by WP:SOCK or divulge if there exists some WP:COI that requires they use a unique account for this discussion. I think it needs addressing. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Meta issue statement (nominator) The meta issue raised by Octoberwoodland has been dealt with to some extent here. Based on the procedural guidance given:

you're not obliged to answer

— Sdkb

– and since I am opposed to this esteemed user's question on moral and philosophical grounds, I have decided to treat this allegation of COI and sockpuppetry with silence. — Alalch Emis 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) (updated with quote)

• Support Strongly Trump was impeached for inciting insurrection, which is what happened. That's all that needs to be said. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Logically, by this argument we should wait until he is found guilty. StAnselm (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not about Trump's guilt, it's about their choice of word for what happened. O.J. Simpson was not convicted of murder, yet we still refer to what happened as murder because we know it's real. Either way, the actual proposal does not rest on this argument. — Alalch Emis 07:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not at all relevant. The victims were certainly murdered - we are just not certain it was Simpson who did it. StAnselm (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The renaming is not supported by the vast majority of quality reliable sources, particularly now that the dust has settled and we are removed from knee-jerk WP:RECENTISM. Sources quoting politicians saying 'insurrection' don't count. Strong political opinion in the commentary here coming from either direction doesn't count. 'Storming' or 'riots' is currently supported by RS. Pick one of those until anything changes in the reporting. RandomGnome (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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