Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Fire extinguisher

Do we yet have an authoritative source for Sicknick being hit with a fire extinguisher? All reports seem to be based on two anonymous law enforcement officials who spoke to the Associated Press. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: A search for "Sicknick" only brought up two (1, 2) press releases by the USCP with statements, but neither mention how he passed away. Searching for "Sicknick autopsy" sadly just brings up conspiracy theories. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I know we try to steer away from primary sources, don't we generally consider a law enforcement official giving a report to a reliable source, to themselves be a reliable source?--WaltCip-(talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Most primary sources are reliable. We don't avoid relying on them because they are unreliable. We avoid relying on them them because of WP:PRIMARY, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. It is usually fine if you cite a reliable secondary source that cites a primary source, and in the very next citation cite the primary source the secondary source cited.

Well, yes, that is my point. I'm unsure why Rich would voice concerns about the sourcing for the attack on Sicknick not being "authoritative", when it is.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Because the original report was very early, and the sources un-named. The entire event was subject to video recording and no video emerged. No public confirmation came from the Capitol Police. Moreover a different fire-extinguisher event did occur, which makes it more likely that there were early rumours among police. I would have challenged this earlier, but I sensed that the subject was too contentious at the time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC).

On February 2, CNN reported that "Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick", stating that they are "vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month's insurrection" having "yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries." According to one law enforcement official, "medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma," so investigators believe that "early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true." Terjen (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I manually reverted your change of five to several with rationale in history. Others can weigh in. I'll just add that even a relatively inaccurate "five" is much better than "several". — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources generally describe being struck by a fire extinguisher and passing away due to injuries sustained in the riot as separate events, without drawing a direct cause-and-effect connection. The current wording "...mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher" isn't supported by the cited sources, and the Feb. 2 CNN source contradicts the theory entirely. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Problems with lead

To me at least, the lead does seem a bit argumentative against republicans. I do know that it was in fact (in understatements) bad, but I wouldn’t completely blame Donald Trump or the rioters/mobsters/whatever the consensus is, instead I’d also blame past presidencies for driving the increase in the partisan divide. I’m new to Wikipedia, but I think WP:NPOV would apply here, as well as possibly other policies or guidelines. I don’t have any suggestions for improvement beyond those general statements, but I do think it should be mentioned and discussed. I also think FiveThirtyEight has an article on the partisan divide, but I don’t know the link, so it should be ignored unless someone finds it. Anyway, just something to discuss.4D4850 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@4D4850: Do you mean this one? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/ Interesting article! But I'm afraid it would be difficult to use it for this article without WP:OR... :-( — Chrisahn (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Thanks for finding the article and pointing out the WP:OR problems. Still, something to possibly discuss depending on if consensus says it should be discussed. Also, am I using the ping template correctly? Anyway, have a nice day! 4D4850 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 4D4, and thanks for your thoughts. But I don't think the "increasing partisan divide" argument can be used to divert responsibility for this event away from Trump (not generic Republicans, as you suggest, but Trump specifically). This thing was unprecedented and went way beyond any "partisan divide". In 2016 a lot of people were unhappy about Trump winning, and there were large protests, but Hillary conceded, Obama co-operated, and the transition was peaceful. In 2020 a lot of people were unhappy about Biden winning, and Trump inflamed that unhappiness into anger, refused to concede, fought the result for two months, and ultimately whipped his supporters into such a frenzy that they stormed the Capitol. This was above all one person's doing. Still, I'll take a look at the lead to see if it seems to be blaming "Republicans" generically (as opposed to a few individual senators) - and if it does I'll suggest changes. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4: Taking a look at the lead, I don't find anything mentioning "Republicans" at all, except for the understated and well-sourced phrase "although some Republicans supported the attack or at least did not blame Trump for it.[71]" The lead describes the rioters as Trump supporters, not as Republicans. And there is no reference at all to the Republican senators who may have marginally encouraged the frenzy. So I think the lead is very much in line with the facts and our policies. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN for pointing that out. I shouldn’t have made the assumption the lead was implying significant fault from the rioters or whatever the consensus is, but it would still be unthinkable in an era of politics not being as polarized. So, upon further deliberation, Trump is at more fault then the divide, but I still wouldn’t completely blame Donald Trump, instead pointing out that such a thing would occur eventually even without Donald Trump because of the partisan divide. Still though, arguments, when using good logic, are important discourse. Also please don’t call me 4D4 unless there is a reason it would cause problems with policy or programming. 4D4850 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about shortening your name, 4D4850. You said such a thing would occur eventually even without Donald Trump because of the partisan divide. Well, I’d beg to differ, but on this talk page I am supposed to discuss the content of the article, rather than my opinion. About the article, I don’t offhand see a need to change anything in the lead; did you have some specific wording change in mind? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I did say it was just something to think about, and I don’t have a specific change in mind, but let’s just have it be something to think about unless someone decides to use this to make an edit or an edit request. 4D4850 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, that's exactly the kind of article that pisses me off. The accusation that all negative coverage is down to "orange man bad" is predicated on the supposition that the orange man is not objectively bad. We have pretty solid evidence that this is a false premise. OK, maybe we can grade him on a scale within the context of all other presidents who tried to cause an armed insurrection to overturn an election they lost, but given that this is a set of one, there's not a lot of point.

Of course, partisan rhetoric has ramped up over time, but this seems to be asymmetric. The disagreements in Reagan's day were down to fundamental differences on policy. Democrats now follow most of the basic policies of Reagan-era conservatism. Obamacare, the bête noir of conservatism, was basically designed by Mitt Romney. The wedge issues that drive division - abortion, racial justice, LGBT rights, the ACA - have been created as wedge issues by deliberate actions of the right. A supermajority of the US population supports abortion rights, healthcare, racial justice, minimum wage and the rest - Republicans' actual policy agenda is very unpopular, the Republican Party has not been a majority nationally for decades, and the stroking of a culture war and hyper-partisanship is clearly identified by numerous sources as a deliberate strategy to maintain a voting bloc against a background of a shrinking demographic. And if we compare the activists of recent years, BLM has some moral ambiguities about it, but white supremacists really don't: white supremacists are unequivocally bad and any attempt top draw equivalence between fascists and anti-fascists should be seen for the bad-faith argument that it undoubtedly is.

The blame is very clear. Trump. If you apply the legal test of but-for causation, you can take out Fox, or NewsMax, or OANN, or Rudy, or Sidney Powell, and you get the same result, but if Donald Trump had graciously accepted defeat, or at least gone with "well, I think this was wrong, but the courts disagree, and we must respect the rule of law" from the point this became obvious - any of the trigger events including safe harbor and the casting of electoral votes - then 1/6 doesn't happen. Maybe a march, but not the insurrection. And that is the consensus view of every reality-based source I have read. The only dissent comes from Republican-leaning sources looking to protect Trump from Senate conviction. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Press about this Wikipedia article

• https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/02/04/when-the-capitol-was-attacked-wikipedia-went-to-work/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess we should add it to the Press banner section on top of this page. (It's collapsed inside the collapsed "Other talkpage banners" thingy.) It looks like this new article is largely based on https://www.fastcompany.com/90593176/wikipedia-capitol-attack-name though... — Chrisahn (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, Well, I spoke with both writers separately, so I can at least confirm independent reporting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that the quotes are slightly different, and I'm not saying anything illegitimate is going on, but... let's just say I occasionally had to think of that famous Oscar Wilde quote about the sincerest form of flattery. ;-) First sentence of the Fast Company article (January 14): On the afternoon of January 6, as a giant crowd began to swarm the U.S. Capitol, Jason Moore, a 36-year-old digital strategist, was at home in Portland, Oregon, switching between CNN and MSNBC. First sentence of the Washington Monthly piece (February 4): On January 6, Jason Moore was working from his home in Portland, Oregon and flipping between CNN and MSNBC as Donald Trump supporters gathered outside the U.S. Capitol. A bit further down, both quote GorillaWarfare. Fast Company: "It was one of those things where I was shocked and horrified at the news as it was unfolding," she says, "and felt like helping with the article was a more productive way to process everything than just doomscrolling.". Washington Monthly: "I was horrified and anxious to watch this all unfold," she explained, but editing on Wikipedia felt better than doomscrolling. Rather close similarities, but again, not illegitimate. And the Washington Monthly text does add new information. Thanks for the link! — Chrisahn (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång just added it to the press section. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We could move media mentions out of "Other talkpage banners". Collapsed it doesn't take much scrolling effort, and many of these are in-depth and interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

And and

"laims of election irregularities[44] and and spo" someone want to fix this? 73.17.62.51 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Image size

In 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Funding_and_donations, there's an image of people outside the Capitol. User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 has insisted on the current size, though I think .8 upright or even just default upright would more clearly illustrate what's happening for readers. Do editors have a preference here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The current image size is consistent with the other images in the article, I would prefer an image relating to the section 'funding and donations' if we can find one. IP75 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

IP75, I don't follow. What would make .8 or 1.0 upright inconsistent with the other image in the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer, I did a preview of .8 and 1.0 and both make the image too large in relation to the other images in the article. Best, IP75 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC is a no consensus all around. Numerically, 63 editors were in support, 40 in the "no" section, and 23 advocating for "wait". This is effectively a total of 63 "not yet", since no and wait are practically equivalent. Many comments were not sound, and had no basis in our policies. Instead, many votes (in both the support and oppose sections) were ideological, opinionated, or based on pure original research. Even after discounting obviously flawed rationales I don't see even a rough consensus in this discussion.

Note that this was not a well formulated RfC; the RfC question itself is flawed. It's unclear on what kind of sentence it wants to introduce with the terrorism label, and in what context. For example: is it proposing changing the opening sentence to The storming of the United States Capitol was a domestic terrorist attack against the 117th United States Congress [...]? Or mentioning it somewhere else in the lead, or the infobox? Or labelling the rioters as terrorists? Or something else? There was no clear interpretation of the proposal amongst editors. Some editors opposed on BLPCRIME grounds, presumably assuming that the intent of the RfC was to label individuals as terrorists. Others assumed that it was to add something in the infobox, and some assumed it was about adding something to the prose. I should also note that there was a notable lack of focus on evidence-based discussion in this RfC, again on both sides of the discussion. I'd guesstimate that at least half of the votes did not clearly refer to evidence, or even try to look at sources.

Finally, although this RfC is a no consensus, it is worth highlighting some key themes amongst supporters and opposers which may help editors wishing to draft a future RfC on a similar matter. Supporters cited the statements of various politicians, including Biden, labelling the attack as terrorism. They also quoted the dictionary/FBI/DOJ definition of the term and believed that this event met it. Various supporters said that RS use the label, though many did not clearly point to sources. Opposers mainly believed: (a) the consensus of RS is not that it was a domestic terrorist attack; (b) that nobody has been charged with domestic terrorism, or a related crime. Some editors noted MOS:LABEL concerns, and others noted NPOV/UNDUE concerns. Many opposing editors stated their desire to wait for expert literature/analysis, and/or RS' to converge on a particular descriptor. Less convincing rationales were also common, such as equivalence arguments to the BLM protests, and concerns of Wikipedia bias. There was some diversity in oppose comments, and I believe the validity of some of these comments was harder for other participants to determine or address since the context of the label was not given (comes back to paragraph 2 of this close). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should this event be characterized as terrorism? 00:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Transcluded discussion from other talk page

Attack on the United States Capitol (2021) [...] The 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, which killed 4 insurgents and injured at least 14 police officers [...]

I doubt there is any consensus about labeling this as a terrorist attack, calling the protesters insurgents, etc. I've removed the whole section. --MarioGom (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How the news media covered domestic terrorism on Capitol Hill

What happened at the Capitol was 'domestic terrorism,' lawmakers and experts say

RNC communications director calls Capitol violence 'domestic terrorism'

It's domestic terrorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, there are some people calling it terrorism, but I don't see consensus in RS at all. In other countries, we don't go categorizing as terrorism every protest and riot that just some people characterize as such. MarioGom (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom, what do "other countries" have to do with this? It meets the FBI definition of domestic terrorism, Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. Lots of sources call it such. It is what it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, some sources call it as such. Most don't. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom, enough do. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's some more.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, in all of these sources the label "domestic terrorism" is attributed to specific people. I'm not disputing the fact that some people call it terrorism. My point is that most RS don't label it as terrorism. MarioGom (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We're gonna need input from more people to resolve this, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Per MarioGom I disagree most sources do not call it terrorism most national and International coverage of this crisis does not call it Terrorism.There is no consenus is WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The president-elect has described it as such. Reliable sources have described it as such. It conforms exactly to this article's definition of domestic terrorism. It obviously and incontrovertibly walks like a duck. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Bongwarrior:

• The president-elect has described it as such. This has zero value. Officials in many countries describe protesters as terrorists. Whenever this kind of thing came up at 2019–20 Hong Kong protests nobody took the terrorist label seriously, even when protests set people on fire. There are countless examples in our articles for protests in many countries.
• Reliable sources have described it as such. Most reliable sources covering the issue (and they are many, because there's world-wide coverage) are NOT describing this as a terrorist attack. --MarioGom (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  MarioGom, we do not require unanimity in wording. We also don't WP:OTHERSTUFF. POTUS (well, close enough) calling it "domestic terrorism" matters. His Department of Justice will be involved in prosecuting offenders. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  I, for one, am not going to expend much energy debating that water is wet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bongwarrior, looking at the diff, the wording itself needs to be improved. Quick stab at a rewrite: The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was carried out by supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump who gathered for the planned "Save America" rally, following numerous failed attempts by Trump and some of his allies to overturn the 2020 election results which resulted in Biden's victory, and were mainly encouraged by Trump himself during his speech and on Twitter, as well as various far-right organizations such as Proud Boys. The attack resulted in the deaths of four people and injured at least 14 police officers. The incident was described by President-Elect Joe Biden as an insurrection and borderline sedition, as a domestic terrorist attack by CNN, Hillary Clinton and other media and politicians and strongly criticized by other figures such as outgoing Vice President Mike Pence and all four living former Presidents (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama). The events have been similarly condemned by various leaders worldwide, including Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau, Scott Morrison, Jacinta Ardern, Iván Duque and Erna Solberg, among others, as well as respective NATO and United Nations Secretary-Generals Jens Stoltenberg and António Guterres. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that myself. It's still a fluid situation, and the best wording hadn't had a chance to settle itself yet. That is definitely an improvement. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please go for WP:RFC if you wish to add it as it will be controversial and there is no consenus here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC opened on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism. Clearly that's not this page, but there's discussion there and I think it's reasonable that consensus needs to be established on this topic across Wikipedia. Jdphenix (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to call 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as Terrorism as per this RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That's true, however there have been more developments since RFC was closed. FBI Director Christopher Wray has stated recently that the FBI considered the event as Domestic Terrorism. So the consensus made previously is moot right now because a high-ranking official has categorized it as 'Domestic Terrorism'.NSNW (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

After an RfC resulted in no consensus to call it terrorism -- requires a new consensus and as stated in this. A statement by a police officer, which is what the head of the FBI is, is not a reliable source for conclusive proof of criminality. That's why the U.S. and other countries have a criminal judicial system. Only judges or juries can determine matters of fact. Even when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, Wikipedia does not assert that someone committed a crime until they are convicted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't but i'm biased, but what do we define as terrorism, if nobody will we should and via that definition we decide. we can recognize that people will disagree or governments will, that's okay its somewhat subjective, but ill give it a shot, terrorism is an act or acts of social disruptions,perpetrated with the intent of causing fear and/or chaos. this is up for debate. but via this definition we can say then that jan 6th was as they in a way wanted chaos, and to scare the politicians into giving them their guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvlad (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Support

• Yes, the president elect Joe Biden clearly names the attack on the Capital as "domestic terrorism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsommer7345 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." "terrorism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000". web.archive.org. 20 June 2006. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: clearly described as such by reliable sources and by influential people across the political spectrum. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes similarly in The Oxford English Dictionary - 2a "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". This event is literally the definition of terrorism. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, by the definition of terrorism by the FBI: "Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives." https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 Dobekofcas (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per my comments at Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States. We aren't smarter than numerous reliable sources, the President-elect, and a multitude of other leaders. This isn't complicated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Soft Yes IF sufficient RSes in support of calling it terrorism can be established, AND consensus is established that there is enough RS publication for it to be in Wikipedia's voice. If the first but not the second happens, then support maintaining current section: "The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." Builder018 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, applicable to all articles that mention this event., per Bongwarrior's reasoning. Jdphenix (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment Let’s see... they attempted to “overthrow” the results of the election with violent insurrection. They attacked law enforcement with lead pipes in the process of breaking and entering the government’s legislative building. There was a stand-off inside the building with guns drawn. A woman in this so-called mob was shot and killed trying to climb through a window. They ransacked offices and defiantly sat in officials’ seats with their fists raised. If it were in any other country what would you consider calling this? So yes, because that was their intention even if the dramatic irony befalls them. Trillfendi (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Well ... MSNBC in its self-ad, refers to coverage of "domestic terrorism" as part of their purpose. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: the RNC and DNC pipe bombs are terrorism alone, nonetheless breaking into the nation's capitol. ɱ (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: It has to be. They stormed the U.S. Capitol for the purpose of wanting to alter the election in favor of Trump instead of Biden. That's just as political as it can get. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: Echoing everyone else above. Strongest possible yes. Brad (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: I wouldn't object to the article being renamed to "2021 terrorist attack of the United States Capitol". -- RobLa (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - per sources [10]. And they did terrorize members of Congress. Pipe bombs were found. BTW, taking over parliaments is not anything new, even recently. The Crimean parliament was taken by the green men, but the most similar incident was probably Armenian parliament shooting. It is only through sheer luck that the members of the Congress were not harmed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously Per User:Nfitz this fits the definition as clearly as you can get, widely supported by many RSes. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - it checkes all boxes of terrorism, there wer bombing attempts aswell. and CNN as well as polititians call it terrorism Norschweden (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The events were an unlawful use of violence and intimidation for the advancement of political goals. Plus, there were multiple IEDs found. Bravetheif (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The intention of the rioters was clear, and that was to terrorize lawmakers and shut down the United States Government. That fits the definition of terrorism. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – their intention was to overthrow the joint session of Congress in order to change the results of a democratic election. That is a coup. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (sparingly) This was an act of domestic terrorism. A lot of sources frame it in these terms. However, it's important we don't overuse the term in an NPOV way. We must use this term in a reliable-sourced, explicitly-defined way. Provided the reliable sources characterize it this way, there should be no issue to the proper use of the term. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support: Clearly yes as per intent, reliable sources, evidence, definitions and the leading comments above. I would suggest its a No Brainer. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes open and shut pre-meditated anti-democratic political violence intended to control using fear. What could the objections be? GPinkerton (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  GPinkerton, What could the objections be? Below there is a section with a few objections explained. Mainly the lack of wide usage of terrorism in reliable sources. Most mentions of terrorism in RS are quotes of declarations of certain people. MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Reliable sources use it, it fits the definition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — A number of officials including President-elect Joe Biden have referred to this event as an act of domestic terrorism. Courier (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - This easily fits the official FBI/DOJ definition of terrorism: "Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Verumregium (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — It's pretty simple: These individuals used violence to attempt to further their political views. Terrorism is the use of violence as a tool for political and social change. -- Phyzome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Undoubtebly Yes - This event was the textbook definition of terrorism. It was politically motivated and was aimed to instill fear into the U.S. government as well as the American people. It is pretty clear cut. The rioters also had zip ties ready for the capture of government officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football3434 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. They caused nothing but violence and destruction. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes We need not to use such terms wildly however causing congress to evacuate and causing an immense amount of damage with the intent of terror is undoubtedly constitutes an act of terrorism. Using the dictionary definition without the lounge of national definitions it fits the universal term. Des Vallee (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Maile above.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - People who are being arrested in connection to the event are being prosecuted by the Counterterrorism Section of the DOJ’s National Security Division with assistance from various U.S. and District Attorneys. If they're being prosecuted as terrorists, the event was terrorism. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:RS and U.S. prosecutors have described the event as an act of domestic terrorism. Zazpot (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Domestic terrorism — "At least 25 domestic terrorism cases have been opened after US Capitol breach, congressman says Army secretary told him" Paul LeBlanc, CNN.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes there was domestic terrorism; The Guardian reported that "Two pipe bombs had been found at Republican and Democratic party offices near Congress"
• Yes - it meets the definition of terrorism, however I think there should be a section on the various phrases used to describe this event since there isn't a clear consensus among the general population. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It meets the definition of domestic terrorism, and terrorism charges are being drawn up. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable Sources such as the AP have already characterized it as so. Auntieanneslover123 (talk) 2:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Many reliable source can be giving for saying this. 4X the Nation Guard are being deployed to D.C. for the inauguration as we have in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, reliable sources are almost never used in Wikipedia when it comes to Trump, it is all editor voted false spin. Twitter is way ahead of Wikipedia when it comes to banning spin doctors inciting violence. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The definition, in the article, reads, "...attacks by violent non-state actors for political motives." This appears to match exactly what happened. This is not a !vote on the politics of the riot, simply that it meets the definition of terrorism. Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a sure case of domestic terrorism, there is a bunch of RS saying this, and there is official investigation of these storming as terrorism. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes individuals were clearly engaging in terrorism, destruction of the electoral college ballots was their goal, they used violence and intimidation to stifle due process, and all fueled by a white nationalist political agenda. Acousmana (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per William Allen Simpson. It has been called domestic terrorism by Biden and various other officials, and the FBI seems to be treating it as such.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it has been prominently and repeatedly described as terrorism by reliable sources and government officials. The event itself is terrorism regardless of what kind of charges that are brought against individuals for their part in it. --Tataral (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, FBI, Homeland Security, former Department of Defense and military, as well as federal government officials are all referring to it as a terrorist incident. Domestic terrorists used "average" people at the rally as a cover to do what they want to do, just like the 9/11 hijackers pretended to be airplane passengers. The next president has called it domestic terrorism. Etc. Teammm ^talk
  _email 01:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per above, with an emphasis on Royal Autumn Crest's comment about needing a section that goes over the terms used to describe the event. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The Wikipedia article on Terrorism defines terrorism as follows: 'Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes.' The insurrection/riot at the US Capital clearly involved violence and there was also a clear political motive behind it. Edouard d'Erasme (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Then certainly the riots of the 60's and those of last summer were "terrorism" as well, no? The George Floyd Protests article makes clear their purpose was to extract political concessions. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, as per what is directly above. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes WP:RS call it terrorism. WP: What happened at the Capitol ‘was domestic terrorism,’ lawmakers and experts say As such, we should follow. Casprings (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per various WP:RS provided above by many users. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I believe this fits the definition of Domestic terrorism. At least some of them went there and had the attack planned before Trump gave his speech. There were reports of reconnaissance tours. There is a video of a woman giving coordinating instructions to people inside the building. There is a photo of an invader climbing over seats holding handcuff-zipties implying he intended to take hostages and came prepared to do so.--Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, FBI, Homeland Security, former Department of Defense and military, as well as federal government officials are all referring to it as a terrorist incident. Domestic terrorists used "average" people at the rally as a cover to do what they want to do, just like the 9/11 hijackers pretended to be airplane passengers. The next president has called it domestic terrorism. Etc. Not to mention the numerous citations of RS referring to it as such. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the USG is widely referring to it as a terrorist incident. When the media talk about whether it was a terrorist incident, many find it it was. And they are cautious about referring to any incident as such. At first I thought No - not in WPVOICE but yes if attributed. But as I looked through the comments, I found the No vote comments to be misses: Whataboutism, fiction, even gibberish, but mostly non sequiturs. While the Yes comments- well, not a wall of granite, but at least solid and coherent. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - clearly meets the definition of terrorism - violence in order to achieve a political end. A violent mob wanted to stop the counting of electoral votes, and successfully (if temporarily) did so. That's what the sources say, and that's what we should say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is definitely terrorism. Rioters stormed into the Capitol, many wanting to kill lawmakers, to stop a "stolen" election. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as violence or threats of violence used as a weapon of coercion or intimidation. The rioters wanted to coerce and intimidate lawmakers with violence and threats of violence (numerous threats were made, not to mention the pipe bombs). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 12:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes YES. While we are at it we can correctly modify the BLM and Antifa groups as terrorists. All that burning... California hung in smoke for weeks.--MrMikeMike (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes seems abundantly clear that a wide swath of reliable sources characterize it as such. ValarianB (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes if there are reliable sources that describe the incident this way. Benicio2020 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable sources and definitions from authoritative orgs (FBI) have unilaterally called this a terrorist event. YallAHallatalk 09:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Without a doubt. Everything points in that direction. --Gepid (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - This was an act, carried out by politically motivated individuals and groups native to the USA, that tried to achieve political change through the use of violence Textbook domestic terrorism.Erzan (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - As others have said, this was politically motivated. I'd prefer insurrection as that is exactly what it was, an attempt to over throw the lawful government. A'kwell (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes if attempting to kidnap and kill major politicians isn't terrorism I don't know what is. Seven Pandas (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes In Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court says: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The use of force and law violation was advocated where such advocacy was directed to producing imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. Given that the speeches at the rally wouldn't have been allowed from a freedom of speech perspective, and given the meeting the night before as well as everything else, I don't see why this wouldn't be characterized as domestic terrorism. Banaticus (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Oppose

• No. Otherwise BLM riots last year would also count as 'terrorism'. NPOV must be retained.ExplosiveResults (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference between a group of people infiltrating a government building thinking they can threaten politicians into not voting (symbolicly as it were) for something and a group of people protesting against *checks notes* human rights violations while being tear gassed, is that the latter group of people weren’t threatening the action of democracy. Trillfendi (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with that either. Many of the BLM/Antifa riots were far more violent than the Capitol Hill Storming and tactics used certainly checked the boxes for terrorism. Similarly, there were certainly participants of the storming who had terroristic intentions at very least. I would be supportive of both this, and the BLM/Antifa riots being categorized as terrorism. History Man1812 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Arrests in multiple states show that those arrested for property destruction in BLM protests were right-wing infiltrators: https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748 meanwhile everyone arrested in the this Jan 6 event has been right-wing so far. Banaticus (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, NPOV must be maintained and your views of motivation behind two different rioting mobs do not decide whether it constitutes terrorism.ExplosiveResults (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism is a method, the idealistic motivators of an action are irrelevant to whether it's "terrorism" or not.PailSimon (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The definition(s) of terrorism include the political purpose. Breaking into a house in order to steal something is not terrorism, but breaking into a house in order to intimidate someone to vote a specific way is. Sjö (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter were people protesting unarmed African Americans getting killed by police; the Capitol Insurrection was primarily white supremacists upset they lost an election and tried to change the result by force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the people identified at the Capitol were already on FBI watchlists, there is no such things as BLM riots, BLM doesn't organize riots, they conduct protests, which isn't terrorism, and have permits from the city to do so. White supremacists at the Capitol had weapons and handcuffs, used flag poles, fire extinguishers, and stun guns to attack police and others, used mob force to crush and rip of the badges and weapons of law enforcement, prevent them from leaving, caused Congress members and staff to go into hiding in fear for their lives, wore anti-semitic clothing and carried white nationalist symbols, and went on a search to find the Vice President of the United States and Speaker of the House of Representatives. They also planted bombs nearby. One sounds like terrorism to me, the other sounds like protesting as allowed under the Constitution. Oh, and all rioting isn't terrorism. It involves more. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by BLM riots, ExplosiveResults - which doesn't seem notable - do you have a reference?. There have been protests on many things (like sports games) that have descended into rioting after extended period. That doesn't make it terrorism. This storming appeared to have been the plan of the "protesters" ... and happened almost immediately. As far as I know the vast majority of BLM protests were entirely peaceful, and the worst offence was blocking traffic, or noise violations - certainly around here. Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

BLM and/or Antifa protests have done more than "blocking traffic". They have burned down police stations, repeated attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland, set up "autonomous zones" in several cities, and don't even get me started on the five police officers killed in Dallas in 2016 during a BLM protest.96.241.129.33 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

BLM protests were scheduled ahead of time, coordinated with local law enforcement and the media. The fact that looters and other opportunistic types showed up to create chaos was not the goal of BLM. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Breaking past capitol security, causing minor property damage to the building, and walking around inside for a little while in response to an allegedly stolen election is terrorism, but killing civilians and burning down cities because a few criminals got killed isn't? How absurd. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course! That's why they were there. They just wanted to have a little walk around the place. Very fine people, I'm sure. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorists are usually armed though. Pipe bombs found outside the building notwithstanding, I don't think any of the rioters were armed. Otherwise, just refer to RS, not POV. Including mine. RandomGnome (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the rioters absolutely were armed. You are correct, though, that we should go with RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Checking the article, I found mention of an 'armed standoff' and 'chemical sprays'. You are correct that some of the rioters were armed, but these appear to be more isolated events within a highly disorganized and opportunist riot by a disparate group that managed to gain access to the building, rather than a concerted, armed terrorist siege. But as you say, we defer to RS. I would urge editors to find sufficient high quality RS before RfCing for 'terrorism'. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed several extensive discussions on this talk page and others related to terrorism, with edit warring. I've seen reasonable RS arguments for both. I opened this to get discussion in (hopefully) one spot. Jdphenix (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Holy strawman Batman! "minor property damage" and "walking around inside"? That's a funny way of describing violently breaking into a federal building and planting not one but two IEDs in an attempt to overthrow an election. Bravetheif (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No. @User:ExplosiveResults, you're right. This lasted for one day and BLM lasted for weeks. Also, the "goals"section in the infobox has a strong negative bias. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Most WP:RS most sources do not call it terrorism most national and International media coverage of this crisis does not call it Terrorism.There is no consenus is WP:RS and most WP:RS do not call it a terrorist attack.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No As said above, most if not all reliable sources call this a riot, at most it is referred to as an insurrection, which is a dubious claim in it of itself JazzClam (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No This is a malformed RfC, and probably going to end up as a snowball again, as declaring it to be ex post facto terrorism by interpreting it as "Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." would clearly be wp:OR. Let's chill on the RfCs for a while. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow consensus on “facts”...could this be anymore intellectually dishonest...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.229.135 (talk • contribs)

• No Terrorism as a word is obviously biased and is pretty much incoherent at this point as it is used in so many inconsistent ways.PailSimon (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how, User:PailSimon, that identification of event is a biased issue, with Republicans and (former) Trump supporters calling this terrorism. How is this article from a local newspaper (Washington Post) not a reliable source? It even identifies some of the white nationalist terror groups involved. Nfitz (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Not until sufficient, high quality RS describe it as such. It doesn't matter what we think. People seem to lose sight of this very quickly. RandomGnome (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No-It was an unlawful protest, but not violent enough to be described as terrorism. The protesters weren't out to kill anyone. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The last part of this argument is demonstrably false. Lin Wood; "The time has come Patriots. This is our time. Time to take back our country. Time to fight for our freedom" [BusinessInsider]. His Parler post; "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." [Washington Post]. The bombs. Violent intent isn't debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Unless there are people involved in this event charged with committing acts of terrorism. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I concur with Rreagan007, no one has been charged with domestic terrorism or legally labeled as such Anon0098 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Most reliable sources are not characterizing it as a terrorist attack, even if they report declarations of this or that politician that calls it domestic terrorism, they usually do it clear in-text attribution. If you have followed media coverage of actual terrorist attacks, you probably know the difference between most reliable sources calling something terrorism, as opposed to some politicians calling names. --MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No It can't be "terrorism" and a "coup" and an "insurrection" all at the same time. Some of you are trying to throw mud to see what will stick. 96.241.129.33 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

......why the hell not? You either don't know what those words mean, or you're hoping that people who read your comment won't. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. As has been noted many times, terrorism is an official term with a specific legal definition and we cannot use words like that until a court finds it as such. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm against the terrorism label on principle: "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." ImTheIP (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No for now. Wait until more RSs start using the term and then return to the proposal. — Czello 14:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. Neutral. I don't see any reason to characterize this event as a terrorist act. Alalch Emis (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I do see the reason now after all the news. In some aspects, seeing how terror tactics were used, despite the event not being a terrorist attack, terrorism was involved. But this aspect is not the most prominent one, as the desired political end was primarily not indirect, through terror (which is the defining element of terrorism), but direct and immediate, through intimidation of members of Congress etc. — Alalch Emis 22:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, soft wait. All reporting shows this to have been a protest turned riot. There is little proof of any planned attack besides the pipe bombs (Have they been linked yet to the riot?). The pipes bombs themselves are the only thing that could be labeled domestic terrorism. Also as others noted we would have label riots from last year as being "domestic terrorism" https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/portland-man-charged-july-28-2020-arson-mark-o-hatfield-us-courthouse. Which would not fit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. I went through all sources cited in this discussion, and none call it terrorism in their own voice, so as best I can tell it fails verification. Moreoever, "terrorism" is a contentious label that requires wide use by reliable sources. If anyone can establish such wide use, then please ping me and I will reevaluate my position. R2 (bleep) 07:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No/Wait Most reliable sources of international reputation — including progressive ones such as the New York Times or The Washington Post — are not classifying it as terrorism. Some people in the "Yes" section argue that the have reliable sources, but either don't provide them or provide sources that are not that straightforward on this subject. Others argue that this falls into their preferred definition of terrorism, but that looks like original research to me.--JBchrch (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. 1) It's a lazy catch-all that conflates very different types of acts. 2) Reliable sources are not using it. 3) There will be a better description (though which term has not yet been resolved. It might end up being called a failed coup, maybe an insurrection.) Jd2718 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously no. Even the question of this RFC is ridiculous, terrorism is milestones to the power of infinity far cry away of this event. I heavily agree as well what is coined on the top of this thread about NPOV and double measure, on the other hand quite sad political soapboxing became so widespread in WP, seeing the number of votes to support, incredible! Not knowing/understanding what terrorism really is raises a huge concerns. Btw. I am not watching or editing this page, just by coincidence I saw this RFC, so without any ping will ignore any further here, I hope sane thoughts will trial here, not political interests/propaganda/agenda.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

• No. FOR NOW. Demonstrations which lead to occupations of public buildings aren't usually defined as terrorism in reliable sources. But we have to follow if the historical consensus uses that term down the line.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, they were a protest that evolved into unlawful actions of serious caliber, but that's it. Even if a couple of protestors may turn out to have had terrorist intentions in my opinion it should not represent the whole event.Forich (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• No That is ridiculous. Terrorism is conducted by a terrorist organisation, it's usually a violent act to cause fear in a populous - ie it causes "terror". This was simply a mob attacking a building, and at the heart of it, there is no "terrorist" act that causes "terror" (ie a bombing, or the taking of hostages, or someone being killed). I don't think the public are particularly afraid of these protestors, in the terror sense. The motivation of the crowd wasn't to cause terror in the public for a political cause, - essentially the protestors were pissed off at the government and wanted to vent their frustration. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• No A no opinion does not mean support for the riot. Vowvo (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• No I know this was an insurrection I wouldn't compliment the insurrectionists by calling them rioters and the Department of Defense and CNN agree with me. [11] Caffoti (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hell no - They have to kill a LOT more people to be considered "terrorism" --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an incorrect assertion, because an act of terrorism does not necessitate "a LOT more people" being killed; for instance, in 1985'a incident involving TWA Flight 847 there was 1 fatality. In fact, an act of terrorism can occur without any casualties, like in Japan Airlines Flight 351. In the Capitol, there was an officer of the law killed, and The Guardian reported that "Two pipe bombs had been found at Republican and Democratic party offices near Congress" Tortillovsky (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The legal definition of terrorism varies from country to country - in some countries a certain level of seriousness/damage is required. In most Anglo-Saxon countries 'intent' rather than outcome is the defining factor. IRA actions in London often did no actual harm but caused massive economic disruption simply by threatening acts such as planting multiole small incendiary devices on the transport system, thengiving an ambiguous warning. But yes, there is not generally a minimum 'body count'. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - not in WPVOICE although attributed claims in the form "politicians/sources X+Y" described it as domestic terrorism would be apt. Terrorism has a precise legal definition in each country and it is exremely unlikely that anyone is going to be charged with any directly 'terrorist' offences. Riot, trespass, assault, damage or theft, threatening behaviour, possibly insurrection and possibly manslaughter iro a few individuals are all that are being spoken of as possible charges at the moment. You can't have terrorism without a terrorist, just as you cannot have murder without a murderer, and despite many of the perps being filmed, directly 'terrorist' - and probably even directly 'political' charges, such as insurrection, for the mob itself - are extremely unlikely AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - Just because it fits the definition of terrorism does not mean it should be classified as such. By definition all riots that ever happened would have been classified as terrorism. While it may feel good to label this as a terrorist act, using a technicality is not the way to do it. Orangewarning (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all RS calls it terrorism. Others call it coup. Others call it insurrection. Others call it storming. Others call it riots. Others call it rape. Others call it concert. Others call is anarchy. Others call it apocalypse. Others call it judgement. Others call it doomsday. Others call it massacre. Others call it flood. Others call it noisy. Others call it bad. Others call it stupid. Others call it violent. Others call it discredited. Others call it hate. Others call it hatred. Others call it killings. Others call it event. Others call it earthquake. Others call it tsunami. Others call it impeachment. Others call it pedophilia. Others call it breach. Others call it vandalism. Others call it edit war. Others call it war. Others call it World War 3. Others call is Donald Biden. Others call it looting. Others call it protests. Others call it BLM2. Others call it Just Some American Stuff. Others call it The Simpsons. Others call it Capitol Disaster. Others call it evening. Others call it day. Others call it January. Others call it 2021. Others call it something. We can't fit everything to one. Thus, they can be redirects and Wikipedia can give itself its own name (the current). GeraldWL 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As per above. I would honestly support a renaming to 2021 United States Capitol Incident, even, but that's somewhat irrelevant. I feel like storming is about as neutral as we can get without people from either side protesting the decision.SkynetPR (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Feel free to create 2001 World Trade Center incident with the appropriate content - be bold! →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Σ LOL. Great response. Made me laugh. That said, I must admit I was somewhat surprised to discover that September 11 attacks did not have the word "terrorism" in it, despite the coverage seeming to almost universally call it that. Before I saw that title, I might have been inclined to support "terrorist" in the title to this article--if that word was associated with the event as much as it is with 9/11--which it certainly isn't yet. I'm still waiting to see a stronger list of RS that calls it "terrorism" before I would join your yes vote. It still looks more like a coup attempt or insurrection to me than attempting to scare or intimidate civilians. I see it as trying to intimidate lawmakers and police, but it's up to the RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - I'm pretty vehemently against the actions of the rioters and what they stand for, but that said, calling this "terrorism" would seem to raise a lot of WP:NPOV issues. It also doesn't seem to be reflective of the verbiage that a majority of reliable sources are using. Most definitions generally call terrorism violence directed at civilians, which doesn't entirely fit in this instance. We can certainly make qualified statements that use "terrorism" (e.g. "Several news outlets referred to the incident as terrorism"), but we shouldn't use "terrorism" in narrative voice. Remember that "terrorism" is a word to watch. We should only apply it if we're confident. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – we didn't call the BLM protests terrorism; therefore, it's a violation of NPOV to call this incident terrorism. Firstly, terrorism is a strong word that carries many legal connotations, and not everyone there will likely be charged with terrorism. So it may not be the most accurate and neutral thing to mention (even if it's true). Also, not all references are calling it terrorism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• No — hard to believe this is even a question. If this was "terrorism" then so is virtually every riot, including those of last summer. Enough with the trying to call what was clearly a riot a "storming", "insurrection", "coup attempt", etc.—it's just embarrassingly POV and 100% inaccurate. These "debates" are pure partisan political hackery and a disgrace to Wikipedia. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - no evidence that this was a terrorist's plot. We should use WP:RS reliable sources. There's no frequent mention of "the terror attack on the Capitol". True, some may cite terror in the same line as if you don't have Medicaid assistance, it's terrifying if you're sick, but that's not the mainstream definition of terrorism. That is not to say that the riots were good. They were not. Vowvo (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• No — This whole talk page is filled with echo-chambered "fact checks" and so is the article. This was barely even a riot. It was a protest. Remember in Seattle when armed militants took over government buildings and temporarily seceded from the USA to create their own "Autonomous Zone?" That is labeled an "occupation protest" on wikipedia. The same place where in only a handful of days, there were multiple murders, several shootings, rapes, robberies; and yet that whole debacle is considered a "occupation protest." At least 26 people were killed during the George Floyd BLM uprisings/riots and wikipedia calls all of them "protests." Let's stop from making Wikipedia an echo-chamber from one side and back to the free and fair place to learn about things without bias. There is CLEAR bias on several political related pages that misrepresent reality with fiction citing non-credible articles that are only allow because they are posted on "credible mainstream news sites"; Keep WikiPedia written with unbias facts. ChaseF (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• No (and wait) To my knowledge there is insufficient sources, and no official US government sources that call it terrorism (correct me if I'm wrong). Labelling this event as terrorism reeks of political bias and opportunism. There's a severe desire from very leftist Americans to label this as everything bad they can come up with. To my knowledge, as one witness and participant said, everything got emotional and they got carried away. And as others also have pointed out, if this event is labelled as terrorism, then we should label the Antifa/BLM "mostly peaceful protests"/riots as terrorism too. And if this event was terrorism, then it surely was the most lame and weird act of terrorism ever. The damage was absolutely minimal, and I don't recall seeing people smashing stuff en masse on purpose. Lukan27 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. @User:ExplosiveResults, you're right. This lasted for one day and BLM lasted for weeks. Also, the "goals" section in the infobox has a strong negative bias. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

*No. Although I do not support the illegal actions of the rioters, there wasn't an intent of violence, and they did not target civilians, or really any humans. They did not attempt to create "terror." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlatSkate (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No. If this is terrorism, then I suppose the BLM riots and looting is considered as such as well? Or does it only apply if they support the Republican party? Let's try to hide our bias please. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per Contentious labels, we should avoid calling people terrorists. Also, per People accused of crime, we should not accuse living or recently deceased people as criminals unless they have been convicted. It doesn't meet the meaning of terrorism as normally understood. It's not as if someone had blown up the Capitol. TFD (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• No While it was undoubtedly terrifying to Congress, the intent was not to create terror but to overthrow the election. It was a self-coup attempt, that is, an attempt to keep the then-current administration in power. However, "storming" belongs in a tabloid, not Wikipedia. Laguna CA (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Other

• Wait. If individual rioters receive charges of terrorism, terrorism-related charges, or charges of sedition - we should refer to this act as "terrorism". Until then, I propose that we simply wait. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. I would prefer to wait until there has been news of individuals or organizations being referred doing "terrorist" behavior. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per Mt.FijiBoiz. This seems reasonable and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait I would wait until such individuals are charged with terrorism-related charges, once they are I will be in support. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait While the definition of terrorism has been expanded significantly in recent decades, it's looking like a very few of those involved were prepared for terroristic acts. When this is clarified we can have a suitable section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Wait Personally these seem to be acts of terrorism to me, but I agree with the above that we should wait for charges or expert opinions. Ziko (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, per above. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and as this isn't classified as terrorism (yet?), we should wait until it is classified as such. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Per WP:LABEL, value-laden labels should be treated cautiously even if used by reliable sources. Sources will begin to describe the event more neutrally as it leaves the realm of news and enters the realm of history.Jancarcu (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. Wait a bit and see what RS converge on, and we get a clearer picture of motivations, who the leaders were, who planted the bombs, how they organized, et cetera. Terrorism isn't really well-defined, so I'm opposed to an appeal to definitions. DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if there are charges of "terrorism" for people involved I'll consider it, but I don't see the support for that label as-of-yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait Too soon, but if a majority of reliable sources begin using the term, so can Wikipedia. Usage in RS will probably be influenced by what kind of charges will be brought (i.e. terrorism-related or not). Sjö (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until a consensus is reached within our sources. -- ToE 11:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per everyone else. Some people were there to protest, some were clearly rioting, some were clearly there to commit assassinations and acts of terror... It's a very complicated, multifaceted event, and we should just wait to see what a majority of experts and officials say, all across the board. Love of Corey (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per most above. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait for reliable sources to converge on descriptors, per Sjö. GAB^gab 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until, as mentioned above, news on if those arrested have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hold on - While organizations such a QAnon and Proud Boys might be characterized as terrorist due to their plottings of assassinations and such, Wikipedia shouldn't characterize the attack that way in Wikipedia's voice. The article can include examples of reliable sources, properly attributed, that characterize the attacks that way. The only class of topics I know of where it's permissible (even required) to use a value-laden WP:LABEL in Wikipedia's narrative voice is WP:FRINGE topics, and this isn't one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, someone made a good point. - OK, so before I continue with my justification, let it be clear that none of the following sentences shall show either political support or political opposition to either of the events mentioned herein. If we are going to classify the event at the Capitol as terrorism, then (as some users above mentioned) there have been other events last year, most notably BLM/Antifa riots, that must also be classified as terrorism. My reasoning: Categorizing something as terrorism requires 1) political motivation to cause a desired change 2) targeting of noncombatant persons (usually civilian) 3) intention to (preferably quickly) instill fear into noncombatant targets 4) at least one person present, virtually or physically, to do something destructive through the use of violence or intimidation. So, the event at the Capitol hits the first (obviously). The targeting is hard to pin because it was not specific, but the third one is a hit, as is the fourth one. At best it hits 4/4, at worst, 3/4. But note, however, that this "checklist" applies only to the people who are actually committing to #4. I can't add this to the article without sourcing because WP:OR but it was clear from footage that most people were not interested in violence, only a portion of them. Because other people were present in large numbers that fit #1 but not #4, the validity of classifying this as terrorism is debatable. Compare this to the various riots in 2020 by BLM/Antifa. They hit #1, obviously. They targeted stores and other buildings, so #2 is a hit. And all of the riots involved their burning, so #4 is also a hit. #3 is debatable, but because at least one person of clear political opposition who were in their way was beaten (to death iirc), I tend to lean toward the affirmative. So at best, this gets 4/4, at worst 3/4. And unlike the event at the Capitol, this one does apply to almost every single person involved. So, my stance: if we classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots must also be classified as terrorism, but (to avoid affirming the consequent) if the BLM/Antifa riots are classified as terrorism, the event at the Capitol need not necessarily be classified as terrorism. Inversely, if we do not classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots may still be classified as terrorism, but (again, a.t.c.) if the BLM/Antifa riots are not classified as terrorism, then this act must also not be classified as terrorism. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Re categorizing BLM protests as terrorism if this is: Arrests in multiple states show that those arrested for property destruction in BLM protests tended to be right-wing infiltrators: https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748 meanwhile everyone arrested in the this Jan 6 event has been right-wing so far. Banaticus (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wait until the Biden administration makes a statement either way. That some of the insurrectionists have been charged with domestic terrorism is not sufficient to make the entire insurrection a singular act of terrorism. Forklift17 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait if anything. In a "reactions" section or similar, it may be appropriate to say "some sources have referred to [the acts/list specific parts of the events here] as [domestic] terrorism". But until reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the act as a whole as terrorism, it is inappropriate to call it such in WP voice. We are still within a charged time in the political environment - and until the dust settles, it is inappropriate to even be considering this. There is absolutely no rush to call it terrorism, even if it eventually can be determined to be the correct thing to do here. That being said, the trajectory of news coverage of these events has been decreasingly calling it terrorism/insurrection/related words in recent days - possibly to try to avoid polarizing the situation further and any "repeat" or "copycats" based on the use of that language. We will see what coverage over the next few months/year(s) calls it - but until then, it's not appropriate to call it that in WP voice. I'll note that even some participants being charged with/convicted of offenses called terrorism does not mean the event as a whole can be called a terrorist attack. It would be appropriate in such a case to discuss the charges/convictions that resulted, but the event as a whole is not determined by a few charges/convictions. TLDR: potentially the word has a place qualified by specific sources/individuals/charges/etc - but not as a whole yet, if ever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait We must wait for more evidence to come out that it was a coordinated and planned attack between "most" of the people who stormed the capitol building. Current evidence (already cited in discussed article) shows maybe a few hundred people stormed the capitol while the protest had tens of thousands of people attend. We do not know if the majority that did storm were coordinated and planned or if some of them were just opportunistic. If the evidence does come out that the above is true and every intention was to stop democracy from continuing and a planned and organized attack took place then I am all in favor of calling it what it would be, a domestic terrorism attack. For now the process and trials have not concluded and I am very skeptical to call it Domestic Terrorism as we can label many events over the past decades and even as recent as 2020 as Domestic Terrorism. The article already has holes and biases I'm sure will be edited once more information is received. The best part of the discussion is seeing everyone who voted Yes get no feedback or flack for their opinion yet almost everyone who voted no has a comment from another user challenging their opinion. It's honestly sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.63.185 (talk • contribs) 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until at least a few of the participants are charged with terrorism or sedition. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Domestic terrorism" is not a crime. The United States does not have a crime with "terrorism" in the name that covers domestic terrorism. (For example see the NPR story: Former DOJ Official On Why She Thinks Domestic Terrorism Should Be A Federal Crime.) Therefore, no one can be charged with any such crime, and waiting for such charges by that name makes no sense. There are federal crimes which are used to charge terrorists, such as the use of a weapon of mass destruction or attempted murder of a political target. As the article says, the DOJ has already arrested and charged over 125 people with a variety of crimes. That includes several charges of vandalism, theft, and "violent entry". Given that some people did so with the obvious goal of menacing members of Congress to change their votes, do any or all of those crimes meet the everyday meaning of the word "terrorism" for the folks commenting above? (@Mt.FijiBoiz, JayJay, Ziko, Power~enwiki, Berchanhimez, Sjö, Guy Macon, and Forklift17:) It's possible more serious charges of attempted kidnapping, attempted murder, or seditious conspiracy, are coming, but I think it's worth an assessment of the situation so far. There is also the problem that people who committed specific acts might never be identified. It does not seem right that the name for the type of event would change depending on the success or failure of the police, given that the motivation was clear from context? It is also worth considering whether certain people were engaging in terrorism (like those hunting down members of Congress, or breaking windows or assaulting police) or if everyone who entered the building along with the mob should be described as engaged in terrorism, on the theory that an entire mob is menacing, and that peaceful protest involves not overrunning a police line? -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. As explained here[12] many states and localities have adopted penalties for domestic terrorism and the U.S. Code defines the phrase "domestic terrorism" (see [13]). You appear to have become confused (possibly by the fact that QAnon is purposely trying to confuse people and that deception is spreading across the Internet) by the fact that domestic terrorism is not currently a federal crime. If you murder your spouse that isn't a federal crime either, but that does not mean that murder is not a crime. The people who broke into the capitol could very well end up being charged as domestic terrorists under the DC Code in the DC Superior Court, which is the DC equivalent of a state court. Or they may run into the provisions that certain state/DC crimes can be tried as federal crimes (if you murder your mailman instead of your spouse, for example). One of those provisions involves crimes committed on federal property. You would have to ask a lawyer if the exception applies in this case -- I advise against trusting any legal advice you get from an electronics engineer. Related: [14] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not confused, I guess I just wasn't very clear. When I said "United States", I was referring to the federal government. I assumed the federal context given we're talking about actions that occurred on federal property and were directed against federal lawmakers. The definition in 18 USC §2331 does not apply to any crime, as the Hill article makes clear. Though you can judge for yourself, or reliable sources can judge, whether the actions on January 6 meet that definition, we can't expect there to be a charging document alleging someone violated it. I came to this understanding from the NPR piece I referenced; this is not something I heard about from social media, which I generally don't use. Yes, I know states have their own criminal codes; I did not know that DC had its own separate code, and interestingly it does define a crime called terrorism [15]. I still think it is highly likely that all the serious charges are going to be under federal jurisdiction; as far as I know all the actual attack-related charges so far have been, including the conspiracy charges that just came out yesterday. In any case, whether or not Wikipedia calls the event "terrorism" shouldn't depend on which jurisdiction the perpetrators are charged in or the legal quirks about the names one of them gives to crimes which are covered by the everyday meaning of "terrorism". -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Some articles, categories and lists that are relevant to this RfC: Domestic terrorism in the United States, List of terrorist incidents in 2021, Category:Terrorist incidents in 2021, Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States. --MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm on the fence between "yes" and "wait". Per WP:NOR, the question is not whether we think the events fall under a dictionary definition of "terrorism", but whether reliable, secondary sources think so. On the other hand, I do see there are already some secondary sources trickling in (e.g. this WaPo article mentioned by My very best wishes above), so if the answer here is "wait", I don't think we'll have to wait long. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  We could always add a sentence right now citing the WaPo article and giving in-text attribution, e.g. "The event was described as domestic terrorism by various lawmakers and national security experts." I don't think the WaPo article alone is enough to support calling the event terrorism in, say, the first sentence of the article. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Mz7, that sounds good. Most reliable sources are not calling it a terrorist attack, but they are definitely covering declarations by lawmakers describing it as such. MarioGom (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I saw someone added the following sentence to the lead, which 3Kingdoms just removed:

  This violence against innocent people to further a political ideology is consistent with the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.

  We cannot use the FBI primary sources to support this sentence because of WP:SYNTH: the sources themselves do not directly come to the conclusion that these specific riots fall under its definition of domestic terrorism. On the other hand, the WaPo article that I linked earlier does come to this conclusion directly ("National security experts agreed with that assessment, comparing the aggressive takeover of the federal landmark to the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism"). I would probably support adding a tweaked version of the sentence to the lead, citing the WaPo article instead of the FBI primary sources. Mz7 (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Mz7, indeed, it seems a sizeable amount of !voters here are relying on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based on FBI and dictionary definitions. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because it seems that it is terrorism does not mean it is. We need sources. All the "Yes's" are all opinion. Whenever we have made big decisions, such as on the Taiwan article and referring to it as a country, (That was a good day Wikipedia!) sources have been used. The primary reason the "Taiwan as a country" campaign won was because nearly all reliable sources refer to it as a country. This is no different. We cannot refer to them as terrorists because we don't like them, I don't like them either, that was a dark day, but that's no excuse to lose our moral high ground. JazzClam (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

if the article on terrorism has enough info to answer this question, then let it answer it. If it doesn't, improve or remove it-thanks

No, this was not domestic terrorism. This was a case of heightened emotions that lead to a riot. The pipe bombs that were left around the Capitol did not detonate and there is no proof that a pro-Trump supporter placed the pipe bomb around the premise. The individual that placed the pipebombs could Possibly be classified as a terrorist, but those that stormed the Capitol should not be placed in that category unless there is a premeditated plan to break into the Capitol building. The media outlets like to use words that draw in their viewers. Also, if we go by what President-Elect Biden calls it, then we should follow the same guidelines with BLM or Antifa because Trump has called those entities terrorists. MissBehaving (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Occasionally repressive regimes attempt to stretch the definition of "terrorism" to include political protest of lesser or greater degrees of violence, we could perhaps include the Bolivian coup government of 2019-2020 in this, or the government of Belarus. However, terrorism is generally viewed as a military operation conducted by covert non-state actors whose goal is not to control territory or further some tactical or strategic aim within the context of traditional warfare, but to make a political point. I don't see any military aspect in this action, not were the participants behaving covertly. The violent demonstration in Washington was possibly, in the minds of some of its participants, an attempted coup, but even then, a failed coup attempt is not usually classed as terrorism. However, if by some miracle the balance of reliable sources in future (things like encyclopaedias and history books) refer to it as "terrorism" then I suppose it's ok. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I see a large number--if not most editors--have answered giving their personal opinion and analysis about whether this is or is not "terrorism." Isn't that WP:OR? How about we follow our most basic rules of Wikipedia and call it terrorism if and only if the WP:RS calls it that? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@David TornheimI think the problem here is that we have an event so prominent that we can find RS that call it a massive variety of things including "terrorism", "insurrection" and a "coup attempt". However, on balance the majority of RS won't take that position. This is why people feel free to wade in. I think we should just exclude terrorism for now, as it pretty clearly isn't from any neutral standpoint (and if it is, I've done terrorism on several occasions), and wait to see if a historical consensus calling it "terrorism" emerges in academic sources rather than news media. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• So how long is this staying open? It should close soon, otherwise it's like Wait won although having not the majority Norschweden (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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

The close

The close says or for prosecutors to open terrorism-related cases on those alleged to have been involved. Any links to news reports stating that people have been charged with domestic terrorism? I can't see anything of the sort in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think this might be a bad close. Hidden Lemon was not a suitable closer, with 330 edits and having recently joined. The tally is 63 yes, 40 no, and 23 wait (a total of 63 "not yet" effectively, given that the difference between no and wait is minimal in practice). Some arguments were blatantly flawed, but after discounting those I don't really see a policy-based reason to discount enough no/wait votes to say there's a consensus for inclusion. This was really a no consensus in my view (nb: I'm not involved in that discussion, or in editing this article really). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I, too, take a dim view of WP:NAC closures by inexperienced users for this page (and in general). You are authorized to re-close it yourself, if you're so inclined, ProcrastinatingReader. El_C 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, El C, these kinds of discussions aren't fun to close imo. There seems to be more opinionated votes than evidence-based discussion; too many of the votes are pure opinions and/or unsound reasoning, or original research by synthesis, or "something something RS do it" without being explicit or including (or clearly referring to) evidence. Or, on the opposite side of the debate, reasoning by equating to the BLM protests. Compare all this to, for example, the Kyiv RM which was full of evidence, research and links, such that people have some faith that voters were making evidence-based decisions, not ideological ones. Of course, this is all distinct from what I think it should be described as (personally, I couldn't care less), but just skimming the discussion I think one would struggle to say this was a good RfC.

The RfC question itself is flawed as well. It's unclear on what kind of sentence it wants to introduce with the terrorism label (eg, is it proposing changing the opening sentence to The storming of the United States Capitol was a domestic terrorist attack against the 117th United States Congress at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. for example? or mentioning it somewhere else in the lead? or labelling the rioters as terrorists? or something else?). There was no clear interpretation of the question amongst editors either, various comments took different interpretations of what was proposed.

All in all, this RfC is just a total mess imo. All this seems to be a trend in some AP2 RfCs in the past couple months. Personally, my flak jacket is getting a bit dusty, so I'd probably not close it myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, understood. Oh well. May I suggest upgrading to a Spectra-based Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert...? El_C 18:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so that's your secret? Looks like I'll have to make the investment too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Lemon, enough. I have invoked WP:ACDS to overturn your close. Challenging this should be submitted to WP:ARCA. Thank you. El_C 09:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to challenge my close if you all feel it's justified, ProcrastinatingReader and El_C. Here's a sampling of sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 HiddenLemon // talk 23:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Hidden Lemon, the fact that you're citing sources to support your close only gives me further pause. You simply are not experienced enough to be closing discussions, period, not to mention for a key WP:AP2 page (as opposed to something more trivial). I'm giving any experienced user the authority to undo your close and re-close the discussion as they see fit, without needing to bother with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (myself, I can't spare the time to review the RfC closely at the moment, I'm afraid). Also, you do realize that RfCs are customarily closed no sooner than 30 days, right? Not that 4 days early is a big deal, but had you not done that, it's likely that an experienced user (who would have waited the full 30 days) would have done so. Anyway, I didn't even close a discussion until I became an admin, a year after I joined. You didn't just dip your toes in the deep end, you went straight to the Mariana Trench! So, please, slow down, if you will. El_C 23:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC) I only present sources because ProcrastinatingReader asked for them at the top of this section, and not for the purpose of defending my closure. Overturning the close solely based on the fact that I'm not an admin or that I am relatively new to editing, as opposed to a belief that there was something substantively incorrect or biased in my decision/summary, sounds rather unjustifiable per this RfC decision. HiddenLemon // talk 00:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Hidden Lemon, like ProcrastinatingReader, at a glance, I'm not even seeing there being a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Again, I'm telling you that you're too new to be closing discussions in key AP2 pages. I mean, random example: I think I've gotten more comments on my user talk page today alone than you have on your user talk page in your entire Wikipedia history. You are just not experienced enough to be closing discussions of such weight, and that 2013 RfC is of no consequence here, if you're trying to rules lawyer around it that way (which, sorry, is not a good look). This is an WP:ACDS page (again, a key one, at that) — the normal rules do not apply. Also, if you're gonna cite sources, it makes sense for you to be citing only the ones that were mentioned by the RfC's participants in the course of that discussion, but I suppose that doesn't really matter. Again, please slow down. Thanks. El_C 01:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC) @El C: Without intending to come off as hostile or disrespectful, a unilateral decision to revert a close still doesn't seem justified (DS or not) if the bulk of your rationale is based on the numbers associated with the closer's account. Also, if you are going to simply dismiss the one policy decision (which is literally on the front page of WP:ANRFC) that I cited as "normal rules do not apply" and make an accusation at WP:Wikilawyering, I'd think you ought to have some substantive defense for summarily circumventing the closure challenge process and doling out that "authority" to others. If a defense and justification for such an action exists and I'm just unaware of it, I'm happy to listen and learn. HiddenLemon // talk 06:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC) To be fair, the 2013 consensus you link prohibits RfCs for being overturned solely because the closer was a non-admin. It explicitly leaves the door open to summarily overturn non-admin closes with other issues, such as being an inexperienced non-admin closer (which seems to be the rationale El C used above). In addition, ArbCom threw out an RFAR last year when a non-admin close by an experienced editor in a DS area was overturned by an administrator. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Hidden Lemon, without intending to? Gotcha. Well, I'm telling you not to close any more discussions in key WP:AP2 pages (or any key WP:ACDS pages), for the foreseeable future. And please stop using this article talk page to keep arguing against that instruction. If you need for me to log that as a sanction for you, fine — though for the life of me, I have no idea why you continue to go on and on about this, in a rules lawyer sort of way, while pretty much sidestepping any of the salient points I've made. Doesn't matter. You are misusing this article talk page at this point. If you have a problem with how I conduct ACDS matters, bring it before the Committee at WP:ARCA. Otherwise, please cease. El_C 09:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC) The reason I ask [anyone] for a source on that is because I don't see it being evidenced or true. Many participants made qualified their responses based on charges actually brought forward. But, although your close says that condition was met, I don't see any sources in the article, in the discussion, nor in any of the links you sent (though note I only clicked a few), nor am I aware of sources in general personally which say that there's been charges brought forward. Opening a case != charges, and the "wait" voters (most of them) explicitly said charges. Possibly if a wall of yes supporters linking to charges appeared it would allow for an interpretation in favour of inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of terrorism in the article based on the RfC

• later note: the RfC was closed with a positive result and then overturned with a "no consensus"; this means that nothing can be done "based on the RfC" because it has no effect; some of the below discussion may still be pertinent, but should be read in "historical context" — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• later note extra: the use of the term "terrorism", on it's own, was indeed done in the infobox (instead of the pleonastic "methods: ... tactics of terrorism") in light of the RfC, but this change also has an independent rationale (the just mentioned pleonasm issue) and does not truly emanate from the reversed RfC close which was deemed to have been inoperative anyway (ab initio), so it's fate should not be automatically tied to it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I intend to include terrorism in the article in the infobox in the following way:

methods:

• civil disorder: rioting, vandalism, looting, assault, gun violence, arson
• political subversion: conspiracy, agitation, intimidation, obstruction of justice, legislature takeover, terrorism (bombing; alleged: hostage-taking and lynching)

Do you think it's a valid application of the result of the RfC? — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Lemon what the RfC essentially allows for is to change "tactics of terrorism" to "terrorism" in the infobox. You agree? — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Hidden Lemon closed the RfC (which is fine - it had been running long enough), but there was no clear consensus. Not even a majority for "yes", really. It should have been closed as "no consensus". See section #The close above.

2. Hidden Lemon created a Wikipedia account four months ago and hasn't contributed to this article. There's no reason to confer any particular authority for deciding whether it should be "tactics of terrorism" or "terrorism" to Hidden Lemon.

3. Hidden Lemon wrote in the closing comments: It should be noted that the question of where, in what context, and the frequency of making this characterization in the article was not specifically discussed.

In conclusion: No, that's not a valid application of the RfC, because the RfC was rather unspecific from the start, and there was no actual consensus in the end. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC is a formal process and the result is "YES". You can only determine the opposite by disputing the result in a procedurally grounded way. You can't say there is no consensus at this point, it's formalized now. Your reasoning on how it's not a valid application is invalid. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure it's not that simple in a case like this. Maybe more experienced users like ProcrastinatingReader or El_C want to chime in. But if they don't want to be bothered, that's fine with me as well. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's decided matter now so it's simple. People have a right to opinion, but can't undermine the validity of the formal result, based on their divergent opinion. The only way forward is something grounded in process. I am 99.99% certain that including "terrorism" in the infobox is practically mandated now, and I didn't even !vote yes in the RfC — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm 99.99% certain that including "terrorism" in the infobox is NOT practically mandated now. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't care :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: in my opinion this close should be overturned. The process is detailed in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but in short one creates a section at WP:AN detailing why the close was flawed (which I've already written about in #The close -- that entire section could just be moved to AN really) and requested it be overturned. This is assuming the closer is not willing to undo their own close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As for the content of your request: We'll have to remove gun violence and arson from the first line. I just looked at the current sources again and searched for additional ones. "Gun violence": I only found evidence for one shot being fired (the one that killed Babbitt). It's not even clear that any rioters inside the Capitol carried guns. Some were later charged for carrying guns outside the Capitol, but there's no evidence they fired them. "Arson": One man was charged with attempting to put fire to media equipment outside the Capitol, but there's no evidence he succeeded. Even saying "attempted arson" in the infobox would go against WP:PROPORTION, because it would give the impression that the rioters tried to set something in or directly at the Capitol on fire. In the second line: There were no "bombings", "hostage-taking" or "lynching". Two pipe bombs were planted, but they didn't explode. Some of the rioters apparently planned to take hostages or even kill people, but that didn't happen. We'll have to say "attempted" or "intended".

If you want to put stronger words into the infobox, you'll have to provide sources supporting these claims. Please try to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:V. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not an indictment. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making a request. You understand that I didn't create all the content in the methods line of the infobox, right? I am working with what's there. If you want to remove gun violence, do it yourself. You lack a basic understanding of what the methods line is for, it's in the abstract. It's what methods were used by the drivers of the event, not what the event was. If the event was an attempted massacre, the method would be murder. Please don't pointlessly appeal to me not to do something counter to policy and guidelines, I find that borderline offensive.

I can distill it: if you keep adding "attempted" to the methods, I will revert it. We can resolve this with the help of someone else. As for terrorism, I will soon include "terrorism" in the infobox per the RfC; if the RfC is reversed, that can than perhaps be changed back to "tactics of terrorism".

@Another Believer: Can you weigh in? Two issues: (1) "terrorism", based of the RfC close, in the infobox (not "tactics of terrorism"), (2) no more adding of "attempted" to methods. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you're so sure that you understand much better than me what the methods line is for, I hope you can point out the policy or guideline which shows that your understanding is the correct one. In particular, please show us the policy or guideline that states that we can list "bombing" and "hostage-taking" under methods, although no bombs exploded and no hostages were taken. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention lynching, which is also there. Without knowing the backstory of this, wouldn't "Attempted" rather than "Alleged" make more sense? One could argue if there were earnest attempts at, say, lynching, but no one is alleging that lynching(s) took place, so I don't get why "Alleged" is there. Moncrief (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, I don't have to justify my actions to you in advance, and I'm not trying to persuade you, as I've tried that in edit summaries already. Moncrief, the prosecutors are alleging that there was an attempt; I think that we don't know for sure if there was a real attempt at a lynching or not, but there is an allegation that there was — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's also this kind of allegation: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capitol-riot/; the allegations in this case comes from the Reuters photographer, not from an official instance, but no one doubts that he is reporting what he saw and heard. And to be clear, I didn't add that to the infobox, it's been there for weeks — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some rioters shouted "hang Mike Pence". If I understand correctly, that's your argument for adding "lynching" to the methods list. Some rioters also shouted "fuck the Democrats". Do you think we should add "sexual intercourse" to the methods? — Chrisahn (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add it, stop gaslighting — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your question Alalch Emis, I have to say that the question itself was quite vague and though I closed it as a Yes, what that materially means for the continued editing of this article is not up to me. I stated as such at the end of my summary as Chrisahn mentioned, also noting that I've never edited this article or been involved in any way, as is required for a closer. So I don't really think I'm one to weigh in on that. Best of luck, ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 00:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC re-opened

Upon reflection, I'm just gonna go ahead and re-open the RfC. That close has been marred, as far as I'm concerned. Someone else can re-close it. Or it can be listed at WP:ANRFC (a few days from now). Otherwise, normal discussion should apply for any related changes. El_C 00:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Bit the bullet and closed. A day early than 30 days, but given the very high participation and lack of continued discussion, plus the flawed RfC question, I doubt another day would've changed the outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's fine. I've closed RfCs a week before the 30-days and earlier still. 30 days is just customary (it's when Legobot delists it), but isn't mandated. Thanks for closing the discussion after all! El_C 09:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"fight like hell'... But also "peacefully and patriotically"

The article references Donald trump's saying "fight like hell'... But in same referenced transcript he also says "peacefully and patriotically". Both should be included, but article locked so cannot edit. Kgrub (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Someone already included the context for peacefully and patriotically in the body. Trillfendi (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Kgrub, what could be more patriotic than overthrowing the presidency duly elected by a margin of millions, after all? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a matter of context and weight. It should indicate something that the reliable sources deem important the "fight like hell" bit, and the "peacefully and patriotically" fragment of a completely different passage, uttered much earlier, not so much. We should analyze this to see whether the sources are uncharitable (biased) here, or if when they weighed the impact of his words, they did something understandable – while not veering into original research. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hard to see how this would not be OR as we are judging sources content.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We can always look for bias, and when sources make statements based on evidence equally available to us, which statements may be contrary to that evidence. If Trump was quoted out of context (he didn't say "fight like hell" in an imperative mood for example, like the quote indicates), that's a problem that can be addressed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Judging (for ourselves) the mood someone was in (by tone, inflection, body language) is totally OR. All we could do is look at whether or not it is an accurate quote, not anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Imperative mood is a grammatical mood — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

But whether something is is subjective, not objective. What you think is not an order I might see as a direct order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We need to know English grammar to edit the English Wikipedia. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There is in fact no such policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Grammar_and_usage ~ it's impossible to eschew grammar; you can't even read a Wikipedia policy without grammar

Alalch Emis, sources that take a holistic view of his statements on the day - especially ion the context of the invited speakers and the blatantly antisemitic propaganda film that was shown - tend to emphasis the "fight like hell" and minimise any references to "peace" because the course of his rhetoric over more than two months was consistently and dominantly violent. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

JzG Yeah, in my first reply in this section I was saying the same thing just in an abstracted way (context and weight). For this reason I would consider giving the "peacefully" even less prominence in the article. If RS don't say "yeah and btw he also said peacefully" neither should this article, despite this being contained in the transcript (also a reliable secondary source), because we understand why his speech has been covered the way it has been. So, yeah, I might have an extreme position regarding "peacefully", probably non-inclusion. At the same time I'm apprehensive about language such as "...urged to 'fight like hell'". Not all RS find it appropriate to report what he said in this way. Those writers that don't cut the sentence to "fight like hell" (and make it look like a command) are doing a better job, and we can also understand this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, the stand-out for me is:

• “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
• “We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”
• “Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.”

This makes no sense at all in the context of a gathering in that place, at that time, with that audience, other than as a specific exhortation to go to the Capitol and directly intervene with the Congressional vote count. It is possible that Trump really did believe that all people had to do was go to the Capitol and shout a bit and Congress genuinely would subvert democracy for him, but it's really, really easy to interpret it exactly as numerous members of the mob did, according to the evidence, which was a direct instruction from the President to intervene. And that intervention - whether peaceful or not - was unlawful. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You put it very well, and this is a prime argument for incitement. But to say that the exact way in which he did incitement is by commanding them "fight like hell(!)" (these words in isolation denoting imperative mood, and nothing else) is too interpretative. It changes the grammar of what he said, which is not good. That's a classic misquote, even if material implications that follow are not great. His first sentence you cited will always be known as the "fight like hell" statement, it's like a tag, a sticker, but it should not be ascribed to him in isolation as a clause, but as a fragment. That's why I'm for minimizing the use of this fragment here, let the media do it, it's apt for WP:HEADLINES but not encyclopedic. This is now a philosophical issue, since the second sentence of the second paragraph has already been subject to relevant change. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agree with that, Alalch Emis, but now that you have called attention to the second paragraph, it could be said (well, I'll say it now) that the sentence could be trimmed to read no more than

'On the morning of January 6, at a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, Trump repeated false claims of election irregularities and spoke of a need to "fight" ',

and leave the rest to the refs. there and to the article's main body. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have had enough of this, we cannot judge RS by subjective standards as to their accuracy, and I will oppose any edit based on OR.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump didn't say "fight like hell" like most reliable sources cite him. It's a misquote. He said "we fight like hell ... (indicative mood)", not "fight like hell (can only be imperative mood)". If you omit the first word in the sentence you may get a different meaning (different grammatical mood in this case), which is what happened here. The issue is: did the media do it intentionally? I don't think they did. This is a multi-faceted discussion. I still think it's acceptable to note he was cited saying "fight like hell", because it has become a recognizable phrase, but the context should be explained. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

" “We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.” " is what he said, that reads like a call to fight for your country to me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The important point here is that it doesn't matter what the statements read like to Alalch Emis, Slatersteven, or Guy Macon. To avoid WP:OR there must be a reliable secondary source that does the analysis. In particular, Alalch Emis' "We should analyze this to see..." is exactly what we do not do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no original research in identifying a misquote by comparing a citation with a transcript. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The "comparing" part is where people are getting hung up on. It's not our job to "compare". There are people who do that job whom we regard as reliable sources.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No, people who do their job don't do the job of comparing but of reporting. They report two things:

1. Trump said: "fight like hell"
2. Trump said: "We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

These two things are contrary to each other. We have the transcript to see that when they cite Trump as saying #2 they cite him correctly, and when they cite him as saying #1, they misquote him. This is not original research, but using reliable sources to best effect. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is how WSJ reported what he said, they didn't cut it down to "fight like hell"[16]; a breakdown from NYT[17] Two months after he lost the election, Mr. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they could still stop Mr. Biden from becoming president if they “fight like hell,” a formulation that suggested they act and change things, not merely raise their voices in protest.. This sentence, although it contains only the discussed fragment, doesn't present it as a command to fight like hell (... urged to "fight like hell"), but as a general idea. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And you want to change the clear words in the above WSJ source to a completely fabricated "doesn't present it as a command to fight like hell but as a general idea"...why? Please explain why you think we should prefer something you made up to what is in the source you cited. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, exactly. Take him seriously, but not literally? Sure. But that is unambiguous in either reading. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)