Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Large Deletes that should be reviewed

I noticed some Large Deletes, between now and a couple of days ago, that should be reviewed:

• ====Praise of certain individuals==== 2021-01-10T17:44:05
• ==Timeline== 2021-01-10T08:42:11
• Of the various flags carried by the Trump supporters... 2021-01-09T21:23:05
• Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum, after the rioters had breached the Capitol grounds, remarked on-air that "This is a huge victory for these protesters. They have disrupted the system in an enormous way!"

Baragona, Justin (January 6, 2021). "Fox News: 'Peaceful' MAGA Mob Storming Capitol Is 'Huge Victory'". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Retrieved January 6, 2021.

• Martha MacCallum later called the images "stark and so disturbing" without apologizing or retracting her on-air statements.

Jones, Tom (January 6, 2021). "Fox News host Martha MacCallum: 'We are witnessing something beyond our comprehension'". Poynter Institute. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved January 6, 2021.

• The evacuated office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was occupied.

Swaine, Jon. "Man who posed at Pelosi desk said in Facebook post that he is prepared for violent death". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 8, 2021.

• <code>| side1 = <b>[[Donald Trump]]</b><ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/trump-speech-capitol.html</ref><ref>https://time.com/5926883/trump-supporters-storm-capitol/</ref><ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/07/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-capitol-riots-mob-criminal-charges/6588112002/</ref><br>[[Rudy Giuliani]]<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/07/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-capitol-riots-mob-criminal-charges/6588112002/</ref><br>[[Donald Trump, Jr.]]<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/trump-speech-capitol.html</ref><br>[[Proud Boys]]<br>[[Boogaloo movement]]<br>[[Three Percenters]]<br>[[Oath Keepers]]<br>[[QAnon]]<br>[[Groyper Army]] − | side2 = <b>[[United States Congress]]</b><br>[[US Capitol Police]]<br>[[D.C. Metropolitan Police]]<br>[[D.C. National Guard]]<br>[[Virginia National Guard]]<br>[[Virginia State Troopers]]<br>[[New Jersey State Police]]</code>
• There is a general consensus among America's military allies that Trump and elements of the federal government "... were attempting a violent coup that ... appeared to have at least tacit support from aspects of the US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex... [and there is]... circumstantial evidence available pointed to what would be openly called a coup attempt in any other nation." They believe that there is "serious credence to the idea that Trump deliberately tried to violently overturn an election and that some federal law-enforcement agents — by omission or otherwise — facilitated the attempt".

Prothero, Mitch. "Some among America's military allies believe Trump deliberately attempted a coup and may have had help from federal law-enforcement officials". Business Insider. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Number of Deaths

How many deaths occurred during the storming? I believe it to be 5 (3 of natural causes, 1 rioter shot, and 1 officer), however it is saying 6. SuperHeight (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

5 deaths resulted directly from what occurred, 1 death was a suicide that is unclear about weather or not it had anything to do with the siege. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There's already a thread about that above, Capitol Police Officer dead by suicide. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(Going by that, current consensus is 5.) RetiredDuke (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting and considering when and where the deaths occurred. If there is a distinction between the "protest" phase and the "riot" phase, 3 deaths occurred for medical/health reasons with little to do with "storming the capitol building".

Categories

Should this be categorized under Category:Attempted coups d'état and Category:Fascist revolts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8800:2110:1902:5481:BEA8:CC8B (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No on the first, absolutely not on the second. There is still discussion about "coups d'état" but there is not a clear consensus to call it that. "Fascist" has no place in this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, I disagree. Fascist definitely belongs when we discuss how certain reliable sources have described them in such terms. However only in that context. (Though as a leftist anarchist, I will say that Trump and those groups that follow him can be accurately described as fascists. We literally have neo-nazi groups and equivalents as part of the insurrectionists.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently there is nothing in the article calling this situation or participants "Fascist". And if it isn't mentioned in the article, it can't be in a category. You could start a discussion, if you wish, making a case why we should describe the incident or people in the article as Fascist. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with the first, coups d'état are synonymous with military involvement. Strongly disagree with the second. "Fascist" does not belong here. That would be generalizing and labelling comparable to having a categories for "Fat and Ugly", "Clerks", or "Handicapped".OnePercent (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Civil Parties Infobox

I'm thinking of adding back an infobox of civil parties to the conflict. Now that there is general consensus that this was an insurrection/coup, there should be civil parties. Other insurrections like the Beer Hall Putsch have infoboxes. Arandomguy12345 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

See this discussion first [1] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

My changes to the infobox was reverted an older reversion by another editor for unknown reasons and stated I should get consensus. IMO, the way I had it was better looking than what the person changed it back to. Hopefully it can be put back in place. 1989 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Separate in-depth article on the arrests

Would anyone be opposed to this? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't oppose as long as this article has a small brief section about them with a "main article" listed at the top of that section. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• The title should probably refer to charges, not arrests. I would be OK with Criminal charges brought in connection with the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, a title similar to Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). A chart format might be most useful, as in Fat Leonard scandal. Neutrality^talk 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with charges vs arrests, I'll aim to start it soon. I'd like to focus on individual charges, but I think a chart would also be useful. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Save America March?

Was the intention of the "Save America March" to march, as the title suggests, to the Capitol? Or was it just to hear Trump and others speak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personnongratia (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Reactions by Pompeo

While all other sub-sections in the Reactions section report what leading politicians said about the riots, the sub-section Secretary of State Pompeo reports what he did after the riots. To be consisent, we should mainly report what he said, and, since it was newsworthy, how his diplomats reacted. Here are a few sources that may be useful:

The Hill, January 6: “The storming of the U.S. Capitol today is unacceptable. Lawlessness and rioting -- here or around the world -- is always unacceptable,” Pompeo tweeted Wednesday evening. [2]

The Hill, January 8: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo used his personal Twitter account on Thursday to criticize journalists and politicians for likening the U.S. to a "banana republic" following the violent attacks that occurred on the Capitol building Wednesday. [3]

AP, January 10: The cables also reflect anger at the response to the riot by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a loyal Trump ally. ... The second cable goes further, demanding that Pompeo explicitly recognize President-elect Joe Biden's election and condemn Trump's actions. [4], [5]

— Chrisahn (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing the LEAD

Given how contentious the article is, I believe the typical guidance of WP:LEAD in allowing uncited statements on the top and in the infobox to be insufficient. While this would be acceptable for a typical article, this isn't a typical article. This is probably going to be one of the most controversial events of the decade. My attempts at tagging things with CN templates was reverted by EvergreenFir. So I'd like to get other input on this. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: The material is in the article. Are you willing to add the citations yourself? I'm not opposed to their addition, just the tagging is unnecessary. I do worry some that the infobox will become harder to read if full of references. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The phrasing used in the infobox could perhaps be identical or near-identical to corresponding statements the lead/body. It's already perfectly congruous but it could use more simple identity. For example if you do a Ctrl+F of "certificates of ascertainment" you get 1 result (the infobox). Alalch Emis (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of riotous legislators in the lead

Surely the article should state early on that elected Republican Party officials were among the attackers? I don't see mention of it in the lead at present. I also think the bombings should be mentioned in the first paragraph. GPinkerton (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Opposed to mentioning the officials - the officials involved were fairly low-level (state legislators/etc., not state legislative leadership), so would appear to be WP:UNDUE Reyne2 (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Do sources cover it? Yes they do. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Also, I wouldn't call state legislators "low level". A councilperson of a small town would be "low level". State legislator is actually a pretty big deal (which is why they're notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.) Volunteer Marek 06:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, agreed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There's little sense in declaring state legislators per se to be "low level" or not, when members of the California State Senate have more constituents than members of the U.S. House, while members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives represent districts around one three hundredth of the size. And, as Reyne2 suggests, there's a significant difference in profile between a majority leader or speaker, on the one hand, and someone like Derrick Evans, who'd only been in office a month, on the other. So the argument that state legislators are inherently high-profile enough to warrant a mention in the lede seems shaky. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, this isn't for us to decide. It simply depends on whether it's covered in reliable sources. And it is. We don't necessarily have to name all of them by name (aside from those such as Evans that have received much more attention). Just state that such and such a number of Republican lawmakers were involved. Volunteer Marek 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's covered in the sources doesn't mean we have to cover it in the lede, which is what this discussion's about. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, that fact that the individual legislators might be nobodies is beside the point. Anyone that is an elected official of an American legislature and who storms the United States legislature is worthy of mention in the lead of the event ex officio. They needn't be mentioned by name, just a sentence stating that Republican legislators joined the mob. GPinkerton (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Protestors vs rioters (Lead)

Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It is back to rioters, but a the term should have a discussion. Words are so key, that a discussion on that is probably a good idea. (Changing name to discussion about protestors vs rioters). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) is my vote. I believe the people that actually entered the capitol are rioters, but they people outside the capitol are protestors. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad way to break it down. Thank you Elijahandskip. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100% 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

So with this suggestion, "On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they occupied, vandalized, and ransacked parts of the building for several hours." remains consistent with this definition (that is not supported by sources). Those who stormed the Capitol are rioters, and the original wording should be maintained. Reywas92^Talk

In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's important to be careful with these descriptors because it's not clear who was a rioter, while they are all protestors. I like the suggestion of Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) above, but it's sadly more complicated than that. People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory, while people who had the barriers opened for them, later, at another point on the perimeter may not be guilty of anything. It's going to be interesting to see the legal outcomes, there are probably two killings, and yet we are told someone is going to be prosecuted for stealing an envelope. Until then we can only follow reliable sources on fact, and NPOV on tone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

100% agree. Keep up the good work! Also note "riot" and WP:BLPCRIME DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Given this, we should probably refer to "thousands of protestors", since most sources indicate that there weren't a thousand in the capitol. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To suggest that actions outside the capitol did not include rioting is absurd. They were attacking the officers outside (the officer who was murdered was killed outside), they were smashing windows outside, they scaled the walls and vandalized outside. RSes call the entire event around the Capitol a riot. The doors are not a magic barrier that changes the characterization of those who enter them. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory... The doors - or the barriers - do appear to be magic, though. "Entering a restricted area" and "remaining in a restricted area" both appear to be crimes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

"Protestors" is a weasel word that makes these treasonous insurrectionists appear to be roughly equivalent to BLM protestors (who actually protested). This story is about the attempted coup and the terrorist infiltration of the Capitol. They weren't protestors, they were terrorists, I even think "rioters" is weasel wording. This seems like whitewashing that we'd find in Conservapedia. Disgusting. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your desire to use a word with as negative a connotation as possible, but it's our job to use a word that is as neutral as possible while containing all the facts. See protest and riot. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To summarize, the consensus is protestors outside, rioters inside. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Please see this video. This is not merely a "protest". Perhaps a violent protest. The article calls it a riot. [12] Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

With that, you could call all the BLM "protests" as riots. The consensus is they are protesters until they break the law, aka entering the Capitol, then it becomes a riot. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Do we have a consensus yet, or should the topic continue to be discussed? This is relevant since the current lead has the word ‘Riot’. Earlier today, we had a “consensus reached” moment, but since then, an edit came and opposed the consensus. So I want to know if we got the consensus to close the discussion, or discuss more? Elijahandskip (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rioters — inside versus outside is nonsense. As soon as they passed the bollards, they were violating the law. As soon as they rushed the barricades, they were violating the law. All visitors must go through the visitor center. Unless you have the appropriate lapel pin or placard, you are not allowed on the steps. This is not new.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that, however, if we do have a consensus for that, the lead should be more specific. Technically, there was a roit and protest going on at the same time. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I've seen this "rioters inside/protesters outside" distinction in RS, which largely call them rioters. I would say we should go with RS, and use "rioters" throughout. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition of riot is a "violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." (Oxford dictionary). Unless the group in question broke the law, aka the ones being peaceful outside the barriers, they are protesters. Keep that in mind. Protests can happen during a riot. It changes names once it is violent and breaks the law. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC);

• I agree with GW: Use "rioters" throughout the article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree not all the protesters were rioting. Many tried to stop the ones rioting. Those breaking into the Capitol building were rioting. The gates around the Capitol were opened up by the police in some instances. MissBehaving (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this was mostly a peaceful protest except for a few clashes with police. The looting should not be considered violence. Given that, using the words "violent attack" in this sentence is unfounded as this produces the image of widespread violence. While there was some extreme violence, it seems like less than 5% of participants were violent, no? So replacing "a riot and violent attack" with "a mostly peaceful protest" would more accurately describe the footage. メガヒロ (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Woah, there!

Lede first sentence now reads (at Special:PermaLink/999625334):

The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a failed armed insurrection by Trump supporters against the United States government on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.

Was there consensus for this change? Language was much, much weaker when I last checked. Not necessarily opposed, but I think this deserves some discussion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Yeungkahchun changed it, as can be seen in this diff here: [13]. I'm not aware of any consensus to change it. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't see any consensus and I remember the language being much less charged last I checked. I propose reverting to the old language and opening a discussion on the proposed language. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection appears to be the most common description by U.S. reliable sources, with coup more common internationally. I'd support leaving the language as-is Reyne2 (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it.

The previous lede was way too long, it has to be a brief description. For example on 9/11 page the first sentence reads "The September 11 attacks, often referred to as 9/11,[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Wahhabi[3] terrorist group Al-Qaeda[4][5][6] against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001" rather than fully describe the event in the first sentence,

The first sentence of this page should read The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was ___________ on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. You can fill in the blank how you see fit.

If you have a problem with the description, change the description, but don't remove the bolded event title and date name. Before my edit, the bolded event title wasn't present

Anyhow, I don't see any problem with the current lede though. I just used language that was most common by US reliable sources. Was it not an insurrection? Did it not fail? Was it not carried out by Trump supporters? Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not need to shoehorn the article's title into it because this is not a natural universal name. The previous version was fine and the new first sentence is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 04:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it. This is not true, see MOS:BOLDLEAD and WP:BOLDITIS. There has also been significant discussion on this talk page about the wording "insurrection", without a clear resolution in favor. I recommend a revert to the previous version. — Goszei (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly not violent enough to be called an insurrection" and riot is more common word hence the previous words should be restored.Galesburg777 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster definition of insurrection is "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government", it does not define the act as necessarily a violent one. The event appears consistent with this definition. See Insurrection definition OnePercent (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: In light of the absence of consensus for this bold change to the lead, I've decided to restore the first paragraph of the lead to the version it appeared in directly before Yeungkahchun changed it, i.e. Special:PermanentLink/999610384. Mz7 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The bold title is back.[14] Do we maybe need a hidden comment explaining that it is a descriptive title and shouldn't really be bolded? --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've put back the first sentence we had earlier. I agree there is no need to shoehorn in the exact title and bold it in this case; indeed MOS:LEAD recommends against doing this. --Jayron32 15:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Aaaaand it's back again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's worth mentioning that the House has introduced articles of impeachment literally entitled "Incitement of Insurrection". I'd support having the lead include it at this point. Jdphenix (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the opening statement is not judgmental. It seems like whoever wrote it was very angry. Mad1532 (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

To bold or not to bold: format of the first sentence

It seems that over the course of the past 24 hours, the first sentence of this article has alternated between two forms.

Option A (current version):

The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress on January 6, 2021, carried out by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.

Option B (version before today):

On January 6, 2021, supporters of United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the November 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.

Which version do we prefer? Personally, I'm partial to Option B. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy. Mz7 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In the video of the speech Trump said to peacefully march.

Is it gonna be added? Because if you watch the speech this is what he said

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully" But its probably not going to be mentioned here because it doesn't fit the narrative. 2600:8805:C880:3D7:CC56:215A:4424:FF6F (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no comment on this other than to say I have a bit of free time and stumbled on this comment. Cutting off a quote mid sentence makes it very suspicious that you're hiding something. Maybe at least finish the sentence you quoted - and consider the rest of the speech as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says that Trump said that. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Source is here, but he also said fight many times. --Robertiki (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump said or referred to

fighting or fight 19 times.

Fraud, defrauded, fraudulent - 22 times.

Fake news - 6 times.

Rigged or rigged election - 4 times

stolen election, election was stolen - 3 times

false - 3 times

weak Republicans - 5 times

illegal - 24 times

cheat or cheated or cheating - 3 times

get rid of - said 9 times, in reference to "get rid of [certain people]" and (they want to) get rid of the Lincoln Monument and (they want to) get rid of the Jefferson Monument

And in the first quarter of the speech he said the word peaceful. Once. I think the word's been given exactly the amount in this article that Trump gave it. Shearonink (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Assassination attempt?

Considering that the rioters were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," while they assaulted the building and killed a security officer, should we label this as an assassination attempt against the vice president? Necropolis Hill (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Necropolis Hill: we use what reliable sources say. Is there a particular change you would like to be made? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that "Pennsylvania March" included adjoining National Mall?

Instigated by Trump to help him overturn the election result, a crowd marched down Pennsylvania Avenue after the rally and advanced on the Capitol, where a separate crowd had gathered.

I haven't dug into all the news sourcing, but is it worth noting that the march from the Ellipse to the Capitol included several axises (axes)? I was present as a photographer and opted for the National Mall approach due to less chance of crushing. I can upload photos of that portion of the crowd approaching if it would be useful. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, and I realize my statements aren't individually Reliable Sources but I'm just noting personal anecdote to see if it's worth finding sources on, there were crowds that left the Ellipse after the speech, there were crowds that skipped the Ellipse entirely and just went to the Capitol, but there were also crowds that left the Ellipse immediately upon Trump mentioning marching on the Capitol (and presumably some prior). Point being there was a wide spectrum of points where given elements opted to move on the Capitol. Not to nuance it to death, just putting it out there. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021 (2)

Please remove the accusation that president Trump incited the riot or provide the direct quote that proves your claim 209.62.211.69 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As far as I can see there is at least one diect quote which says this Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

Under the section "Potential spread of COVID-19" is listed that members should take a precautionary "PT-PCR test". It should be "RT-PCR test". Change PT-PCR test to RT-PCR test Sinistral Snail (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Pence??

In the opening paragraph, it says "Hang Pence". This does not make sense. Mike is Republican, like Trump. 180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet that's what happened. The mob saw Pence as a betrayer. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, betrayer!180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pence refused to give Trump a second term as president, for some reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pence is fundamentally a coward, who is afraid to break the rules even after throwing his lot in with the wannabe despot CIC. The Right eat their own BlackholeWA (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pleae read wp:forum, and wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can one attempt to overturn a defeat?

The first sentence of the lede in Special:PermaLink/999522346 says:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.

This sentence reads quite oddly to me. I can see one attempting to overturn a result (as Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election puts it), but I can't see one attempting to overturn a defeat. Perhaps better would be:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.

Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes you can overturn a defeat, he was deafeted and that is what they tried to overturn.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You could say "attempts to reverse his defeat", although I have no problem with "overturn" and that is what most sources are saying. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, —PaleoNeonate – 18:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "overturn his defeat". A defeat is a kind of result. The proposal loses the central, if obvious, fact that Trump lost the election. Something like "the result of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost..." or similar, could work, but I don't really see the need for it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a problem with "overturn a (/his) defeat". What is overturned is victory. Overturn is synonymous with topple. Something is standing up, gets brought down. If there is insistence on this verb, the object should be Biden's victory. Overturning a result is more like legal jargon, as in overturning a decision (in abstract terms), and you can't go from there to "overturning a defeat". Alalch Emis (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Overturning as in toppling is a red herring; we're clearly using the word in a sense much closer to the legal sense. In which case what I said above still applies, a defeat is a kind of decision just as it's a kind of result, and it doesn't strike me as a leap to go from one to the other. I wouldn't necessarily object to something like "overturn Joe Biden's victory", but we'd need to be able to make plain that Biden's victory was against Trump. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: It's not a red herring. The appropriate usage of overturn here is not the one in relation to a legal act of some kind (judgement etc.), but primarily to a political phenomenon. There is a mix-up of registers, the general register with the legal one. The latter does not really apply to Biden's victory because we're in the realm of politics not procedural law. If we try to identify a moment where the legal PoV would work, we find that this moment hadn't yet happened, because the votes of the electors weren't counted yet. Legally, that's when Biden became the winner. If we're using legal jargon, we need to be accurate. This is why "overturn the defeat" makes no sense. Simply "overturn Joe Biden's victory" is enough. Alalch Emis (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You cannot overturn something that did not exist. Trump wasn't "defeated" until January 7th at 3:40 am when congress certified the vote and Joe Biden the winner. Up until that point there was nothing to overturn. These people were protesting the election results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnePercent (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Incoorroect he lost the popular vote, which is what the rioters were trying to overturn.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Overturning a defeat = imposition Tortillovsky (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think "overturn" is fine because it provides proper context by linking to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election (i.e. this is just the latest in the series of such events). This might change in the future due to investigations and other events that will follow. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitol Police Officer dead by suicide

News is circulating that an off-duty capitol police officer, Howard Liebengood, has committed suicide following the events detailed in this article. Should this be included in the article? The fact that he died is confirmed, but the suicide doesn't seem to be official yet. [15] [16] Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I would wait until reporting draws a clearer link to the riot. GAB^gab 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We need WP:RS to say it was related to this insurrection before we include it. Currently, NY Post says "It was not immediately clear what spurred the act." I'd also prefer a better quality source than these. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff EvergreenFirI have two sources, one of which says he was present on January 6 and died off-duty, possible suicide. The officer's father had been Sergeant at Arms for the Senate in the 1980s. Here are the refs I propose to put in the infobox and then again in Casualties section, one is USA Today, the other is FOX 5 Washington DC. I read the New York Times article as well, which lines up with USA Today. Matthews of FOX5 puts the death as related. Okay or not okay? --Prairieplant (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

There's no indication that this is related to the riot at all, so it shouldn't be included. — Czello 20:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Czello Please note that another editor has added 2 police officers dead in the text, after David O. Johnson deleted it from the infobox. Oh this is fast-moving editing! I will step back; my goal was simply the format of that now-deleted TMZ reference. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: We need sources to unambiguously state the connection. Them mentioning to related thing isn't enough (WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbes is drawing a direct line between the storming and the suicide.Óli Gneisti (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's op-ed, unfortunately. We need RS to state directly. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

HuffPost has an article that links to a social media post from another officer confirming the officer died by suicide. Doesn't link it to the riots, though. [17] NDfan173 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not yet ready for inclusion. Wait for the authorities to tell us a cause of death and whether it was or was not related to the incident. Wait for something official; I'm sure there will be all kinds of unauthorized information and speculation from family members and others. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I came to this article because I heard that another Capitol Officer had died recently. I was confused to not see any mention of it. It should be mentioned, but provide context that there are no confirmed links to the event. Epideme12 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Eventually, everyone at the protest/riot will die. That does not warrant a mention here. WWGB (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: can you explain why you oppose even the mention of Capitol Police Officer Liebengood's suicide on this page despite corroboration in multiple RS such as WaPo and CBS News? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't appear to state that the suicide had anything to do with the Capitol storming -- unless I'm being blind and I missed it. If so please do point me in the right direction. — Czello 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Should it be added to the article?

Former Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W. Gainer says the death is connected. I edited the article accordingly. However, my edit was reverted pending consensus here. As a straw poll, please could other editors indicate whether they support or oppose my edit (or one like it), and ideally also explain why. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Like most people who commented above, I strongly believe that we should NOT add anything about this to the article until we have 1) official confirmation of the cause of death and 2) official confirmation that it was connected to the January 6 incident. A "former senate sergeant at arms" does not count as an official source. Particularly if the cause was suicide, as some have suggested, let's keep it out of the news and out of Wikipedia. The family has enough to deal with without that. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Liebengood's suicide has not been shown to be related in any way to the Capitol attack. Gainer's opinion is just another opinion; he was not present, nor has he been shown to have any "insider knowledge" about the death. WWGB (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose , I agree that we should wait until an official announcement is made regarding the reason behind the suicide. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clarification will come in time. Right now, the cause of death has not been widely publicized and no RS has made a direct link of the death to the event. Orville^talk 07:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There is no indication that this was related to the attack, and it's not for us to tie them together. — Czello 09:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. A clear connection has been made.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, But... I also edited the article accordingly, and there are millions of sources that state his suicide is related to the riots. However, I would also like to see something that has been ruled 'official'. What that 'official' statement looks like, I don't know yet. Dinkytown talk 13:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obvious Support This is now being reported in a large number of RS, including yesterdays Washington Post. It's not OR to point out that RS are talking about a Capitol Police officer's suicide 3 days after the riots within the context of the riots, and that is exactly what we should do too. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The link you provided doesn't appear to state that the suicide had anything to do with the Capitol storming -- unless I'm being blind and I missed it. If so please do point me in the right direction — Czello 07:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support brief mention. Originally, I would have said to exclude, but now the RS have connected it to the riots and Capitol Police morale. Neutrality^talk 21:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• *Support The connection has been made by RS. "Morale deteriorates among Capitol police after assault on Capitol", with fears of officers self-harming. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support The connection has been made in RS to the event, and suicide is a consequence of the event, among law enforcement and rioters alike. (see below) Dcs002 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I propose to adde the text below:

On January 9, 2021, one week after the riot, Capital Police officer and former race car driver Howard Liebengood died by suicide. He is reported as being on duty when a mob breached the Capitol. Former police chief Terrance Gainer described Liebengood’s death as a “line of duty casualty” in an interview because “it was no different than the death of fellow officer Brian Sicknick, who died Thursday night from injuries sustained while protecting the Capitol complex”.

Please discuss and comment. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What about Christopher Stanton Georgia's suicide?

He was arrested with three others in GA for unlawful entry and curfew violation, and he killed himself on Saturday. See here: I think suicides are an important consequence of this event and should be reported, as long as the suicides are reported by RS in the context of the story. Dcs002 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Don't include. It is one thing for a person to die during the storming or as a direct result of it. It is quite another thing for a person to die of suicide after having charges brought against them quite some time afterward.

That said, I am open to the creation of a separate article, List of prosecutions relating to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, in which the outcome of every prosecution stemming from the event could be recorded (where reported by RS). Zazpot (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we agree to keep suicides out of the casualties in the infobox?

Regardless of the outcome of the above discussion, some people in the past few days have tried to count Liebengood's suicide as a casualty and, consequently, changed the infobox to list 2 police officer deaths (so 6 in total). The above debate seems to be focussed on whether suicide should be mentioned in the body of the article, but isn't addressing the infobox. I suspect that, if we decide to mention Liebengood in the body, some editors will try to re-add this to the infobox. I want to make sure we're all on the same page that it shouldn't be counted as a casualty given that it didn't take place during the event or as a result owing to injuries sustained during the event. — Czello 09:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the article should mention both suicides, but, yes, they shouldn't be listed as casualties in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

"Peacefully" in the lead

I think this addition, adding "peacefully", is WP:UNDUE for the lead. The fact that Trump once mentioned the word "peacefully" during an hour-long speech at a rally filled with "trial by combat", "total war" and "fight like hell" rhetoric, and explicit calls for a coup and false claims about a "stolen election," doesn't mean that his use of that particular word is important enough to be highlighted to such a degree in the lead, given the overall context, which also includes the rhetoric by himself and his associates in the planning of the rally. It's simply not representative of his overall message at the rally or in the post-election period. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, Trump’s praetorians ludicrously claim that the word “peacefully” lets the president off the hook for the violence that followed. First, the whole protest was premised on a mountain of lies about the election being stolen. Convincing people they need to prevent a coup when no such coup exists is a recipe for violence.[18] We can discuss his speech in more detail, including the one time he mentioned "peacefully", in more detail below instead. --Tataral (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: The "peacefully" addition has now been removed again[19]. --Tataral (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Good to see more neutral wording! ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, "peacefully" has no place in this article. People who experienced this raid were terrified for their lives, and for good reason. --Petrichori (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: I think we have another word for it. —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how are Trump's words encouraging his supporters to march to Capitol and make their voices heard "peacefully and patriotically" "loosely related"? And how is adding his three phrases from one-hour speech without context, while ignoring "peacefully and patriotically" part "neutral"? —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of Trump's speech and overall message to his supporters doesn't justify highlighting the word "peacefully", of everything Trump has said, in the lead. This is about the relative prominence of that utterance in reliable sources, and its broader context. Whether it should be mentioned in the body of the article is another matter. --Tataral (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tataral: "Fight like hell" statement doesn't represents overall message of speech better than "make our voices heard peacefully and patriotically" statement, in fact, It is disputed and up to interpretation what Trump meant by fighting "like hell". —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone can interpret a speech differently by taking various words in different weights. Just because Trump uttered the word “peacefully” doesn’t mean his supporters took it equally seriously as other words in his speech. The fact that the rioters did “fight like hell” as reported and no evidence of false-flag operation by antifa justify the omission of “peacefully” from the lead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sameboat: What small part of protesters did is irrelevant to discussion of Trump's speech given before storming of the Capitol. Taking controversial statements from the speech and putting them in the text to match how events unfolded looks like attempt to push narrative that Trump is responsible for storming of the Capitol.

“fight like hell” statement is taken out of context. Here is the excerpt from the speech:

"I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were, and again most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life, but I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can't have happened and we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country, and I say this despite all that has happened, the best is yet to come.

So we are going to--we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give--the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try--give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try--going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

So "fight like hell" is used in context of protection of elections, not to encourage supporters to act to "take our country back" (like it is stated in the article). Nowhere in the speech does Trump incites violence and promotes physical assault on Capitol. —ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I could argue that the following quote “if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore” is Trump’s attempt to urge his supporters to take action. First the quote is in present tense, not past tense to denote what Trump (and his team) did to stop the steal; second Trump specifically used “you” to address his audience unmistakably, after he used “we” to address he and his team. —-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Using the word "peacefully" is the only explicit call to action provided by Trump, therefore it invalidates any suspicions of a call to violence. And this edit shouldn't have been made before consensus was reached. メガヒロ (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump "Pleased" with Riots

This needs to be properly cited or removed. WP:NOTFALSE The reference cited contains one sentence of hearsay regarding an unsourced relative opinion. This is a relative opinion: "Pleased" needs premise of which is not present. Unsourced material has no merit: references needs credibility. Additionally, the opinion is inconsistent with the words and actions of every single public statement of every single political figure, Trump included. The reason this is unsourced in this reference is because it actually refers to hearsay of hearsay or heasay where it was reported that this information comes from one individual who says they heard this from a Congress member who claimed they heard from an unsourced and unquoted "Official" something that he interpreted as "Pleased", which is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay and an interpretation of hearsay on top of that (this is referenced in the following couple sentences). This needs better citations or removal due to the weight of the allegation. OnePercent (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is relevant and properly sourced in the article. --Tataral (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tataral: The Washington Post reports Trump didn't initially respond to the riot he incited on Capitol Hill because he was enjoying watching it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mob-failure/2021/01/11/36a46e2e-542e-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html --217.234.74.185 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Condolences to Sicknick's family

Article currently reads: "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Pence did.[241]" This seems POV and unencylopedic, more like gossip than information. Would suggest something like "Vice President Pence offered condolences to Sicknick's family on behalf of the White House." The reader can read into it what he wishes.198.161.4.68 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. The source material indicates that Pence offered condolences on behalf of himself and the Second Lady, not "on behalf of the White House." Neutrality^talk 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Does your suggestion follow what the source says? it needs to. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The edits aren't an improvement. It comes off as childish finger-pointing. "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Biden, Pence and Pelosi each did." Is it a contest to see who is sorrier? If there is some significance to Trump not offering condolences, there needs to be an explanation of why, that isn't original research but coming from a reliable source. As it is, it's just trivia in an already too-long article.174.0.48.147 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ummm, Trump is the sitting president. The officer in question died during a domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol. This is definitely something that it would normally fall to the president himself to do. --Khajidha (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Then explain that in the article with information from a reliable source, otherwise, it is just your opinion. As it is, I see the response section has been expanded, and reads very well now.198.161.4.68 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The article needs to state who was there: mostly White men

Is this currently noted in the article?

From WaPo [20]

"After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution."

I find Wikipedia to be invaluable, and deeper analysis of this event would be invaluable to readers. Here's a start [21] (Scroll down within the article)

-- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No, and I'm not sure if that's exactly relevant. Love of Corey (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it would be relevant if it was, for example, 80% African-americans in attendance? or 50%? (for clarity, White men (non-Hispanic) make up roughly 30% of the U.S. population) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it's relevant that they were protesting mostly white men who were finalizing the election? TFD (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you restate your question another way? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant but we need RS to say it for us. I've heard some on NPR about the race of the crowd, but not a whole lot. We have a section on differential treatment already. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir, what you mentioned (differential treatment) has to do with the interaction between the police and protestors; although related, I'm talking about something else. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand. It might be a bit longer before we get some of the deeper sociopolitical analyses of this insurrection. I 100% that the participants being overwhelmingly white men is relevant. But I'm not sure we have RS to say that for us, or at least not enough (WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need to say they were white. It isn't really related, and might look like pushing an agenda. I think saying they were Trump supporters gets the point across. Though if a reliable news site (ie Reuters, AP) were to describe the crowd as white, or per-dominantly white, I see no issue in that. SuperHeight (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by pushing an agenda? by who? Here's a good source for White men [22] and White Americans [23] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NPR also mentioned it: Now, the rioters, mostly white men, they left many clues, the video and photos that they posted of themselves while they were at the Capitol or afterwards. [24]

Wall Street Journal: The Capitol was more heavily guarded for recent Black Lives Matter protests than Wednesday’s demonstration, where Trump supporters were mostly white men. [25] — Chrisahn (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fox News: "...a crowd of what appeared to be mostly White protesters..." [26] — Chrisahn (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we've now got enough sources (with diverse political leanings) to support the claim (and its relevance) that the protesters were mostly white men. I added the information to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Accusations of differential treatment section. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• As someone who has a very long talk with others on Wikipedia about mentioning the color of people, it should ONLY (Please note the word only) be mentioned when 2 opposing political spectrum RS (Example being New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) mention it. An admin months ago gave me this piece of advice when I unintentionally began a very long and painful discussion about this topic on another thread...Bad enough to spread into 2 different admin noticeboards for warnings to various editors. So if we can find opposing political RS's that mention that, then we should add it. If only one political RS side (Meaning multiple liberal or multiple conservative) is mentioning it, then do not add it. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT say nothing about needing 1 source from "the left" and 1 from "the right"; that would be a huge problem for Wikipedia if it were true. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: It isn't in Wiki policies. Just going to be honest though, if every single "left" source says "White men" but every single "right" source doesn't, what do we do? We would have conflicting RS at that point. Again, this topic is not in Wiki policies...which is why that discussion I talked about earlier was painful and had multiple admin noticeboards for warnings to different editors. The admin said and I will quote it. "you appear to have a fairly strong bias in the area of race in the US that may make you likely to push certain points of view. I suggest you default to using the Walt Street Journal as your reality check on whether or not race is pertinent in a given article. If WSJ is noting someone's race, you can be assured that is not "creating a version of racism." Another editor mentioned this right after "Just a note, if anyone's going to use the Wall Street Journal as a reality check, just make sure it's the Journal's news reporting, which is justly acclaimed, and not its editorials, which can be seriously biased. A good doublecheck would be to look at The New York Times or The Washington Post to see what they do. While both are mildly liberal editorially, their news operations, like that of the Wall Street Journal, are first class." and the admin agreed to that. (All those quotes were from an admin board notice). So in short, no it isn't Wiki policy, but if we don't do that, it will end up causing more "discussions" (arguments) in the future on this talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand what these people said but it is not true. WP:RSN discusses and decides what sources qualify as WP:RS; there's nothing more. But we are now off-topic of the above discussion so post on my talk page if you want to continue this discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually this isn't off-topic. The entire discussion is about "Would stating color of people in this article be a good idea". We both laid out our opinions backing them up. This discussion defiantly belongs here instead of a talk page. (We can talk more in future 1 on 1 in a talk page discussion, but the discussion we have had so far is perfect for this overall discussion). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is here (it's hatted and viewable). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I found a Wall Street Journal source saying "mostly white men". See above. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff is correct. While having a wide range of sources would be lovely, it is by no means necessary. On issues of race and gender, I would encourage sticking to higher quality sources (e.g., NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, CNN, NPR, BBC) and avoiding some of the more clickbaity ones (e.g., HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, Vox, Vice). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Formatting regarding abbreviations of Washington, D.C.

It looks like there hasn't been any discussion or precedent set about whether or not "Washington, D.C." should be abbreviated to "DC" or "D.C." Both abbreviations are used throughout the article. Personally, I'm in favor of "D.C." as it corresponds more with the full name and would possibly prevent confusion. Sewageboy (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The article about it is Washington, D.C., so absent some other WP:MOS guidance, I would assume that. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Prefer "D.C." per parent article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"U.S. president had ordered an attack against the Capitol"

I didn't listen to Trump's complete speech, but I suspect that that language is probably too strong. The source says "incited". --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this. Pres. Trump never used the phrase "Storm the Capitol" or things like that. "Incited" was the best word choice as he just added fuel to a fire. But surprisingly, he didn't actually advocate storming the Capitol during any part of the speech. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, it says "ordered" now. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "ordered" is problematic at best, and flat-out misinformation at worst. It's also wholly unsupported by the citation. Fixing this now. — Czello 13:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you as you were removing it. I was going to do the same. Good call; source text does not say "ordered", it says "incited" which is the same as what the rest of the sources say, and what the article already says. --Jayron32 13:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong information about the Indian flag at Capitol Hill and what's the point of painting all Indians as Trump supporters?

The media tried to paint that flag waver as a Hindu nationalist but it turned out he was a Catholic man from Kerala. Tharoor, without knowing the name of the person tweeted and that thing is added here. It turns out that man is a BJP hater and Congress and Tharoor supporter but it is not mentioned here. No mention of the guy's name either and surprisingly, stuff are added to show that Hindus support Trump. Is this not false information and gaslighting of a community? How is this allowed on Wikipedia?Krish | Talk To Me 11:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS (https://www.thequint.com/news/world/us-capitol-hill-siege-indian-tricolour-vincent-xavier-palathingal-donald-trump) doesn't say the man is a Congress supporter, quite the opposite actually. His only professed Indian political stance is anti-communist, which could very well describe any right-wing party in India. His American politics is mainstream Trumpist. However, taking his views as representative of the general Indian population is WP:FRINGE and connecting it to Modi's Trump support reeks of WP:SYNTH. Since foreign leaders' reactions aren't entertained on this page, that entire section doesn't belong. 202.8.114.229 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I would like to notify Jayron32, the editor whose reply (most recent) I found on this page.Krish | Talk To Me 14:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I have not edited, nor have I had anything to do with, the text in the article to which you refer. I hold no opinion on, nor do I have any additional information, regarding the information about Indian people in the article, so I am not sure why you think I did? Can you explain what you want me to do? --Jayron32 15:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 Sorry. I did not mean to say that you added those points. I was not clear above. I actually meant that "I would like to notify Jayron32 who has been replying & discussing on this talk page. I wanted you to look at the additions because you were frequently replying to every post discussion on this page and yours was the only recent replies to those posts which pointed towards you being online. That's all. I wrote a confusing statement above while pinging you. Anyways, the issue has been fixed. Sorry for the confusion.Krish | Talk To Me 15:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

OK can we have three RS about this so we can asses what they say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this whole paragraph. One of the sources cited is an op-ed from September 2019: op-eds should be avoided for statements of fact, and since that predates the Capitol insurrection is this is OR anyway. As for the rest, I don't think it meets the due-weight test at all. Neutrality^talk 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the misinformation. On a side note, the flag bearer said he was representing Indian Americans while the articles made it into Hindu nationalist and "Modi supporters also support Trump" thing. How can editors come to conclusion on their own based on Twitter opinions and speculations? Hindus have nothing to do with this incident and yet were being blamed in the article. Thanks again for correcting this in the article.Krish | Talk To Me 15:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Army investigating officer who led group to Washington rally

Don't know if this info has been covered, or should be, but putting the source link here.

Army investigating officer who led group to Washington rally

— Maile (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure this is all that relevant, its one officer (who by the way has already resigned as a result of a warning over an earlier dmemo.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh yes, I think a US Army psychological operations officer leading a large group of people to the deadly riot should be noted somewhere. Did she use her skills to brainwash these people? My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

I have a simple request. I would like to know how many people attended the Trump "Save America" Rally prior to walking on the capital. I would also be interested to know how many people lay siege to the Capital building and enter the building.

I have Googled these question and the only information that comes up is in regard to the organizers of the rally increasing the permit from 10K to 30K a day or so prior. Thank you. 109.76.159.210 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the people who patrol this talk page do not have special information that you don't also have access to through the research you've tried through Google. Those values, if they were known, would likely already be in the article. --Jayron32 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The talk page of a Wikipedia article is for discussion about the article, not for general discussion or questions about the subject of the article. You're welcome to ask your question at the reference desk, but other than that Wikipedia is not set up to answer specific questions about article subjects. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree this article should answer these kinds of questions! Mcfnord (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An IDEA:
find video coverage at broadcast and cable news sites, and online video sites and watch it all.
I have a simple request is a difficult research task.
Have fun with the heavy lifting.

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (2)

At the end of the section labeled "Suspensions of other social media accounts", add paragraph:

On January 11, Ron Paul, a former presidential candidate, indicated via Twitter (@RonPaul) that Facebook had begun preventing him from managing his own page. Paul's post read "With no explanation other than 'repeatedly going against our community standards,' @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.'"

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ron-paul-blocked-from-accessing-facebook-page-over-violating-community-standards/ar-BB1cEZwR Freedom20082020 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not obvious to me how this relates to the subject of the article. Melmann 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: There is a pattern of administrative action against high-profile parties, most notably against the current President since this event. I suspect Wikipedia has a page about high-profile access restrictions where this coverage would be appropriate. Mcfnord (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

List of legislature stormings

See also has

• Burning of Washington
• Democratic backsliding
• List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C.
• Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
• 2020–21 United States election protests
• 2017 Venezuelan National Assembly attack

See also previously had

• 1814: Burning of Washington
• 1898: Wilmington insurrection of 1898
• 1932: Bonus Army
• 1954 United States Capitol shooting
• List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C.
• Big lie – Propaganda technique
• Democratic backsliding
• Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
• 2020–21 United States election protests
• Battle of Liberty Place

Other recent stormings of legislatures:

• 1993 Russian constitutional crisis
• 1996 Australian Parliament House riot
• 2017 storming of Macedonian Parliament
• 2017 Venezuelan National Assembly attack
• 2019 storming of the Hong Kong Legislative Council Complex
• 2020 Kyrgyzstani protests
• 2020 Serbian protests
• 2020 Armenian protests

Historical stormings:

• 1917: Storming of the Winter Palace
• 1922: March on Rome
• 1923: Beer Hall Putsch

both seem unsatisfactory, any comments? ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't all this be best situated for a clean standalone list called List of attacks on legislatures? Neutrality^talk 21:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely back the creation of a broad list of attacks on legislatures as suggested by Neutrality. Love of Corey (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a single picture in the infobox is from inside the building

From a visual standpoint, the article, and the infobox in particular, do not provide a comprehensive overview of what took place.

The events that took place inside are what give this event most of its significance, so I'd like to understand why the infobox only shows the rally and rioters outside the building. To someone with no prior knowledge of the event, the current infobox pictures make it seem as if the 'storming' was basically of the outside stairs/balconies, and do not convey that the rioters penetrated all the way to the Senate chamber.

I believe that at least one of the following three pictures should be added to the infobox: rioter in the Senate chamber holding zip-ties (to convey what some rioters' intentions were); lawmakers crouched for safety (to convey the imminent danger they faced); mass of rioters charging through the building (to convey the magnitude of the breach inside). These need to be included in the infobox and not relegated to halfway down the article. Z117 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea... assuming you can find these images under the appropriate license... Thrakkx (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a license for any of these photos? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No context of "Milley" in Domestic reactions section

In the third paragraph of Domestic reactions, the excerpt: "In another unusual move, Milley and all of the other Joint Chiefs[a] issued a statement on January 12 condemning the storming of the Capitol" should be changed to: "In another unusual move, Mark Milley and all of the other Joint Chiefs[a] issued a statement on January 12 condemning the storming of the Capitol" since there is no mention of Mark Milley before this point in the article. Cgoods94 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done and added title as well. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary execution of Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Summary execution of Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being added to the Infobox without clear sources there has been no attempt on the life of either of them hence it needs to be removed.It lacks reliable sources this is very serious charge.Only one person lost his life due to the rioters a police officer this will be UNDUE to add it.Galesburg777 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, reporters have heard talking about, that would be "stated to execute", but it is a far jump to write "intended to execute". There is a long jump from talking to intent. --Robertiki (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been widely reported both nationally and internationally that the rioters intended to execute VP Mike Pence; "Hang Mike Pence" was loudly chanted as a slogan while they stormed the capital, a gallows was built, and a reporter heard multiple rioters mention additional detail about plans to hang the Vice President [e.g. from a tree], indicating that the slogan was likely more than talk. You can say that the slogan was exaggerated perhaps, but in their own words, this was a goal of the rioters. Reyne2 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You have to be careful with further interpretation of chants. Otherwise, Wikipedia may someday report that there was a "effort to arrest and detain Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign when some people chanted 'Lock Her Up'", which is not really true. Or that Trump was an imperialist with plans to invade Canada and Latin America because he said "make America great again" and we all know that Peru is part of America (not part of the USA). True, do not go to Peru and ask a taxi driver to "take me to the American Embassy" because some taxi drivers will say "there are many American embassies in Lima, Mexico, Chile, Bolivia, etc" Vowvo (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this is hearsay and alleges a crime without anyone being legally accused, not even those who have been arrested, and as such should not be present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnePercent (talk • contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We should not state in Wikipedia's voice that any specific person actually intended to execute Pence or Pelosi, at least until possible future convictions on such charges. But we can report on chants and social media posts expressing that rhetorical intent. Allow the readers to decide how credible these threats were by summarizing them neutrally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing it in the infobox made me think "wtf?" tbh. It appears quite dubious, at least undue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How about "Abduction of Vice President Mike Pence" in the goals then, without speculation on desired ultimate outcome? Reyne2 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone seriously planned to abduct Pence. Some of the media are feeding the beast, but let’s not pretend like anyone was actually going to put Pence on the noose. In my view, that whole part is undue for the Infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the list of causes in the infobox sufficient?

Currently the infobox lists the causes of the storming as:

• Opposition to the results of the 2020 United States presidential election
• Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud

It reads as though there were no causes before the November election which doesn't seem to be accurate. Any suggestions?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are the proximate causes of the event; as with any string of causal events we could just start with the Big Bang and move forward; the systemic environment that created the Trumpist movement is certainly a cause, but is outside of the scope of the infobox, and the two that are there are sufficient. --Jayron32 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a contentious article. As such any of these need cited by the highest quality sources we have. I've tagged them with {{cn}}s. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The causes section lists "Lack of law-enforcement caused by George Floyd Protests." I think that could be worded better. It makes it sound as if the George Floyd protests limited the number of law-enforcement available to respond, however the source describes reluctancy to deploy law-enforcement in the aftermath of the George Floyd Protests.StylishJumpsuit (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Attendance?

No where in this article do I see any mention of the numbers in attendance. In fact, I've found that very difficult info to come by. How many people attended the White House Rally? How many left White House and headed to the Capitol? Total attendance at Capitol protest? Number who breached the perimeter barricade? Number who actually entered the Capitol building? Number who actually entered the House Chamber?

No numbers have been reported. The best we have so far from sources is that the rally was attended by "thousands" and the Capitol was stormed by "hundreds". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede is far too long!

This is a very heavily edited article at the moment, and I'm not very well versed in the subject, so I'm not going to fix it right now, but the lede is far too long. Maybe I'll summon the strength to hack at it over the weekend, though. --Slashme (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead seems of an appropriate length commensurate to the article length. As noted at WP:LEAD, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. and "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." It does say that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." (bold mine), a "paragraph" being an imprecise unit of length anyways, the current one is 6 paragraphs, but what is there is fairly tight and doesn't have anything I would consider bloat. It seems just about right to me. --Jayron32 14:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead is great, informative and not too big. I would only exclude last phrase ("The following day it became known that senate majority leader Mitch McConnell supports impeachment of Trump"). Do you really believe he will bring this to Senate and support? But even if he will, this is hardly for the lead as something actually uncertain at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Change title to "Storming of the United States Capitol". The US Capitol has never been stormed before (burned once, yes), so the year is not relevant. Hopefully, the new title would stick through the years. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Invalid and  Denied — This is not a move request. If it was, it would be denied, as we aren't considering move requests currently per consensus. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus was against adding Trump's name to the title. If you go up a little bit, you'll see a two (with me, three) person consensus for this title. 64.190.226.125 (talk)

The consensus that you can see if you go through the archives is after the initial huge 200+ response community survey on the issue, this name was selected and the community has procedurally-rejected all move requests since then as too soon. After this article stabilizes and a WP:COMMONNAME develops, perhaps, but not now. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Protestors vs rioters (Lead)

Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It is back to rioters, but a the term should have a discussion. Words are so key, that a discussion on that is probably a good idea. (Changing name to discussion about protestors vs rioters). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) is my vote. I believe the people that actually entered the capitol are rioters, but they people outside the capitol are protestors. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad way to break it down. Thank you Elijahandskip. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100% 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

So with this suggestion, "On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they occupied, vandalized, and ransacked parts of the building for several hours." remains consistent with this definition (that is not supported by sources). Those who stormed the Capitol are rioters, and the original wording should be maintained. Reywas92^Talk

In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's important to be careful with these descriptors because it's not clear who was a rioter, while they are all protestors. I like the suggestion of Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) above, but it's sadly more complicated than that. People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory, while people who had the barriers opened for them, later, at another point on the perimeter may not be guilty of anything. It's going to be interesting to see the legal outcomes, there are probably two killings, and yet we are told someone is going to be prosecuted for stealing an envelope. Until then we can only follow reliable sources on fact, and NPOV on tone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

100% agree. Keep up the good work! Also note "riot" and WP:BLPCRIME DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Given this, we should probably refer to "thousands of protestors", since most sources indicate that there weren't a thousand in the capitol. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To suggest that actions outside the capitol did not include rioting is absurd. They were attacking the officers outside (the officer who was murdered was killed outside), they were smashing windows outside, they scaled the walls and vandalized outside. RSes call the entire event around the Capitol a riot. The doors are not a magic barrier that changes the characterization of those who enter them. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory... The doors - or the barriers - do appear to be magic, though. "Entering a restricted area" and "remaining in a restricted area" both appear to be crimes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

"Protestors" is a weasel word that makes these treasonous insurrectionists appear to be roughly equivalent to BLM protestors (who actually protested). This story is about the attempted coup and the terrorist infiltration of the Capitol. They weren't protestors, they were terrorists, I even think "rioters" is weasel wording. This seems like whitewashing that we'd find in Conservapedia. Disgusting. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your desire to use a word with as negative a connotation as possible, but it's our job to use a word that is as neutral as possible while containing all the facts. See protest and riot. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To summarize, the consensus is protestors outside, rioters inside. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Please see this video. This is not merely a "protest". Perhaps a violent protest. The article calls it a riot. [27] Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

With that, you could call all the BLM "protests" as riots. The consensus is they are protesters until they break the law, aka entering the Capitol, then it becomes a riot. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Do we have a consensus yet, or should the topic continue to be discussed? This is relevant since the current lead has the word ‘Riot’. Earlier today, we had a “consensus reached” moment, but since then, an edit came and opposed the consensus. So I want to know if we got the consensus to close the discussion, or discuss more? Elijahandskip (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rioters — inside versus outside is nonsense. As soon as they passed the bollards, they were violating the law. As soon as they rushed the barricades, they were violating the law. All visitors must go through the visitor center. Unless you have the appropriate lapel pin or placard, you are not allowed on the steps. This is not new.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that, however, if we do have a consensus for that, the lead should be more specific. Technically, there was a roit and protest going on at the same time. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I've seen this "rioters inside/protesters outside" distinction in RS, which largely call them rioters. I would say we should go with RS, and use "rioters" throughout. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition of riot is a "violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." (Oxford dictionary). Unless the group in question broke the law, aka the ones being peaceful outside the barriers, they are protesters. Keep that in mind. Protests can happen during a riot. It changes names once it is violent and breaks the law. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC);

• I agree with GW: Use "rioters" throughout the article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree not all the protesters were rioting. Many tried to stop the ones rioting. Those breaking into the Capitol building were rioting. The gates around the Capitol were opened up by the police in some instances. MissBehaving (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this was mostly a peaceful protest except for a few clashes with police. The looting should not be considered violence. Given that, using the words "violent attack" in this sentence is unfounded as this produces the image of widespread violence. While there was some extreme violence, it seems like less than 5% of participants were violent, no? So replacing "a riot and violent attack" with "a mostly peaceful protest" would more accurately describe the footage. メガヒロ (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

New title: Trump Capitol riot

This is not an RfC (so stop the !voting), just brainstorming. What about a better title?

• The Trump Capitol riot
• The Trump Capitol insurrection riot
• The Trump insurrection at Capitol

This identifies the inspiration, location, and action. At present, it shouldn't need to include the year, but if necessary, one could add 2021. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That is the best title I have seen.Casprings (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No RS is using this (to my knowledge), and this doesn't even slightly explain what happened. Trump didn't do anything - also which Trump, I hope Judd Trump is ok. Which Capitol? Capitol of the world? I don't see how any of this is an improvement, and definitely doesn't meet WP:COMMON NAME Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Lee said: if we're not using COMMONNAME, there's limitations on how much we can "build" a title. It usually involves putting a year at the front and using the most accurate, short, neutral, explicit description possible. We don't coin names for things, which is what these suggestions all are. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, it makes it seem like trump was the one who stormed the capitol, it also doesn't show the time frame, or imply what transpired in the capitol. 777burger ^{(LET'S TALK)} 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to play with this. We need a better title that includes some of those words, and possibly others. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay but can it happen in any of the title discussions above or whichever RM comes first next week? Kingsif (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Believe it or not, we have standards on here. Trillfendi (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 777burger. The suggested title is way too succinct and therefore vague on the topic. Love of Corey (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 777burger. The title is too vague and perhaps misleading, possibly even violating WP:NPOV. For one thing, there is no such thing as a "Trump Capitol". For another, it makes the riots look as if it were led by Mr. Trump. While the president may have incited the rioters whether he intended it or not, he did not lead the insurrection. FreeMediaKid! 01:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 777burger. Agree, however, that a future, better, title should omit the year as this was an unprecedented event Alalch Emis (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - but agree that the year should come out, unless insurrection in the Capitol becomes a regular event. 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.”

  I think this is a very valid point which should be considered when re-titling is brought up again, as I'm sure it will be. In any event, these suggestions are terrible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We really shouldn't consider these fringe groups. They produce so much nonsense you can't find an association for every word, even "OK". Consider words as meant by the average reader. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What "fringe groups"? "OK" is a well-documented far-right hate symbol. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Seige" of the Capitol is also a common phrase in RS. -- Valjean (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Except it wasn't a siege in any usual sense of the word, which involves waiting for the inhabitants of a surrounded area to give up after you've cut off their food and other supplies. Calling it the "siege of the Capitol" would not only by a misuse of words, it would give entirely the wrong impression of a quasi-passive action as opposed to an active one. As we say with the footage of people breaking down windows etc., this was not a crowd sitting around waiting for something to happen, it was a violent action to breach what should have been a secured area. "Siege" is a military word, describing a military operation. Using it metaphorically is fine, but it's got to have a clear relationship to what the actual word describes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The Trump insurrection" is another description used by RS. -- Valjean (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Insurrection" is my preferred choice of words. "Pro-Trump insurrection" is clearly factual without potentially violating BLP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's an obvious injection of POV. The current name is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello 23:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly this is the best title. And it could be discussed if the court find Trump guilty at the future. But now I don't think that this is possible at wikipedia. Mayby the most apropriate title is 2021 Invasion on the US Capitol. (or 2021 pro-Trump Coup d'Etat attempt, if the court prove it)

I'd just remove the year and call it the "Storming of the United States Capitol". Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That wouldn't work since there have been previous events of the same actions. OnePercent (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the name Trump should not be in the title. It insinuates various misleading things in addition to alleging a federal crime.OnePercent (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming the US Capitol would be more accurate title. Trump encouraged peaceful protests. There is no evidence that he called for a riot or violence. A portion of the protesters acted on their own accord when they broke into the Capitol. Many of Trumps supporters were trying to keep people from breaking in, other areas had the doors opened for the protestors and still other instances rioters busted in the windows and crawled in. MissBehaving (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What about: "2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol" or "2021 protest and assault on the U.S. Capitol"? This 2nd suggestion helps to differentiate between the crowd that stayed outside and the mob that raided the building Tortillovsky (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's name shouldn't be in it at all. We are completely uncertain of what his impact on the events was. Furthermore, aside from the peaceful protestors who have made their argument clear, we don't know who was responsible for the violence. Conflating both the peaceful march and the violence that might have been triggered by interested parties (Biden, Clinton, China, Antifa, whomever) is a violation of NPOV. Wait for more information to be released. Morphoditie (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Under the headline for "Casualties", it states that Officer Sicknick was "injured while physically engaging with protesters".

It continues on to say "Law enforcement officials told The New York Times that he had been struck in the head with a fire extinguisher." and "Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,"

However later in that section it then states

There were calls for Trump to be prosecuted for inciting the violence that led to the five deaths, although it is not clear that the medical emergencies were due to violence.

Isn't this contradicting itself? On one part it states, clearly, that a death was due to a violent act, and on the other part it says "not clear"...

--203.213.224.63 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The "medical emergencies" part refers to the two people who died of a heart attack and a stroke, respectively. I agree the wording is a bit unclear and should be improved. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement "although it is not clear..." might be true but it was not supported by a cited source and was making a statement in WP's voice. I've removed it. Shearonink (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worse than just a contradiction. The "mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher" part is likely false. From https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol :

While some news reports had said an unnamed officer was in critical condition after being bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher, family members did not have details of his injuries. They say Sicknick had texted them Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed, he was in good spirits. The text arrived hours after a mob’s assault on the Capitol had left more than 50 officers injured and five people dead.

“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”

But the day after that text exchange, the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke; a ventilator was keeping him alive.

-- Stefantalpalaru (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's old news, Pro Publica is Jan. 8! Read https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9139059/FBI-arrests-New-York-man-connection-Capitol-riots.html 15:45 GMT, 12 January 2021 --217.234.74.185 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The DM is not a reliable source.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction here. He is not counted as one of the "medical emergencies". He died of head injuries that resulted in a blood clot to his brain; another word for that is a stroke. Or the head injuries caused a subdural hematoma, another word for bleeding into the brain. It's not uncommon for the person to think he is OK for a while, and symptoms develop after hours or days. The blow to his head killed him. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The above sources are not helpful. Here is an official source that he "passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty." [28] Here's AP: "During the struggle, Sicknick, 42, was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher," [29] Here's his father: "He ended up with a clot on the brain."[30] -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We still need to reckon with the matter of who killed Officer Sicknick. Since Officer Sicknick was an ardent supporter of President Trump it is unlikely that the protestors were responsible. What is more likely is a member of antifa, BLM or a hired rioter bussed in by either Obama or Biden was responsible. The fact is that it is still too early to assign blame. Morphoditie (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC) https://nypost.com/2021/01/10/what-the-left-wants-to-ignore-about-slain-capitol-police-officer/

NY Post doesn't suggest anyone other than the rioters killed him; that's your own irrelevant synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (3)

My suggested change would be how in the first few paragraphs, it states that the United States President, Donald Trump's claims of election fraud are false. Whilst most likely to be true, I believe that this would breach Wikipedia's non-bias. I would ask that it be changed to 'false claim' to 'claim'.LoveBearMarco (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

They are customarily being qualified as false in RS, and this is merely reflected here. Omitting this word would be a spurious redaction of source materials. The media tends to include this qualifier to keep it clear that it's settled matter. When the article phrases it the same way it's clear to a future reader, several years from now, that during the relevant time, this had become settled matter already - as it indeed had. Alalch Emis (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done the claims are false, reliable sources say they're false, this is not a violation of WP:NPOV. See Talk:2020 United States presidential election/FAQ and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for more information. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Objection. "false" is like "truth", like in "faith". I would prefer to read "unproven claim". --Robertiki (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't a riot and it wasn't a storm it was an Insurrection according to the American government.

Time to change the headline

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-news-01-12-21/h_ff48d5c57b86031716423f4c0b8b9940

--Caffoti (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There are already multiple ongoing debates about the naming of this article, including at the top of this page. Please contribute to that discussion rather than start a new one. — Czello 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In Newsweek, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are calling it a "violent riot".

What do you think? Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Criminal Accusations in the Lead?!

This articles lead is ridiculous. It outright accuses a sitting US President of a federal felony crime in stating that Trump "incited" violence. This is in the sentence beginning with "Incited by President Donald Trump to overturn his ..." and elsewhere in the article. Stating he in anyway "urged", "incited", "solicited", "motivated", or any other synonym indicating intentional or unintentional responsibility of violence is making an accusation of a federal crime and WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NEUTRAL.

Federal law at 18 U.S. Code § 373 states that anyone "... with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct" is commiting a federal felony.

This is exactly what this articles lead is alledging and insinuated elsewhere in the article.

Federal law enforcement, lawmakers, and multiple media outlets agree that this crime was not committed and the DOJ has announced that no charges will be filed on any speakers at the event, much less Trump himself who would be included in that statement. See ABC News Article, Speakers won't be charged in Capital siege

The wording, and accusation thereof, is WP:LIBEL and a relative opinion contradictory to other opinions which are supported by facts surrounding the event. See Wall Street Journal Article - Trump not guilty of incitement

This is additionally evidenced by Trump's call for protests to be peaceful prior to the event, during the event, after the event, and further condemned the event as has every single other politician and by the hundreds of times in 2020 he has requested "peaceful" protests and "law and order", including on January 6th.

I did not change anything yet (there are better authors for that), but this should be changed and this article in general should present the information of this event accuarately, factually, and neutrally and free of opinion, defamation, and federal felony accusations. OnePercent (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia. Whether someone holds a particular status as "sitting" this or that in their own country has no bearing at all on how we describe them and their actions. All the reliable sources of the world have stated that Trump incited the riots, mostly by using that very term, so that will stay in the article. --Tataral (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In this particular case, it is irrelevant what "reliable sources" state when it comes to federal law. These references should also be cited because the only references I see in this regard are written opinions of journalists and outdated. They are not judicial legal opinions nor are they submitted by an attorney as a legal opinion which would be a "reliable source". Additionally, they are outdated having been published between the 6th and the 8th at which point the DOJ was not ruling out charges for anyone, however, on January 8th, the DOJ said that after further review, they would not be charging Trump, or any speaker, with any crime which supersedes previous statements and subsequently the premise of any previous "reliable source". It is my understanding that on this platform, articles should not make accusations of criminal activity without validity and validity cannot exist if federal law enforcement has currently ruled it out nor can references based on prior statements of law enforcement having "not" ruled it out be considered valid. Moreover, even if these "reliable sources" were 100% valid and current, which they do not appear to be, WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly states that any such accusation should state a reference alleges a crime, and not state that a crime occurred and should include denials or contrary references WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:NPOV if they exists. As such the lead and this article is still in violation and needs to be changed. This article repeatedly asserts allegations of a federal felony violation of 18 U.S. Code § 373 in contradiction of the United States Department of Justice findings in addition to other reliable sources and is premised by referenced opinions that lack current validity. OnePercent (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes this an international encyclopaedia, but it is still subject to US law (at least). The article is also subject to WP:BLP. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

• There was a discussion about word choice in the lead. Pres. Trump did not urge any protestors/rioting at the Capitol. He did however "add fuel to the fire", so instigated was the best word choice decided in the discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, upon reading the lede, it suggests that Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani and several speakers took part in the 'storming' of the Capitol, when in fact none of them participated in the actual march that took place after his rally. ---  Jrobb525 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Too long and rambling

This article has grown to absurd size. It is significantly bigger than the article on WW2, or Jesus Christ, or ... pretty much anything. I suggest perhaps that the long rambling parts containing opinions of everyone be moved off to their own articles, probably at lest the aftermath and reaction sections at the very least. Thoughts?Dacium (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is too much detail that needs to be trimmed, not expanded into separate articles. --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This happens with developing stories, per WP:RECENTISM. It’ll probably stay like this for a while until the event dies down. Trim some now, some more fluff or long quotes will arrive in a week. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WW2 and Jesus each have myriad related articles that cover the entire topic. This event is currently only covered in one article. Over time, parts of it may be split off into other articles. Other parts may be deleted or trimmed. There's no deadline. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

We really need to start spinning off and/or removing content ASAP. It's clear we've got a historic event akin to the September 11 attacks on our hands, and we don't have the appropriate amount of articles and content that cover its entire scope. Love of Corey (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not anywhere near comparable to September 11th... for one, the death toll is at less than 1% of the 9/11 attacks, for two, the 9/11 attacks were a coordinated attack which involved foreign nationals as opposed to domestic actors, and the 9/11 attacks resulted in many more consequences than this ever will (the US will never torture or kill [without trial] US citizens as happened after 9/11 with foreign nationals suspected of involvement).

Please do not equate this to 9/11 again - it is insensitive to the people directly affected by such event (who number in the hundreds of thousands) to equate what in comparison is a pissing contest to such event. I agree this is signifcant and may need some other articles in the future. But do not hyperbole it to 9/11 level of significance. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur. Drawing parallels to 9/11 are absurd and wholly inappropriate. The fact that people are making such parallels, itself reeks highly of WP:RECENTISM whipped up by a media and political frenzy, and a pertinent reminder that controversial decisions regarding content should not be made during the controversy itself. Regards. RandomGnome (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's speech at rally preceding the riot

There have been a few attempts to remove, or to water down, the statement:

Trump's speech, replete with misrepresentations and lies, inflamed the crowd

For example, this was recently changed to:

CNN wrote that Trump's speech was "filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd".

But this is improper. It is a fact, reflected in many reliable sources, that Trump's speech contained lies and falsehoods and inflamed the crowd. It is improper to give in-text attribution in this context, because it inaccurately suggests that this is just one view, rather than an accepted reality that the sources unanimously agree on:

• Liptak, Kevin; Stracqualursi, Veronica; Malloy, Allie (January 7, 2021). "Trump publicly acknowledges he won't serve a second term a day after inciting mob". CNN. Trump, who has repeatedly refused to concede the election, on Wednesday egged on his supporters who would later breach the US Capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from counting the electoral votes cast in the 2020 presidential election. ... After a speech filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd, Trump returned to the White House to watch a violent crescendo to his constant spreading of misinformation about the electoral process
• Morris, David Z. (January 7, 2021). "'We will never concede': How Donald Trump incited an attack on America". Fortune. At the rally, Trump delivered the same inflammatory rhetoric and false claims that have characterized his entire presidency. For most of an hour, the reiterated claims that the election had been stolen – claims which have been rejected as unfounded by at least 59 courts, including many headed by Trump-appointed judges....Trump also repeatedly intimated that his followers should take action. Near the beginning of his speech, Trump even made what appeared to be an indirect threat to Vice President Mike Pence, who, Trump incorrectly told his supporters, had the power to overturn the Nov. 3 election results....As the speech continued, Trump edged ever closer to calling for direct action by his supporters.
• Rucker, Philip (January 6, 2021). "Trump's presidency finishes in 'American carnage' as rioters storm the Capitol". The Washington Post. Trump made a fiery last stand and incited his supporters to storm and sack the U.S. Capitol as part of an attempted coup...At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, meanwhile, Trump addressed his rally crowd at the Ellipse, with the White House as his grand backdrop. He began with a lie, declaring that there were hundreds of thousands of people there; attendance was far smaller. Then another: 'They rigged an election, they rigged it like they've never rigged an election before. ... We won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.' In fact, Biden won with 306 electoral college votes to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by 7 million votes, or a 4.5 percentage point margin. As he concocted his fantasy about the election, ticking through one baseless or debunked claim of fraud after another, Trump vowed, 'We will never concede.'
• "Trump's Falsehood-Filled 'Save America' Rally". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. January 6, 2021. Prior to the violence that disrupted Congress' counting of the electoral votes, President Donald Trump gave an indignant speech filled with falsehoods about the presidential election he lost two months ago to Democrat Joe Biden. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• "How one of America's ugliest days unraveled inside and outside the Capitol". Washington Post. January 9, 2021. During his speech, Trump reiterated multiple falsehoods, claiming the election was rigged and that Democrats had committed voter fraud. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

We have an obligation to state facts as facts. Our official policy is that "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice" and that we reject false balance, presenting context its its "proper context" as governed by the "beliefs of the wider world." --Neutrality^talk 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You're confusing information with tone. The article already states that Trumps claims about election fraud were false. The article already states that the crowd was incited by Trump's speech. The specific phrasing we choose to represent that information is different than the information itself; the information depends on sourcing, the specific wording and tone used in conveying that information depends on other factors, including choosing specific terms and phrasing that is appropriate to an encyclopedia article; which is different and distinct from other forms of written communication. See WP:TONE among other parts of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and the MOS. --Jayron32 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do not see any of that content elsewhere in the "Save America March" section at all, and that doesn't address the improper use of in-text attribution/quotation here. In any case, I see no issue with stating the facts dispassionately and straightforwardly: the march preceding the rally was filled with inflammatory lies (or falsehoods). That statement doesn't endorse or rejecting a particular point of view; it states the facts. If the text at issue was something like "the mendacious speech dripped with perfidious lies" you might have a point about tone. But we state the facts as facts straightforwardly, without improperly distancing ourselves from them. Neutrality^talk 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to repeat every part of the article all over the place. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section is the first time where BOTH things (the falseness of his claims and the fact that the mob was directly influenced and encouraged by him), as well as several other places in the article. If it needs to be mentioned in the Save America Rally section as well, perhaps, but we should make sure to get the tone correct. "Replete with lies" is vague and emotionally laden language. Instead, something like "During the Rally, Trump re-iterated many of the false claims he had made about election fraud". It DOES however, mention in the very first sentence of the next section that the crowd was "instigated by Trump". For narrative flow I'm not sure we can take that sentence out and move it elsewhere, and I don't know that we need to be repetitive as saying it twice in short succession. --Jayron32 17:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have restructured the speech section with some new additions (including to cut a block quote and add some content from NYT and WaPo annotated version of the speech) and reorganization. I don't think at all that "Replete with lies" is emotionally laden, but the new text includes a reworded version that modifies that text. See if you like it. If you want to cut redundancy out of other sections, I would not object, but I think when we are talking about the speech's content and effects, we need to put that material in the section on the speech. As for the lead section, that is of course supposed to reflect the body of the article. Neutrality^talk 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections, and think the whole section is much improved. Thanks! --Jayron32 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Neutrality^talk 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

NY times mentioned that the barriers were breached 20 minutes before the end of the presidents speech. After that, the crowd departed for the Capitol.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggested grammar correction

Hi,

I found a grammar error in the article.

Under "Damage, theft, and impact":

"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces was tracked into several hallways."

It should be:

"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces were tracked into several hallways."

I would appreciate someone with edit permission making this correction. Thank you! :)

Done. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I see that someone reverted the edit. I would like to point out that the word feces is in fact plural. It is one of the rare English words that is always plural. The correct word is were. Citation: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feces --Corrupt Cactus

From the Wiktionary page you linked to: "This word can be used with plural verbs ("feces have a strong smell") or singular ones ("feces has a strong smell"). Use with plural verbs is more common, especially in Britain, and is the only use recognized by some dictionaries,[1] while others recognize both plural and singular use." --Khajidha (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Melania section lacks

There have been several accounts in the press of Melania's staff pleading with her to talk to Trump during the rioting and her ignoring them. Immediately following the events her chief of staff resigned. Can someone get some of this detail into this! The section seems so bland as it is that it feels like something that should be edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:5CA6:C093:537:EEB6 (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should. --87.170.207.193 (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggested split in 4 parts

This article could be split in 4 parts:

• Storming of the United States Capitol (the year is not needed, because it is the only one)
• Reactions to the storming of the United States Capitol
• Aftermath of the storming of the United States Capitol
• Proposal to remove Trump for his role in the storming of the United States Capitol

That would result in more readable, and more easily editable parts.--Robertiki (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think the title should remain the same (at least for the time being). But I definitely agree that the article can be split up (it's very long and unwieldy right now). We already have an International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, so the domestic responses can be spun-off into a Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article. An Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol would be a good article to be created or the info from the relevant sections could be merged with the Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article. "Proposal to remove Trump for his role in the storming of the United States Capitol" wouldn't be a relevant article to be created and its information should be merged with the 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. 4 already exists: see 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office. As for the others, what is the difference between "Reactions" and "Aftermath"? We would end up with a muddle of two closely overlapping articles. I suggest that we wait at least one week for further facts to develop before we consider broader spinoffs. When we do splinter off, I suggest we have more targeted and specific spinoffs, not broad ones: one about criminal charges arising from the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (the prosecutions); maybe another about Technology company responses to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (more on reactions, bans, and content moderation). Those are both arguably where some of the most text-heavy and involved (but discrete) content will go. Alternatively, if we wanted to go broad, a broad-spectrum about the Lame-duck presidency of Donald Trump might be useful to readers. Neutrality^talk 02:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We should have this conversation later after the chaos dies down and the frequency of new additions to this article decreases drastically SRD625 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

SRD625, the article is becoming difficult to edit and unwieldy. This is the perfect time to split the article, as it already hasn't solidified. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We could at least split away all that follows the history of the event, starting from the reactions section (to a reactions and aftermath article ?). --Robertiki (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Robertiki, A lot of recent editing is also condensing sections. I wonder how it will compare after such. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why Pelosi?

At the end of the second paragraph, the following is stated: "and attempted to locate lawmakers to take hostage and harm, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Pence, the latter for refusing to illegally overturn Trump's electoral loss." While an explanation is given as to why the mob would want to harm Pence, there is no explanation for why Pelosi would be a target of their ire. When I click on the biographical article about Pelosi, it does not mention that she is a particular target of alt-right vitriol. Is there something we are not explaining here? Or perhaps the mob simply targeted these two individuals in their capacities as the presiding officer of each house?--Bhuck (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pelosi has been the biggest target of alt-right vitriol almost unabated since she first became speaker of the House. If you hadn't noticed that, you haven't been paying attention. You don't see it in the Wikipedia article about her perhaps because Wikipedia is not the place to repeat such silliness. --Jayron32 14:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As regards the factual veracity of your statement, I agree, and of course I noticed it—but I think it odd to suppress facts instead of stating them because they are deemed to be „silliness.“ The one-sided explanation giving reasons only for Pence, but implying that it is perfectly natural to want to harm Pelosi, still seems to need explicit justification.—Bhuck (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue against judging the motives or the morality of the protestors regarding Pelosi. There is still much we don't know regarding her involvement in the election fraud and, therefore, the actions of the protestors cannot be judged as morally right or wrong. Likewise, to state the the attempts to overturn a dubious election as "illegal" is loaded and highly NPOV. Morphoditie (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not advocating judging the motives or the morality of the protestors. The current phrasing in the article attributes motives in the case of Pence, but does not attribute motives in the case of Pelosi. I believe that both should be treated similarly, with or without attribution of motives. There is also a distinction between attributing motives and judging the morality of the motives. Theoretically, we could write: "including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for reasons which are unclear, and Pence, for refusing to overturn Trump's electoral loss." (not including a judgment as to whether the attempt to overturn the loss was legal or not) -- or, more absurdly, we could write "...for reasons which are unclear because the only evidence that she might be a target of alt-right vitriol has been judged to be silly and not worth mentioning here..." but that is probably not going to be the basis for a consensus here. What we should not do is have motives ascribed for harming Pence, but ascribing no motives for harming Pelosi, as if harming Pelosi would require no explanation.--Bhuck (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Explicit reasons should be given when available. If sources show that the rioters were targeting Pence for refusing to overturn Trump's loss, we should say so. If sources show that the rioters were targeting Pelosi, but do not give clear indications of why, then we should say that they were targeting her and not attempt to explain it. --Khajidha (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable. I examined the sources attached to the sentence in question. Two are very lengthy videos, where it is not clear exactly what part is being referenced. All but one (the Australian one) refer only to Pence, saying that rioters wanted to hang him, but giving no reasons. The final source mentions that rioters wanted to hang Pence "for being a traitor" and wanted to run over Pelosi with a car, but give no motivation for this desire (perhaps to improve tire traction?). Is it appropriate for us to make the connection between "being a traitor" and "refusing to overturn Trump's loss", or does that constitute "original research"? I think maybe the best solution would be to break the statement up into two sentences, along the lines of "Rioters wanted to hang Pence for refusing to comply with Trump's wishes. They also targeted Pelosi." Does that seem like a reasonable approach? By not being in the same sentence anymore, the lack of an explicit motivation becomes less glaring.--Bhuck (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quoted wrong!?

Please excuse my disturbing of your discussion, but I think the last part of this sentence is wrong: Speaking in Congress immediately following their return to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" and affirmed that Trump's claims of election fraud were false. At the time of me writing it is this version: Old ID = 999985687. I just saw McConnells speech in its unedited form on C-SPANs original YouTube-channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PWnyvYVVI Or could you point to the precise position in this video where McConnell "affirms that Trump's claims of election fraud were false"? Thank you! 77.118.162.133 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That part of the sentence doesn't appear to be sourced or match content elsewhere in the article, so it probably should be removed.

(I think two different speeches by McConnell on that date may have been conflated. The Mitch McConnell article describes two different speeches with separate references.) 2600:8801:8203:600:936:E7F4:746:369 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I just added the full transcript below from CSPAN. (All statements said as part of Congress are public record and thus public domain.) He didn't necessarily say Trump's claims were false. However that could be an interpretation based on his statements about how Congress was there honoring and formalizing the will of the American People, that interpretation feels a bit WP:OR for my taste.  Second opinion requested ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The article wasn't directly quoting McConnell with the line that he "affirms that Trump's claims of election fraud were false." We don't need to source that as a direct quote. We should be consulting secondary sources to see if that matches their description of what he said. Knope7 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

May I propose to replace this:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" and affirmed that Trump's claims of election fraud were false.

with this:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" and that Senate "will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation."

77.118.162.133 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

McConnell Speech Transcripts

I want to say to the American people the United States senate will not be intimidated. We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs, or threats. We will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation. We are back at our posts. We will discharge our duty under the constitution and for our nation. And we're going to do it tonight. This afternoon, congress began the process of honoring the will of the American people and counting the Electoral College votes. We have fulfilled the solemn duty every four years for more than two centuries. Whether our nation has been at war or at peace, under all manner of threats, even during an ongoing armed rebellion and the civil war, the clock work of our democracy has carried on. The United States and the United States Congress have faced down much greater threats than the unhinged crowd we saw today. We've never been deterred before, and we will be not deterred today. They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the congress. This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation. Not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will. Now, we assembled this afternoon to count our citizens' votes and to formalize their choice of the next president. Now we're going to finish exactly what we started. We'll complete the process the right way by the book. We'll follow our precedents, our laws, and our constitution to the letter. And we will certify the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Criminal behavior will never dominate the United States Congress. This institution is resilient. Our democratic republic is strong. The American people deserve nothing less.

— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 2

(added by ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

(Thanks Gwennie, I manually added proper capitalization. 77.118.162.133 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

We're debating a step that has never been taken in American history. Whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a presidential election. I've served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I've ever cast. President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. I supported the President's right to use the legal system, dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms all across our country, but over and over, the courts rejected these claims, including all-star judges whom the President himself has nominated. Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity, and of course, that's unacceptable. I support strong state-led voting reforms. Last year's bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm. But my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election. Nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence. The constitution gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a National Board of Elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the states have all spoken. They've all spoken. If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. This election actually was not unusually close. Just in recent history, 1976, 2000, and 2004 were all closer than this one. The Electoral College margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We would never see the whole nation accept an election again. Every four years would be a scramble for power at any cost. The Electoral College, which most of us on this side have been defending for years, would cease to exist. Leaving many of our states with no real say at all in choosing a president. The effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. Self-government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground rules of our system. We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes with a separate set of facts and separate realities. With nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share. Every time, every time in the last 30 years that Democrats have lost a presidential race, they have tried to challenge just like this. After 2000, after 2004, after 2016. After 2004, a senator joined and forced the same debate, and believe it or not, Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Hillary Clinton praised, praised and applauded the stunt. Republicans condemned those baseless efforts back then, and we just spent four years condemning Democrats' shameful attacks on the validity of President Trump's own election. So look, there can be no double standard. The media that is outraged today spent four years aiding and abetting Democrats' attacks on our institutions after they lost. But we must not imitate and escalate what we repudiate. Our duty is to govern for the public good. The United States Senate has a higher calling than an endless spiral of partisan vengeance. Congress will either override the voters, overrule them, the voters, the states, and the courts for the first time ever, or honor the people's decision. We'll either guarantee Democrats' delegitimizing efforts after 2016 become a permanent new routine for both sides or declare that our nation deserves a lot better than this. We'll either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of an election actually accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic courage that our forebears showed not only in victory but in defeat. The framers built the Senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our Republic. So I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the states on this extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it.

— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 1

(added by 77.118.162.133 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

Semi-Protected Edit Request

In the second paragraph of the lede there is a phrase "assaulted and killed Capitol Police police officers". This implies that the rioters both assaulted and killed multiple police officers. I think that this should be rephrased to avoid giving people the impression that more than one officer died, which is false. The text can be rephrased to either:

• not mention the killing

or

• say "assaulted police officers, resulting in the death of one officer".

There is another issue that may have to be rectified in the same paragraph. The phrase "a gallows" may have to be rephrased to avoid confusing non-native English readers (though I have no idea how we can rephrase the text without making it awkward). 45.251.33.25 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) last rephrased at 07:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done the text is changed to "assaulted police officers; killing one" as for the gallows I can't think of a clearer rephrasal either. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we could use a parenthetical "(used to execute people by hanging them)" or something of the sort after the mention of the gallows. It's not perfectly encyclopedic, I'll grant you, but it would provide a quick clarification. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think "a gallows" would be confusing to non-native speakers? And wouldn't the link be enough to clear up any such confusion? --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the link is sufficient to clear up any confusion around what is meant by "gallows"; we risk overloading an already lengthy and complex article if we start to explain every single term used. --Bhuck (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"a" in front of a word that may be misunderstood to be plural would appear to be a basic grammatical mistake though it is not a mistake. But if we can trust readers to just click on the link and resolve any confusion they may have, then I suppose there wasn't any problem there. 45.251.33.25 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI issued internal warning of 'war' at Capitol the day before the riots

The FBI issued a dire internal warning on the day before the Capitol riots that violent extremists were planning an armed uprising.

• FBI report warned of ‘war’ at Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence, WaPo, Jan. 13, 2021.

Contradicting earlier statements that they were caught off guard.--87.170.207.193 (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• It was not the FBI. The Capitol Hill police guys said that they didn't have information.180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It was the FBI. It was the Norfolk FBI office.--217.234.79.121 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Death of police officer

Death of secret service or Metro Police officer or Capital Hill officer? 180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capitol Police Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. I heard that another officer dies later from his injuries. Can this death also be added to the infobox?180.150.115.177 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: Reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

I've created the redirect 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but should this point to a specific section or display links to the domestic and international pages (serving as a sort of disambiguation page)? Another thing to consider: should we merge the domestic and international reaction pages into this one? Food for thought. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The international page was necessary since it was overloading this article, and now this article is still overloaded. I suggest we move all domestic reactions save for the President and VP to a separate article. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ayanna Pressley's panic buttons in office removed before the storming

News in question.

Ayanna Pressley has made a public statement that panic buttons that were installed in her office in 2019 were removed before the storming of the capitol. Thoughts on inclusion?

Potential draft - in section "Damage, theft, and impact", after first sentence "into several hallways."

...and feces was tracked into several hallways. Staff of Ayanna Pressley's office noted that panic buttons in their office had been removed. The panic buttons had been installed in 2019 in response to violent threats and were used in safety drills prior to the storming.

Jdphenix (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a little more context. Such as if there was actually a reason for why it was done prior. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am confused by what you mean, but here is more context:

As people rushed out of other buildings on the Capitol grounds, staffers in Pressley’s office barricaded the entrance with furniture and water jugs that had piled up during the pandemic. Groh pulled out gas masks and looked for the special panic buttons in the office. (New Paragraph) “Every panic button in my office had been torn out — the whole unit,” she said, though they could come up with no rationale as to why. She had used them before and hadn’t switched offices since then. As they were escorted to several different secure locations, Groh and Pressley and her husband tried to remain calm and vigilant — not only of rioters but of officers they did not know or trust, she said. (Source: Boston Globe)

--Super Goku V (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean why they were torn out. She makes it sound as though it was malice that resulted in them being removed, when it could be something more benign. I would prefer to wait for more info. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are some references for this:

• https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2021/01/13/ayanna-pressley-office-panic-buttons
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/capitol-riots-ayanna-pressley-panic-buttons-b1786678.html
• https://www.newsweek.com/capitol-hill-riots-panic-buttons-torn-out-staffer-1561191

John Cummings (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence

Background: I read Trump's January 6 speech to see to what degree he incited the riot of the congressional building. I then went to Wikipedia to see what it said. The following sentence in the second paragraph is incorrect:

Trump told them to "fight like hell" to "take back our country",[50][51] encouraging them to march over to the Capitol.[38]

Trump did use the phrases "fight like hell" and "take back our country" in his speech but in different contexts. He did not tell supporters to "fight like hell" or to "take back our country".

The part of the speech "fight like hell" is: "Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." Trump was talking about the situation at 9:00pm on the election night.

The part of Trump's speech with "take back out country" is "We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." Trump was saying that the Republican congressman needed to take back the country.

Also, not emphasized in the first two paragraphs of this page is the number of claims of voter fraud and election irregularities that Trump told them, which could have an influence on the behavior of his followers. In order not to make the replacement sentence sound too positive, I recommend also including this in the replacement sentence.

I recommend that the above sentence be replaced with: After claiming countless instances of voter fraud and election irregularities, Trump told his followers that they would be marching to the Capitol building peacefully and patriotically but it was a time to show strength and be strong.[New Citation = https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6]

References [50][51] should be removed.

The following are all the parts of Trump's speech in which he encourages followers to walk to the Capitol building:

"After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country."

"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

Stuartsamuel123 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurgency

From where I sit, in the past 3+ days a preponderance of reliable sources and authoritative individuals/organizations have come to characterize the incident as an “insurgency,” including the January 5 internal FBI document characterizing the incipient incident as “war,” and I propose we reconsider the title of this article accordingly. I ask for another editor to second this and call for a vote. soibangla (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To classify a single violent incident as either insurgency or war is overkill in my eyes. Flalf^Talk 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To classify a mostly peaceful protest as an insurgency sounds like a thinly veiled way to justify the murders of american citizens. Strongly oppose. W33KeNdr (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

NB: 13 January 2021 MelanieN blocked W33KeNdr from editing the page 2021 storming of the United States Capitol with an expiration time of 1 month (Vandalism) soibangla (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Soibangla! They are taking it serious now: Look at those fotos! Hundreds of National Guards, deployed to DC, slepipping on the floor of the Capitol with their rifles and in their riot gear! 'Nothing like I've seen:' Troops deployed inside US Capitol: "more than in Irak and Afghanistan" to protect the members of Congress. --217.234.79.121 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everyone that we're not a forum here (something I am wont to forget myself). Let's stay focused on improving the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Then back to the subject, I am not opposed to calling this an insurgency, but there was quite a few suggestions in the main move discussion last week. If we hold a move discussion right now, it might be a bit chaotic with more than one proposed name. @Soibangla: Is this the only reason for your suggestion or do you have a more detailed explanation? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Splitting/Shortening the article

As this article gets longer and longer, I'm starting to think about the possibility of spinning off some of this content into related sub-articles, or at the very least removing some of the excess information. What does everyone else think? Love of Corey (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with removing excess information. It is overly filled with irrelevant information, unrelated information, and unbalanced opinion. For example "the spread of COVID" or "Social media platforms" and especially things like "plans that included abducting and killing senior politicians" which has no verifiable premise and alleges a federal felony violation of 18 U.S. Code § 956. Crimes should not be baselessly alleged without a legal and referenceable indictment and this is especially true for regular citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnePercent (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not filled with "irrelevant information" and there are no "baseless" claims anywhere, only verifiable material published by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not based on your views on "legal and referenceable indictment", but on reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree that the page is "overly filled with irrelevant information, unrelated information, and unbalanced opinion". No objection to forking content appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree with this notion in particular. The sources regarding the potential COVID spread and the social media platforms have a clear A-to-B reference with this event. Love of Corey (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we may have to move some of the content to sub articles (like International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol), particularly material on the aftermath including any criminal investigation(s)/prosecution(s). --Tataral (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A spinoff for details on the criminal prosecutions may be worthwhile, like Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Neutrality^talk 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I will try and create a draft article on the suggested topics. Love of Corey (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've created a draft if anyone's interested in editing and improving it: Draft:Domestic responses to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Love of Corey (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Love of Corey: I think it would be best to wait a few weeks before creating a spinoff. It may be that we can most efficiently address the domestic responses in this article, plus in spinoffs like 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office. Neutrality^talk 00:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright. But that's why it's a draft article, not an actual article just yet. Love of Corey (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, all, note: mere verifiability does not mandate inclusion. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to fanatically regurgitate every conceivable sub-aspect of a topic belched forth by click-bait hungry media, but to summarize the topic, treating significant aspects proportionally, but not necessarily exhaustively. A Wikipedian's primary role is as editor, not a compiler or archivist. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So how do you suggest we start about a trim? Love of Corey (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Currently there are sections called "Reactions" and "Aftermath." Probably "Reactions" should remain part of the main article, at least for now, assuming it describes immediate reactions. However, "Aftermath" could easily be split off into its own article, especially as the aftermath will be ongoing for a long time. As a model: September 11 attacks and Aftermath of the September 11 attacks are separate articles. Another example: COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is an overview and Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States follows a specific kind of ongoing consequence. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree splitting the article is a good idea. Aftermath should definitely become its own article. It might work to split Reactions to its own article and merge the International reactions article (already exists) into that. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan, Animalparty, Tuckerlieberman, Love of Corey, Neutrality, OnePercent, Another Believer, and Tataral: The article has now been split at Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Further improvements should be made there and here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

MJL, Thanks for the ping. I've already made a few minor improvements. Please be sure to include split/attribution templates on this talk page and on the newly created talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for letting us know! :D Love of Corey (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

POV Tone

This article has a very POV tone. None of us like Trump, but this type of POV feeds his followers. For example

"in support of his false claim that th"

Could be better written as just his claim, with a following sentence explaining why this claim is dubious. It is very important not to feed Trump supporter's paranoia. Tuntable (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's claims of electoral fraud are false. This is consistently said on multiple Wikipedia articles. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't have room to explain why he's a liar every time we have to mention a lie. Just say it's wrong. Only the paranoid will be paranoid about it. Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pressley panic buttons & reconnaissance

Per a Guardian report. We have:

• Republican lawmakers gave Trump supporters tours of the Capitol on January 5. The Capitol has been closed to tours since last year. It was described it as reconnaissance.
• Some of these supporters have been identified as those who were carrying zip ties when it was stormed
• Pressley's panic buttons torn out before the mob got in
• Something about Zello being used to coordinate

These are discussed in two sections above, but can we discuss if it's reasonable to include until there's been some trial on this and these facts are truly proven. I am all for stating the facts per the RS, but in this case we would be asserting that certain Republicans planned the insurrection and then got the mob to do it... and we might want some overwhelming consensus on that first. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

QAnon

QAnon is mentioned multiple times throughout this article and has been discussed in WP:RS. This is a fast moving article but anytime I wikilink to QAnon it gets removed. I find this strange as linking to other articles is commonplace here. Anyways, would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this; it is currently linked to 1 time in the article [31] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A wikilink should only be used once per article, please see WP:REPEATLINK... - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph, last two sentences focused on outcomes

Reading the last two sentences of the first paragraph about the results of the storming, this appears to be about the results of the riot. This is not currently a complete summary of results as summarised in the infobox 'Resulted in' section. It currently reads

Breaching police perimeters, rioters then occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. The assault led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, as well as five deaths.

The other results are not discussed until the fifth paragraph. Can I suggest that a very short summary of the other impacts is added to the second sentence to make it a more complete list, so it would read something like:

Breaching police perimeters, rioters then occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. The assault led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, as well as five deaths and later the second impeachment of Trump for "incitement of insurrection", higher security including national guard and resignations of administration officials and Capitol security officials.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of the Capitol police

The entire section on the Capitol police conduct has been moved to Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I don't think this is entirely appropriate, as this section went into detail about conduct and actions of the Capitol police *during* the storming, and not just how this was addressed in the aftermath. I think that a (perhaps abridged) version of this content should be re-added to the main article. Similar may apply to some of the other "aftermath" sections that discussed retrospective analysis of events that took place during the incident. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Latinos for Trump

I saw mention of Latinos for Trump was removed (and perhaps added back?) for being non-notable. This prompted me to create a stub for the group, which was ver quickly nominated for merging. Article improvements and/or discussion comments welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer, extremely small supporting groups should should probably just be all put into a Ethnic and racial minority activist groups for Donald Trump page or what not. I mean, they tried to make "Blacks For Trump" a thing. However I do remember hearing on the election night news coverage about Florida's Cubano vote not going for Biden as much as expected. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference to OC/Tear Gas

Under the Section Deaths and Injuries, it states: "Many police officers were attacked with bear spray, a highly concentrated form of OC spray (tear gas) stronger than that carried by officers."

OC (Oleoresin capsicum) is not tear gas, it is pepper spray. Tear gas is CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile). While used for somewhat similar purposes, they are distinctively different in the effects they have on people and are not equitable. Can someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonDays0 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

From tear gas: "Common lachrymators both currently and formerly used as tear gas include pepper spray (OC gas), PAVA spray (nonivamide), CS gas, CR gas, CN gas (phenacyl chloride), bromoacetone, xylyl bromide and Mace (a branded mixture)." WWGB (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WWGB, we should probably just link to pepper spray as that is what makes up most bear spray, which we should also link if it isn't already. Source is rather clear that it wasn't "tear gas" like police forces use, but bear spray. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened here?

Was there a consensus to remove big chunks of content, including reactions from various individuals/groups and the antifa false flag allegations? soibangla (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know; I haven't really been keeping track of the talk page. But the article was getting so big and attaining so much content in such a limited amount of time that I felt it was inevitable anyway. Plus, the content wasn't removed; it was simply spun off to their own articles. Love of Corey (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the content was removed from Wikipedia; one of Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol or International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol should have what you are looking for. What happened is that this article was getting too big so it was split, see Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 10#Splitting/Shortening the article. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Needless repetition of detail in lead

The lead is already 6 paragraphs long. Instead of adding unnecessary detail, especially multiple times in different paragraphs, we should be trying to summarize the events in a concise manner to potentially make it shorter. For example, the first paragraph says "there were five deaths". The third paragraph says rioters "killed Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick". Then the fourth paragraph says "Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died". Another example is mentioning Trump's impeachment twice. I'm trying to improve the article make distilling multiple instances of the same info into one, concise mention. So why are my edits being reverted? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for following WP:BRD. With a subject this complex having 6 paragraphs is not that big of a deal. See the edit history for Brexit as an example. The paragraph in question is a summary of the mobilization of the mob and their subsequent actions and the results of those action, which included killing a police officer with a fire extinguisher. Please think about your edits take the time to discuss your thoughts with other editors. None of us are mind readers. It is clear you are an experienced and passionate editor. Take it easy on other editors and remember you do not WP:OWN any article. I think it's significant that the crowd killed a police officer and it certainly belongs in the lead and his mention by name. Summaries in other paragraphs should be reviewed and possibly consolidated, but he should be mentioned by name somewhere in the lead. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I'm going to agree with October here. Your editing has been great and we've desperately needed condensation and splitting, of which you've handled more of the former. However I do agree that we don't have to hyper-condense the lead for such a complex issue. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not personal. I slash this kind of thing all the time. Sometimes it grows back. This is an incredibly active page. Mcfnord (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of party and state abbreviations

This article currently makes extensive use of abbreviations for politicians' parties and states after their names ("(D-CA)", "(R-GA)" etc.) I've removed them at least a couple of times but clearly at least one person thinks they're appropriate; I'd be interested to know why. In my view they're meaningless to readers who aren't familiar with states' postal abbreviations and/or who don't follow the minutiae of U.S. politics (i.e. most of the world). Per WP:EASTER this applies even when the states are linked; information conveyed only behind a piped link is as good as no information at all. We're not going to run out of page space or bytes, so if someone's party or state is relevant (the former might often be, the latter rarely will be) it can be conveyed using words. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I also think this is inappropriate, and runs counter to WP's status as an international encyclopedia. I don't know of any MOS bits that specifically forbid it, though. Tbh, I don't see the point of adding something like "R-GA" in any event, because all these people have articles that an interested reader can just click on. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree SRD625 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Provided a suitable alternative to the shorthand for party affiliation and office held is listed in prose in a similar location, I see no issue with substituting the shorthand for longhand. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am the one that initially started changing them, for overall readability and article length... not byte-wise length, but word-wise... also because a number of names had redundant and/or non-uniform titles attached (e.g. "United States State Representative from STATE NAME", "STATE Representative NAME", "United States Senator NAME from STATE", etc.)... also, on other articles that list REPs/SENs, this is how I see it written (not sure if MOS or not, but pretty standardized)... someone else has come in behind me and piped the state articles into the abbreviations, so someone not being familiar with the abbreviations is now moot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that a link means that something is moot; most readers don't follow links and articles work better if you don't have to. I still think AleatoryPonderings's point stands. /Julle (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: The links make a negligible difference. People read Wikipedia articles in printed format where links are lost; millions of people also read them on phones where there's no option of hovering over a link to find out its meaning. I'll direct you again to WP:EASTER where this is explained, and will say once more, "information conveyed only behind a piped link is as good as no information at all." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to assume for the sake of argument that you’ve never, ever, read an American newspaper. These are to describe political affiliation and where they represent (and yes, they are necessary). Chuck Schumer (D-NY) means Democrat of New York. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) means Republican of Kentucky. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) means Independent of Vermont. That’s how they are assigned in official government websites. So since this is an American political topic, Americanisms still have to be used even when internationals who most likely have no idea who these people are read the article. Trillfendi (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There may be some benefit in naming the party of a senator or representative, but I see no benefit in naming their state unless directly relevant to their comment or stance. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s not how it works. At all. Trillfendi (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How what "works"? No-one is capable of answering why reporting a politician's state is either necessary or helpful to readers. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB: That is how citizen representatives in the United States are designated, it is standard practice in all US news media, and I have also seen it in Canadian media. So yes, that is indeed "how it works". The fact that it has little meaning outside the US is irrelevant. This is a US topic and the article can designate government officials the way reliable sources designate them. It is probably helpful to US readers to see a party affiliation and a state to know whether or not "this person was elected to represent me". The policy-based argument for removing the designation might be WP:HONORIFIC but those designations aren't really honorifics. That said, I don't see the need for that designation in an encyclopedia article; it should be enough to say "Republican California Senator John Smith" or "Democratic Utah Representative Jim Beam" the first time a name is introduced, and then just refer to the individuals by name thereafter. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: I'm not sure if this was directed at me or if you screwed up the indentation, but I'm very obviously aware what they're used for, having been writing Wikipedia articles about U.S. politics for over a decade, and have made that very plain above. The fact that they're used in newspapers and on government websites has no bearing whatsoever on how we should write encyclopaedia articles. There is absolutely no requirement that we use "Americanisms" in articles about U.S. politics, and WP:BIAS lists a great many good reasons why we don't. Inanely saying "yes, they're necessary" does not make it so in the absence of a coherent argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: So it really boggles the mind why you want to edit the subject of an attack on the United States Congress then remove official representations of Congress members, which aren't adjectives or embellishments, just because you assume other people won't get it. Hence the reason you kept getting reverted, obviously. The idea of removing them would insinuate that these are just people who work in a building in Washington, D.C., a city whose population doesn't even have representation in Congress, instead of respectively representing all states and districts in the entire country, which their job is. It's part of the multiple manuals of style for political science. In fact, if the uninformed reader is really the true area of concern here, it wouldn't have the trouble to just change the hyperlink to fit the state party since that's what the redirects already do anyway. The only people down here who seem to be confused on this are not from the United States. And since this is an encyclopedia, there is not a more apt place for it to be. Trillfendi (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would a sane person reach the conclusion that someone explicitly designated as a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative is not an elected official representing U.S. voters? What are you talking about? Perhaps no need to answer since the consensus in this discussion is very clear: six editors clearly in favour of removing them; against yourself and SRD625 – whose two-word comment carries about the same argumentative weight as yours – opposed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: American newspapers are written for American audiences familiar with the abbreviations. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, much of which is unfamiliar with those abbreviations. Zazpot (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this is an article of international importance – this has been top news all across the world – in an international encyclopedia, so a lot of people reading this will probably not have much experience reading US newspapers. I can also assure you I did not get the "party–state" meaning the first time I did, or the fifth time, not being familiar with US state abbreviations or even the habit of referring to which state someone represents when talking about them, which is in itself not an obvious concept if you don't come from a federation. /Julle (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

These aren't needed. We have articles on each of these politicians which people can refer to, to find out whatever they want (well, whatever they reasonably want). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

Every other Wikipedia article does this so why should this one be different? SRD625 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need to mention the states of congressists in the article, since the subject is nationwide. "Democratic representative" or "Republican senator" are enough. --179.24.208.117 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

mostly white men

We have a section waaaay down there about capitol protesters being "mostly white men".

This seems kinda basic Who stuff. Second paragraph stuff.

We say what they did, and what they wore. We say what flags they waved. We say what they yelled. But we don't say until waaaay later that mostly white men did this.

If mentioning this much sooner is contentious, why? Mcfnord (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcfnord, you can read WP:RAE for more details, but essentially unless it's absolutely necessary for Wikipedia to mention, it's best practice we steer clear of race. They can function as a WP:LABEL with WP:NPOV insinuations.

If it is crucial to mention for some reason, then we better also have very good sourcing and analysis of the issue. We're still going through RFCs to decide whether or not referring to the insurrectionists as "domestic terrorists" and what they did as "domestic terrorism" across the board and not just "they're been described as <x> by <ref>". ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"it's best practice we steer clear of race." really? even when it is self-evident that this was a white nationalist demo with a significant showing of various far-right, racist, anti-BLM factions? Call a spade a spade. Acousmana (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is probably appropriate to mention race in this case, as there were Confederate flags involved, which are racially charged emblems. I think the "good sourcing and analysis of the issue" is probably doable, and would encourage someone to take on this project. Whether mention of gender is appropriate or not, I don't know. In the video footage I saw, while women were not represented proportionally to their representation in the population as a whole, they were not rarer than they are in a number of other roles not traditionally ascribed to women, such as on corporate boards or in the military.--Bhuck (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana, believe me, I understand this. My personal politics would like to call it such things, but it's important we try to maintain NPOV and adhere to what is said in proper sourcing and word things in accordance with that. On these controversial topics, it's also very easy to use word choice to advocate for what we personally feel or attach contentious terms to our political opposition. So provided the sources exist for it, it's fine, provided we word it in a neutral wikivoice and position the information accordingly. However, yes, it is typically wiki best practice to avoid racial and ethnic statements unless required for some reason. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks, I get that a PC veneer is required, problem is, it's not a point of view, it was mostly white men, it's a statement of fact, we are fooling ourselves tiptoeing around the issue and citing NPOV as the guiding principal. Just sayin ; ) Acousmana (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that we have links to the White supremacy article in the text and there are sources that back this up, I am under the belief that including the details about the makeup of the group would be acceptable under the circumstances. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion for reference / "The article needs to state who was there: mostly White men"

Is this currently noted in the article? From WaPo [32] "After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution." I find Wikipedia to be invaluable, and deeper analysis of this event would be invaluable to readers. Here's a start [33] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC) No, and I'm not sure if that's exactly relevant. Love of Corey (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Do you think it would be relevant if it was, for example, 80% African-americans in attendance? or 50%? (for clarity, White men (non-Hispanic) make up roughly 30% of the U.S. population) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Do you think it's relevant that they were protesting mostly white men who were finalizing the election? TFD (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean. Can you restate your question another way? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC) It's relevant but we need RS to say it for us. I've heard some on NPR about the race of the crowd, but not a whole lot. We have a section on differential treatment already. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Hi EvergreenFir, what you mentioned (differential treatment) has to do with the interaction between the police and protestors; although related, I'm talking about something else. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I understand. It might be a bit longer before we get some of the deeper sociopolitical analyses of this insurrection. I 100% that the participants being overwhelmingly white men is relevant. But I'm not sure we have RS to say that for us, or at least not enough (WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I don't see a need to say they were white. It isn't really related, and might look like pushing an agenda. I think saying they were Trump supporters gets the point across. Though if a reliable news site (ie Reuters, AP) were to describe the crowd as white, or per-dominantly white, I see no issue in that. SuperHeight (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC) What do you mean by pushing an agenda? by who? Here's a good source for White men [34] and White Americans [35] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC) NPR also mentioned it: Now, the rioters, mostly white men, they left many clues, the video and photos that they posted of themselves while they were at the Capitol or afterwards. [36] Wall Street Journal: The Capitol was more heavily guarded for recent Black Lives Matter protests than Wednesday’s demonstration, where Trump supporters were mostly white men. [37] — Chrisahn (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Fox News: "...a crowd of what appeared to be mostly White protesters..." [38] — Chrisahn (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I think we've now got enough sources (with diverse political leanings) to support the claim (and its relevance) that the protesters were mostly white men. I added the information to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Accusations of differential treatment section. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC) As someone who has a very long talk with others on Wikipedia about mentioning the color of people, it should ONLY (Please note the word only) be mentioned when 2 opposing political spectrum RS (Example being New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) mention it. An admin months ago gave me this piece of advice when I unintentionally began a very long and painful discussion about this topic on another thread...Bad enough to spread into 2 different admin noticeboards for warnings to various editors. So if we can find opposing political RS's that mention that, then we should add it. If only one political RS side (Meaning multiple liberal or multiple conservative) is mentioning it, then do not add it. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC) That is simply incorrect. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT say nothing about needing 1 source from "the left" and 1 from "the right"; that would be a huge problem for Wikipedia if it were true. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC) @Somedifferentstuff: It isn't in Wiki policies. Just going to be honest though, if every single "left" source says "White men" but every single "right" source doesn't, what do we do? We would have conflicting RS at that point. Again, this topic is not in Wiki policies...which is why that discussion I talked about earlier was painful and had multiple admin noticeboards for warnings to different editors. The admin said and I will quote it. "you appear to have a fairly strong bias in the area of race in the US that may make you likely to push certain points of view. I suggest you default to using the Walt Street Journal as your reality check on whether or not race is pertinent in a given article. If WSJ is noting someone's race, you can be assured that is not "creating a version of racism." Another editor mentioned this right after "Just a note, if anyone's going to use the Wall Street Journal as a reality check, just make sure it's the Journal's news reporting, which is justly acclaimed, and not its editorials, which can be seriously biased. A good doublecheck would be to look at The New York Times or The Washington Post to see what they do. While both are mildly liberal editorially, their news operations, like that of the Wall Street Journal, are first class." and the admin agreed to that. (All those quotes were from an admin board notice). So in short, no it isn't Wiki policy, but if we don't do that, it will end up causing more "discussions" (arguments) in the future on this talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I understand what these people said but it is not true. WP:RSN discusses and decides what sources qualify as WP:RS; there's nothing more. But we are now off-topic of the above discussion so post on my talk page if you want to continue this discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Actually this isn't off-topic. The entire discussion is about "Would stating color of people in this article be a good idea". We both laid out our opinions backing them up. This discussion defiantly belongs here instead of a talk page. (We can talk more in future 1 on 1 in a talk page discussion, but the discussion we have had so far is perfect for this overall discussion). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion is here (it's hatted and viewable). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I found a Wall Street Journal source saying "mostly white men". See above. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Somedifferentstuff is correct. While having a wide range of sources would be lovely, it is by no means necessary. On issues of race and gender, I would encourage sticking to higher quality sources (e.g., NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, CNN, NPR, BBC) and avoiding some of the more clickbaity ones (e.g., HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, Vox, Vice). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Casualties Section

One of the sentences state "Boyland's sister also said she" her sister's name is Lonna Cave so should we change it to "Boyland's sister, Lonna Cave, also said she" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin James Loibl (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The sister is not notable and there is no real benefit to mentioning her name. --Khajidha (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well sure I guess but what's the harm in adding two more words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin James Loibl (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It could possibly be a WP:BLP problem. But the real point is that there is no point to doing it. The reader will gain no benefit from knowing that Boyland's sister is named "Lonna Cave" as opposed to "Barbara Gordon" or "Ororo Munroe" or anything else. --Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Deaths

Is it worth adding in somewhere that two people have taken their own lives due to the events... 1 Police officer 1 Assailant who was going to be prosecuted Darce98 (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Officer is already mentioned. Rioter: no. WWGB (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see the death of Officer Howard Liebengood who is alleged to have committed suicide after responding to the breaching of the Capitol mentioned in the original text. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-police-howard-liebengood-dies.html?searchResultPosition=1 BethLynette (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@BethLynette: He's mentioned under 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Responses. — Czello 11:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A brief mention of the suicide of the man facing charges in Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Notable arrests and charges would be appropriate. Fences&Windows 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Save America" vs. "March To Save America"

Previous versions of this article used "Save America" more often, now I'm seeing "March To Save America" in the body but the lead has not been updated. Was there a discussion I missed re: "Save America" vs. "March To Save America"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In reference material regarding the rally, multiple versions of the same poster were posted online, some said "Save America rally" some said "Save America March" and some said "March to Save America". The only common thread is the "Save America" bit. RobotGoggles (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

refusing

"[Pence] for refusing to overturn the electoral vote count."

This is not a power he had. So I'm not sure what to say here. Refusing to try overturning the electoral vote count? I do wonder what it would look like had he tried. Pence concluded that he doesn't have this power. I think it's of some importance to explain where Trump "left the paved roads" as he did here. Mcfnord (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps "refusing to illegally overturn"?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• “...for refusing to comply with Trump's unconstitutional demand...” -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Should the first paragraph briefly mention that deaths occurred?

Currently the first paragraph does not convey the fact that deaths occurred as a result of this event. The second paragraph includes some details about deaths, but I think the first paragraph should at least convey that deaths occurred, with specific detail provided later on.

As such, I suggest changing “The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol” to “The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and resulted in deaths among rioters and Capitol police” (or something along these lines). Z117 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree Victor Grigas (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It was updated to "The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and resulted in five deaths" a little while ago, so this has been addressed. /Julle (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting info

I found this interesting informztion but I don't really know where to put it if anyone could do it that would be nice thank you ! https://twitter.com/Rosemvmt/status/1349334945009831941

--Maxime12346 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

See the discusion above about this, and twiiter is not really an RS.13:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

video can be migrated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDNiNdsPHNA Victor Grigas (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitol riot

It's too early for another move discussion, but it looks like "Capitol riot" is becoming the common name: "Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned". StAnselm (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a plethora of synonyms and near-synonyms used for the event and none is particularly better than the one we have now. --Jayron32 16:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@StAnselm: See the section above. I agree, though we need to make a determination.--WMrapids (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Disinformation about antifa?

The ADL commissioned a survey by YouGov showing that among a representative sample of Americans, up to 40% believed antifa was significantly or somewhat responsible for the violence at the Capitol.

https://www.adl.org/american-attitudes-toward-extremist-threats&sa=D&ust=1610659103741000&usg=AOvVaw3Z0jtsgk1pH5bJQ-rWUJ7m

Should we have a section on these patterns of spreading disinformation (as this idea has been spread by the President and Alex Jones, among others)? Note: I work with the ADL.OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Jump to: Domestic_reactions_to_the_2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol --87.170.206.111 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Breached"/"Raided" instead of "Stormed"?

Agreed. I have a specific concern with the word "storming" in the title. This is a loaded term, especially among white supremacists and militia types. I have little doubt it would be their preferred term, given the name of one far-right neo-Nazi publication, "The Daily Stormer," which is a reference to the original Nazi-party paper, "Der Stürmer." I'm not the first to worry about this name catching on for this event; here Jill Lapore's writing in the New Yorker: "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.'" I prefer something less loaded, like "attack." Even "insurrection" is preferable, I think. The fact that the term "insurrection" sounds archaic to my ear is perhaps because it's been so long since we've had to apply it. Chadwalk (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we replace all instances of the Capitol being "stormed" by Trump supporters with "raided"?

Golfpecks256 (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bum-rushed. I think the word 'stormed' is used in the press. I also see "rampage" and presumably "rioted". Mcfnord (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

De bestormers van het Capitool

„The Storm“ stürmt das Kapitol

--93.211.211.47 (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong support 'Storm' is not only a politically loaded term as described above, it is an emotionally loaded term that implies passion. I propose 'breach' as a neutral term. In response to those who say 'but 'storm' is starting to trend', it seems that Chadwalk's argument is to provide a more neutral term that might trend instead.

Oppose Raiding doesn't even register on Google Trends when I added it ([39]). Storming appears to be COMMONNAME EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per EvergreenFir. I haven't seen "raided" in the coverage of reliable sources, but I've seen "stormed" and "rioted", so I think we should stick with those terms. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rare alternative uses of the word by a small number of neo-Nazis shouldn't influence the naming of our articles. The overwhelming majority of people know what we mean when we use the word "storming". Also keep in mind Wikipedia is not censored; shying away from the use of that word because it's misused by fascistic groups would interfere with our ability to write an objective article. — Czello 13:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose After the neo-Nazi Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville (Trump infamously said there were fine people “on both sides”), which resulted in the murder of Heather Heyer, website infrastructure provider Cloudflare terminated its services to neo-Nazi The Daily Stormer. Now it's Twitter, Facebook, Amazon ect. that have to take care of the problem. Neo-fascists are thrilled by fascist language: Sturmabteilung, Der Stürmer, The Daily Storme? Well, yes. That's is not so remarkable. And they don't like ANTIFA/anti-fascists. What they even admit... --87.170.193.22 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Not only is the term "storming" tied to Nazis as explained above, it is also a Q Anon term. It is how them want to see themselves rather than conveying some criminality or impropriety. The events have also been described as an attack, an assault, a riot, trespassing, and insurrection. There are a lot of other terms available besides "storming." I'll note Washington Post refers to it as an attack multiple times.Knope7 (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support Despite being generally understood, the term "storming" is not appropriately neutral. The neo-nazi implications have been noted, but historically those "storming" have generally been viewed as righteous actors (such as in the "Storming of the Bastille"). It is the preferred term of those who undertook the attack. The article should be renamed with a more neutral word replacing "storming". It does not appear to be the commonly used term in media coverage. The New York Times has called it a "Siege" ; as has Foreign Affairs ; the Washington Post has called it an "attack" ; the BBC has called it a "riot" So has the Wall Street Journal. The term "storming" does not appear frequently in traditional media, and when it does it seems to appear inside articles or reports when variation is being used to avoid repetition. Insurrection, seems to be applied more regularly. See e.g. CNN ; NPR ; NBC News Treko (talk)

Oppose as Czello already mentions storming seems to be the overwhelming COMMONNAME right now Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support for the term Raid: The perimeters were breached, items were stolen[40], and offices ransacked.Tortillovsky (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition of storm fits the act of overtaking the Capitol. storm - a direct and violent assault on a stronghold MissBehaving (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong support for referring to it as a "breaching" or a "raid", or even more neutrally/simply, an "attack"; while many notable news sources use the term "storming", they also use terms like "Capitol attack" and "Capitol siege" as shorthand (offhand example: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/fbi-warns-of-plans-for-nationwide-armed-protests-next-week/); there is so much variation that picking a less loaded & more neutrally descriptive term like "attack" or "breach" would probably be more appropriate Neonpixii (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Support I agree, storming seems to be a bit emotive and not neutral enough for wikipedia NPOV guidelines - its also strikes me as a military term. Breaching is marginally better. To be honest, I don't know that any other terms are ideal either, "attack" implies some sort of military attack, "breaching" I'm not sure is meaningful to the users, raid is incorrect as it implies there was some purposeful attack after which everyone would go back (which they didn't). Riot isn't right either.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose all three terms. These are American citizens, not a rabid horde. How about the term occupy, which I would point out is often used in incidents of protest and civil disobedience. Morphoditie (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

They were a rabid horde of American citizens (presumably). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Stormed is the most used word in RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• What do reliable sources call it? That's what we should call it. I don't see many sources here. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Support I think that the word storm is too vivid for an encyclopedia article. I think that a more matter-of-fact term such as "attack" would do more nicely. Corrupt Cactus (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am for Storm or Occupy. Storm is not always violent and can mean "suddenly moving in". Raid sound too strong like an organized or military operation. Attack sounds like it involves a battle but there was little resistance by police. Breach is not accurate because police allowed them inside in many instances. Riot is not accurate either as the atmosphere was relatively calm inside. メガヒロ (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, regardless of the way that white supremacists might feel about this wording, Storm is the common name given to the event, and we should therefore keep it as it is. RobotGoggles (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References