Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Change "s" to "S" in the article title RELEASEtheRHYS (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No, does not comply with Wikipedia's manual of style. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:TITLEFORMAT. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2021

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → The Trump insurrection – This was not a "storming", or a "protest" or even a "riot", but an armed insurrection. Several news outlets are now referring to this incident as "The Trump insurrection". I think it's a more descriptive and historical title to the event, for historys sake. This is particularly true given that the participants erected a gallows outside the capital with clear intent to lynch someone. Several of the participants carried zip cuffs with clear intent to take hostages, possibly with the intent to lynch someone outside the building. The proposed title is more accurate of the event and is more concise and historical of this event Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural close because there have been multiple move discussions already. Pinging @Sceptre: as the previous move closer. --RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed, we can't keep having move discussions every few hours. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the RM request. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

shot intruder

In this article (compliments to all the editors) it states that the fatality ..."was shot by law enforcement "... whilst in the specific article Ashli Babbitt it says ...It is unclear who shot her.... with both being referenced. Until it is clear who shot the woman should this article read that it is unclear. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 09:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(7:48) "Multiple individuals forced entry into the Capitol building and attempted to gain access to the House- and attempted to gain access to the House Room, which was still in Session. They were confronted by plainclothes US Capitol police officers, at which time one Capitol police officer discharged their service weapon striking an adult female. She was transported to a local hospital where, after all life-saving efforts failed, she was pronounced deceased." The quote is from Police Department Chief Robert Contee as noted at 4:18 in the video. Given that the DC Police Department Twitter account is the official account for the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, I would say that it is clear enough based on Contee's words. There are aspects that are unclear, but those will be dealt with pending their investigation. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, a clear good reference. As the article Ashli Babbitt has been merged the problem (if there was one) no longer exists. Ta. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

hello, I'm not good at editing the page or I would try. I hav an issue with the "tally marks" section. the death is listed under United States government. it is noted that the loss is a former U.S.A.F. member, which would make her part of the us government, BUT she was also shot because she was part of the "storm" which would make her casualty on the left side of the "tally marks" section. I wish I had better vocabulary, but as a donator to this site, I'd like to think it is accurately portrayed. I use it for information, and falsely labeled information causes a loss in faith.32ashu (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)32ashu

We have since removed this. Bear in mind we are all volunteers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Treason and Insurrection and Sedition

WP needs to (for obvious reasons) be superhumanly careful with these three words. They may fit, but they could quickly be editorialized and get out of hand. Whereas, I, a regular "dude" may find them appropriate; WP may (and some users) take odds or offense with their inclusion. But, let's face facts, if "coup" or "attempted coup" and "insurrection" are proper terms, we can only assume the "treason" and "sedition" may equally work as well. I'm not saying this because the words are used heavily (or at all) in the main article; I'm saying this because I want WP to simply "be careful, and let calmer editors prevail." The dust must settle, fuller perspectives will shine through like a beacon, and the truth will win the day.

America will rebound from these events. The Union is stronger than a rabble storming a building, after all. Thank you for reading this. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the terms, so not using them in Wikipedia would be wrong and inaccurate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, I think the majority of regular editors have this in mind, if you've read the talk page. I've not seen anyone mention "treason" or "sedition", for that matter. But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places. "Insurrection" is widely used, and in probably dozens upon dozens of reliable sources at this point, in editorial voice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable, but slanted sources. It's important to also attribute these characterizations, and keep it out of wikivoice. 2607:9880:1A38:138:AC21:BA4E:B6EC:478E (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. A murder should never be characterized as a "slaughter", no matter how brutal it is. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Characterization as domestic terrorism

The following discussion might be of interest to the editors of this page: Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States § Attack on the United States Capitol (2021). --MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in the page move debates above, the debate over the title of this article needs to center on the descriptive term for what happened yesterday. MarioGom's comment adds one to the list ("attack"). So, what would be the preferred term to center the title discussion around? a) "attack", b) "breach", c) "insurrection", d) "protest", e) "storming", f) "standoff", g) something else? -- RobLa (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RobLa, for the overall events, I would call them protests. I still think the original title was better, but there was already an RFC so I drop the stick there. Storming looks quite accurate and neutral for the... storming of the Capitol. Attack would have made sense if the protesters actually killed or tried to kill people at the Capitol or something like that. I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate here. By the way, attack was used at Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States to imply it's a terrorist attack. MarioGom (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

They are no protestors neither terrorists. They were far-right crowd that attempted to make a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a very good question; I think that the actions clearly exceed what we usually call "protests". Ziko (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Babbitt shot once

As I can't touch modern American political articles, I ask someone else correct this purely physical error. Article says she was shot by "law enforcement officers" (those who drew handguns are also called "guards"), later died of "injuries". Sources generally say she was only injured once by a single US Capitol Police officer, per Chief Robert J. Contee III in at least one of nine existing citations. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed the reference to "injuries". I would recommend reviewing WP:TBAN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, GorillaWarfare one can have more than one injury from a single gunshot. At close range, an entry and exit wound is, I imagine, likely, and damage to multiple organs/systems is multiple "injuries". GPinkerton (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect so too, but the wording can be avoided. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Because I was advised to not post here, but was pinged for comment, I believe saying I have no further comment at the moment is a proper compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk) 09:52 8 January 2021 (EST)

The video of her being shot shows a plainclothes capitol police officer stepping out of an alcove, firing one shot at her from a distance of 6 - 8 feet as she is climbing through a window into the Speakers Lobby". No Additional shots are fired in this area by Law Enforcement or rioters. Sources referring to her having multiple wounds are most likely referring to the entry and exit wound from the bullet on her body.

After reading the example at WP:TBAN, replacing "weather" as appropriate, I am confident that an objection to accusing multiple people of killing someone only one person is reported to have killed is not a TBAN violation. It is possibly a BLP violation, though neither killer is identified in the lead sentence. But it is very obviously wronger to state two or more officers at the scene shot the same woman than it is to discuss anatomy and arithmetic in an apolitical section of an otherwise largely politicized talk page. I will defend my right to raise and respond to legitimate questions of fundamental importance herein, with or without express written permission.

GPinkerton, you are correct. Dependant on trajectory, one bullet can cause multiple individually fatal injuries. But one bullet cannot and should never have been suggested could come from more than one "law enforcement officer", howsoever the individual(s) in question shall henceforth be described.

Just drop the fake S, people, we can tell it's incorrect regardless of any perceived political differences, just plain math and English analysis of existing police statements, presently appended inline. If my polite demand is not met within a very reasonable 72 hours, I may be forced to do it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, it's done. GPinkerton (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed "officers" instead of explicitly relaying how it was just one. I formally accept this as "good enough, just less specific" and rest my case. Thank you, my friend! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• InedibleHulk, this is a rather clear violation of your American Politics topic ban. I know you yourself have described your editing this topic as an "obsession", but that doesn't excuse the violation. You've been around long enough to know better. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

According to my search results, I've described exactly one thing as an "obsession". It was from June 19, 2015, and the context is currently unmentionable but verifiable. I forgive you for misquoting me, so forgive me for carefully and politely requesting a math error in a Main Page lead be fixed per source. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction, found two more. In the summer of '14, I described a bunch of monsters' twisted desires; two summers later, it was related to AP2. But neither were about me, just by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit on Jimbo Wales' talk page, as I noted in my reply on EvergreenFir's talk page. However, I've seen you refer to it before and after using various euphemisms, including on my own talk page, where you phrased it as "I have a history of taking of my shirt" in the edit summary, per the popular 90s song. I'm not "after you". But you are clearly unable to abide by a topic ban in this area, and it should either be extended to an indefinite ban, and/or other sanctions taken. Dude, it's easy. Just stay away from AP pages. Don't respond to this. 12:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

More videos

Please include if anyone sees fit:

A Message from President Donald J. Trump Jan 7 2021

1 7 21 Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany Holds a Press Briefing

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, Victor, that first video with Trump looks seriously doctored. Do we know if that first video is a legitimate video? I suppose I could go over on WP:Commons and figure it out, but I'm lazy!  :-D -- RobLa (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RobLa this video was posted by Trump's official Twitter social media account yesterday (U.S. time), so I'm entirely sure that it's legitimate. :) Nick Camarillo (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What Nick Camarillo said. Victor Grigas (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rioters?

Nazi sympathizers and terrorist would be more in order. weapons and bombs found? need more proof? 37.188.243.3 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. We have an ongoing discussion regrading the characterization of these events as terrorism on this page. Regarding "Nazi sympathizers", I'd find reliable sources that use that terminology. I think that characterization of the rioters as Nazi sympathizers gives WP:UNDUE to the minority of rioters that were carrying Nazi symbols. Jdphenix (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts matter. One of these fascists thugs had even a "Camp Auschwitz Shirt" on! Look with our own eyes: How World Leaders Are Reacting To Capitol Hill Riot | TODAY. Letting far right extremist groups run wild, emboldened by much of the Conservative leadership and the right-wing media. --87.170.200.180 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts do matter, which is why we rely on reliable sources. There certainly appears to have been some Nazi sympathizers in attendance, given the shirt and various other photos circulating, but we cannot call all attendees Nazi sympathizers without some serious reliable sourcing to back it up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Members of crowd heard shouting 'Sieg Heil'", Neonazis-tattoos "including a Valknut, a Yggdrasil, and a Mjölnir", "Demonstrant mit einem mit „Camp Auschwitz“-bedruckten Kapuzenpullover", NS-Parole »work brings freedom« (»Arbeit macht frei«), "Konföderierten-Flagge, die für Sklaverei und Rassismus steht, ein weiterer Mann zeigt den Hitler-Gruß"... Reliable Sources from Germany, where Nazis are a specialty:

• https://www.mopo.de/news/panorama/bekannte-rechte-auschwitz-pulli---sieg-heil--rufe--das-sind-trumps-anhaenger-im-kapitol-37900312
• https://www.spiegel.de/stil/jake-angeli-was-ueber-den-qanon-schamanen-aus-dem-us-kapitol-bekannt-ist-a-be3f2bb7-6b59-4e76-9ffd-9abedffe1c3a
• https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1146689.sturm-auf-das-kapitol-faschist-terrorist-oder-nur-ein-patriot.html
• https://plus.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/veteranin-neo-nazi-abgeordneter-q-glaeubige-das-sind-die-menschen-die-das-kapitol-stuermten-86918.html
• https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article223901406/Jake-Angeli-Wer-ist-der-Mann-mit-den-Bueffelhoernern.html - need more proof? --93.211.211.47 (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some rioters were neo-nazis. Some were also neo-confederates. Some were "proud boys". Some were neither of those three and just generic Trump supporters. The fact that neo-nazis were present should be in the article, but in a list of the types of participants, rather than as an adjective describing them all. If the facts and reliable sources show that some, yet not all, of the rioters were neo-nazis, then that is what this article should say. Caleb M1 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

100% Agree with Caleb M1. Some in fact belonged to multiple of these categories but not others. This is not appropriate. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox images and caption

"Top to bottom, left to right: Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to supporters at the "Save America" rally, protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza"

Was there a Black Lives Matter protest occuring at the same time as the events described in this article? Can someone tell me why the Black Lives Matter image and caption have been included? It's incongruous and genuinely confusing; it gives the impression the storming of the Capitol and Black Lives Matter protests are somehow connected. Thanks. Anotheranothername (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anotheranothername "Black Lives Matter Plaza" is the name of a public square in Washington, D.C.; the caption is merely stating that the depicted events occurred there, and is not claiming any connection to the Black Lives Matter movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNimon‎ (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anotheranothername, see: Black Lives Matter Plaza GPinkerton (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Doh, reading comprehension failure. Thanks for the reply. Anotheranothername (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bellingcat confirms Ashli Babbitt shot at 2:44 EST

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/ Zhould be incorporated into the sources. 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:48DB:C29A:9C27:7E77 (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proud boys

I have removed the following:

The Proud Boys posted messages boasting and taking credit for causing "absolute terror".

The source says:

… the Proud Boys openly supported the Capitol insurrection. "Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots."

Support for is not "taking credit for".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

The source specifically says "posted messages boasting and taking credit for the riot". This edit should be reversed.--YannickFran (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Restored. EEng 10:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that the Independent says that. The two social media items they cite don't support it however.

For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified

— Telegram

"Our collective strength" refers to the entirety of the protestors, the Proud Boys themselves being a small organisation.

Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots.

— Parler

While the Independent is generally a RS, we are not obliged to use them when their conclusions seem tenuous. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

If anyone can link to the Telegram message, it might be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Missing Trump quote?

Being in the UK, I don't plan to edit this article directly, but I'd like to raise a key omissions as I see it. It relates to Trump's clear encouragement of the rally-goers (rioters-to-be) to march on the Capitol buildings, and was in videos of his speech in the earlier rally that day. The key section, which evidences how they were incited to leave the rally and 'progress' to the government buildings, seems to be: "After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol,... and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.” Perhaps the second part isn't so essential, but the first part seems highly relevant to the background to the rioting. (and just commenting that Trump did not go with them, but returned to the White House, I believe, to watch events unfold on TV). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Trump deliberately attempted a coup ...

See here:

"Multiple European security officials told Insider that President Donald Trump appeared to have tacit support among US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex in Wednesday's coup attempt."

Count Iblis (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The specific author, Mitch Prothero, seems legit, and has written for respected sources before, but Business Insider is a questionable source per WP:RSP, known to publish unvetted articles without distinguishing them from properly done journalism. I'd appreciate waiting for a more reliable source before including such information in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Second Jayron32's position to wait for a more reliable published source, as BI is questionable to use, especially in such a contentious article. Builder018 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In the spirit of encouraging bold editing, it wouldn't be terrible to put it in a section "Speculated Cooperation" with appropriate modifiers like "alleged", "suspect", and "stated", and explicitly name the persons making the statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose these additions. Those are very, very serious allegations to make, which could border on libel. I say we need to have confirmation from many reliable sources (which Business Insider is not) to add this allegation. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Photographs of rioters

@EEng: No, certainly not joking. This is an article about an event; photographs of people in which everything but the face and upper body is cropped out – leaving no contextual information, no sense of where or when the photographs were taken, nor who these people are or what role they played – plainly tell the reader nothing useful. They're also a clear WP:BLPCRIME violation, explicitly linking low-profile living people who have not been convicted of crimes to criminal activity. It's such an obvious point that WP:NOT doesn't cover it, but Wikipedia is not for aiding the police in their investigations (even if it appears they could do with all the help they can get!). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Creating a section on iconography and slogans used by rioters

Hi all

One thing that feels missing to me from this article is an explanation of the very visible iconography used by rioters to help explain who they were, which groups they belong to and speak to their motivations. E.g blue lives matter flags, people dressed as vikings (white supremacists who want 'racial purity', a whites only America), the use of the 6MWE slogan (6 million wasn't enough, referring to the wish for a second holocaust) and QAnon signs.

Can anyone suggest a structure for a section like this or any iconography that should be included? Here are some references

Vikings

• https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2020/07/white-supremacists-are-misappropriating-norse-mythology-says-expert.html
• https://time.com/5569399/viking-history-white-nationalists/

6WME

• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/
• https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3z9aj/a-national-guard-twitch-streamer-said-6-million-wasnt-enough-on-stream
• https://www.tmz.com/2020/12/23/racist-proud-boys-t-shirt-says-6-million-wasnt-enough/

Blue Lives Matter

QAnon

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel this is particularly notable or due in relation to this specific article. Builder018 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this the appropriate article for the proposed section. Perhaps a section in the articles of those groups would be more appropriate. DCai169 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Does anyone agree that “2021 storming of the US Capitol” is quite a mouthful for a article title? I propose naming it to

“2021 US Capitol Siege”

thoughts? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruhmoney77, there was an extensive discussion on renaming above. please go through.ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capitol Insurrection. Straightforward, fits the dictionary definition better than any alternative, is supported by sources. Adding a date not required (for now). Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The choice of "storming" was a long and detailed discussion.

Note that “2021 US Capitol Storming” is as many words as “2021 US Capitol Siege”. It looks long only because of the "of the" and "United States" being spelled out. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Capitol Police

I propose that we revise the following line which implies a conclusion drawn on inadequate evidence (specifically the word "allowing" is an interpretation that has not been substantiated):

Footage emerged on social media of police allowing rioters through barricades into the Capitol, and one officer was filmed taking a "selfie" with a rioter inside the building.

Per nbcnews:

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said he wants to give police "the benefit of the doubt" and hopes they were attempting to de-escalate Wednesday's event when they appeared to let pro-Trump rioters inside the legislative building.

"Sometimes when you don't have enough personnel, you can't stand and fight a large crowd like that," he said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, noting that there were not enough law enforcement personnel on scene.

Furthermore, per Politifact:

We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim.

Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”

Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat. 8.45.132.4 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Murder in infobox

The "methods" section in the infobox lists murder, citing a New York Post article about the death of the policeman who was struck with a fire extinguisher. However, the article does not mention murder specifically, and the New York Post is considered to be an unreliable source per here. As such I believe murder should be removed from the infobox. Spengouli (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

After reading the source, I agree that murder should not be listed as a method. DCai169 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Second the removal, it seems incredibly improper for the circumstance. Builder018 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "Assault" would be a better parameter. Since the death was due to an assault with a fire hydrant. The rioter in question most likely had no intent to kill but that is speculation on my part.ExplosiveResults (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Implemented conversion of "murder" to "assault" ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A federal murder investigation is going to be launched, but at this point it has not been officially named murder. Assault is more accurate. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN had "most watched day in history"

Worth adding?

• https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cnn-has-most-watched-day-ever-with-capitol-insurrection-coverage/467372/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2021/01/07/attack-on-capitol-pushes-cnn-to-its-most-watched-day-in-history/?sh=4695fe183121
• https://thehill.com/homenews/media/533239-cnn-says-it-had-its-most-watched-day-in-history-amid-capitol-riots
• https://deadline.com/2021/01/capitol-siege-ratings-cnn-highest-day-donald-trump-1234666894/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not against it but in my opinion it’s trivial and a fluke; also doesn’t take into account people (e.g. myself) who were in public and watched it on livestreams rather than television. Trillfendi (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this video real?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM6h9elyTY Charles Juvon (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, but it was filmed before Trump made his speech. [1] Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please remember wp:OR. Primary sources, such as the video linked, cannot be used to advance a point or position, unless it is to supplement a reliable secondary source. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A criminal investigation might tie up Capitol police or Congressional video for a long time, so we should use what we have at this time, and then replace it - as was done with the Nashville bombing (see article page history). Charles Juvon (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Photos of suspects

I've just removed a grid of "Persons sought by police and the FBI in connection with the attack" and a "Photo of the suspected pipe bomber" per WP:BLPCRIME. We absolutely should not be publishing these photos until the people have at least been charged with crimes, if not convicted. Does no one remember what happened with the Boston Marathon bombing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely the right decision. We're not an FBI wanted list board. — Czello 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with your decision. That was absolutely inappropriate to have in the article, it's probably also a legal liability. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

100% agree EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I enabled the editor who added the images with this response. I did not perceive the additional questions that I should have asked, and for that I am sorry. I'm still new to editing, and I hope that this can be a valuable lesson for me. DCai169 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree (and said as much earlier today). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged the photos for deletion as well under G10 - they could be by themselves a BLPCRIME and BLP Defamation problem. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick attacker

Have there been any reports that have given details about who it was that hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher? Like a description of the attacker? WakandaQT (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please keep in mind Wikipedia:BLPCRIME when editing. DCai169 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports about the fire extinguisher. I have not had time to do a chronology to see if this is the latest official statement, but the police statement about his death did not mention it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Trump is a very bad man but in an encyclopedia we have to be entirely factual. No court judgment have been made stating claims were false. Instead, they were sometimes deemed unsubstantiated and sometimes dismissed without judicial comment. A false claim would be if the judge heard a case then Trump was found guilty of perjury for stating a false claim.

Current version, lede, 2nd paragraph Following several months of false claims by Trump about voting fraud in the November 2020 election, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to protest the certified election results and demand

Suggested, encyclopedia version Following several months of unsubstantiated claims by Trump about voting fraud Vanny089 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - This request is incoherent as written. Unless it is rewritten clearly, there is nothing actionable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I second the above, and would like to further note that a legal judgment is not necessary for Wikipedia to say that certain claims are false. If it is documented in an appropriate source, it is included. RexSueciae (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rewritten: despite the current status, users have edited over one another. The consensus is that the rate of editing should be decreased (see comments about "waiting until the dust has settled") rather than increased. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP car crash

The section "Identification of rioters" has severe problems. I have already removed a reference to someone being there when the source said "someone resembling foo".

Other people in this section who are unlikely to have been in the building. And even people who were did not necessarily take part in the riot.

There are various options:

1. remove those who cannot currently be labelled as rioters.
2. create new sub-sections
3. change the section title - but to what?

Comments? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Remove them all for now, Rich. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just now removed the entire section and started a discussion about it a few sections down. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspension of President Trump's Twitter account as a result of the event

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684877634838528?s=20

I've added a minor section in the "aftermath" page but it should likely be expanded and possibly moved to a more appropriate location. Builder018 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#President Donald Trump. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you or someone else wants to either merge that section to mine, or merge my section to there, go ahead. Builder018 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol

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

---

If it's called a coup attempt, howabout this title: 2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol Warlightyahoo (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Congress members own responsibility for policing of the Capitol

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

---

Is there a place in the article to mention that, given that Congress is the exclusive source of authority for the Congressional officials who constitute the Capitol Police Board, it is remarkable that Senate and House members seem to be willing to blame anyone but themselves for the insufficiency of the Police deployment to secure the Capitol from the riotous break in? Qexigator (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We could debate your sore misunderstanding of how police work, but since this suggestion is entirely OR, it's not going to happen. Closing per utter lack of any actual source + inaccuracy. Kingsif (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol

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

---

If it's called a coup attempt, howabout this title: 2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol Warlightyahoo (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

MOS:LEADCITE and readability

Do we really need so many citations in the lead? "The riots and storming of the Capitol have been described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." currently has six references on it, this seems excessive as it's clearly explained later in the article, too. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. This is a recent and controversial event, so erring on the side of caution by adding citations is probably the smartest move, at least in the short term. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but six citations on such a statement still seems excessive. One or two per statement, maximum. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The six sources are being used to support the use of three very specific and politically charged terms (insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism). The use of each of those terms needs to be sourced, so more sources makes sense. (Essentially, instead of putting 2-3 sources next to each of the three terms, the sources were all put at the end.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be put next to the word they are backing up, then? Would be more useful to readers than a block of sources. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Elliot321: that having the citations closer to the words they're supporting would be helpful here and want to add that WP:CITEBUNDLEing for multiple sources supporting a single claim would also help. Wingedserif (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif, problem is, nobody cares about citations in the lead. It is not current anymore, as it only occurs in Jan 6, so it is encouraged to have the least amount of citations, as they must be covered about in the body. GeraldWL 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, it's still a current event. I'm not sure the lead of the article only summarizes the rest of the article which might be the bigger issue. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Elliot321, yes, it simply summarizes the article; a lead is essentially a summary. It's not current but recent, there's a big line differing them. Though it will still be hard to clean the article, the event has passed, and it might be easier to do so. I tried to, but the high activity of the article caused several edit conflicts and I gave up in eventual. Using an In use tag I think is also ineffective, so I'll wait until activity slows. This debate also initially occurred in the Talk of COVID-19 pandemic; as you can see, its lead has minimal citations now. GeraldWL 13:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis yeah, edit conflicts can be quite a pain (were you here yesterday? it was impossible to get anything in).

Anyway, I'm just somewhat opposed to slapping an ugly template on the page. At least, wait until the "recent event" template is removed and the page calms down a bit, meanwhile, having a few extra sources isn't really a big problem. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

This article was extended confirmed protected, but no longer has any protection. I think it should remain extended confirmed protected for the next two weeks at the very least, and at least semi-protected for the foreseeable future. --Tataral (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agree, this is still a hot and developing topic. When the ECP expired I took the opportunity to try and make some edits I was just about to request. But now I realize it's really hard to collaborate on this without a lot of experience in applying NPOV to biased sources. --Frogging101 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected until January 19; with diffs of new semi-confirmed disruption provided, I expect that a RFPP request will succeed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Comment from the protecting admin): There's currently 5 days of semi-protection and 10 days of move protection. Any admin is welcome to fiddle with these parameters as they see fit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

New paragraph?

I tried to do this edit but I’m on a mobile device and the page is so long it just freaked out.

Can you move the section where the sentence about the bombs to a different paragraph than all the deaths?

It’s really a separate thought and it’s getting lost. I expect overtime that the bombs will expand. As an editor it bothers me to have the two things together and I was trying to fix it but I could not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the bombs are unrelated to the deaths. I have split it off several times but others keep reconnecting it, probably to reduce the number of lead paragraphs. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Navigation template

Improvements welcome to the newly created Template:2021 US Capitol Storming ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

...Is that really a very necessary template? Seems to me like it basically functions as a "List of significant figures in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" article, but in template form. Builder018 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The template is not necessary at this time. It should be quickly deleted. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not create and I don't feel strongly either way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Some PD images of troops coming to the capitol here

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6476120/airmen-head-washington-dc Victor Grigas (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

These would be relevant to Inauguration of Joe Biden, but there are limited mentions of the inauguration in this article, mainly a mini-paragraph related to Secret Service reviewing the overall plans for the inauguration. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

"...he regretted committing to a orderly transition of power" should say "...he regretted committing to an orderly transition of power" Dmperrin (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Geogene (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

targetting of Pence

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

---

I think its fair to say that Pence was a specific target for some of the protesters and I think the article should more clearly reflect that beyond mentioning him being evacuated with other members of congress. sources: https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/details-emerge-trump-instructed-mob-lynch-vice-president-mike-pence-not-overturning-election/, and the Parler message from Lin Wood quoted in this WaPo story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/trump-online-siege/. Also includes stuff like claiming Pence was a child molester. Clearly a larger theme of extreme Pro-Trumpers turning against Pence as part of the perceived establishment. Ive seen messages circulating of conspiracy theorists claiming Pence was replaced by a clone around 2018, though Im not sure that has been reported on by any reputable outlet beyond some verified journalists on Twitter. jonas (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

some examples for that last part so I dont sound like an insane person https://twitter.com/rothschildmd/status/1292274700303790080 https://twitter.com/SAMOYEDCORE/status/1311897632571154434 https://twitter.com/NoNameGirl8686/status/1343577872498352129 https://twitter.com/QanonAnonymous/status/1347035952695308288 https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1347465600084234241 https://f2n2.mk/en/mike-pence-is-not-a-clone-much-less-executed/ jonas (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

"Under consideration"

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

---

Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Sentences like "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration" do not belong in this article because they will be removed soon, and replaced either with "The Department of Justice indicted..." or the DoJ won't.

There are many speculative sentences in this article that don't make sense in an encyclopedia. Before adding something, consider what it will look like in a few weeks DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Speculative sentences make sense, IF they're properly sourced to reliable sources, and there is no better information available to make the sentences non-speculative; however, your quoted example, "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration", is not speculative - it states exactly what is happening, that the DOJ has said they're considering charges. Builder018 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Storming of the Capital equated with the Storming of the Bastille

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

---

So the consensus position for naming is to equate a putsch by white supremacists with the precipitating event of a pro-democratic, liberal revolution? How can I request another formal renaming discussion? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how the word "storming" casts any judgement on the morality or ideology of the event. I personally don't like these people, but a group did storm the Capitol. Disagreeing with their motives does not affect whether the word choice is appropriate or not. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I can think of many reasons why "storming" might be seen as puffery, this is not one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Inauguration security

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

---

I might just be unable to find it, but should security preparations for the upcoming inauguration directly caused by this event be included? For example:

Crews also erected on the Capitol grounds tall, black metal fences designed to be impossible to climb. Similar structures have previously been used around the White House and in other cities that faced prolonged demonstrations.

Roy Blunt, the Republican senator who chairs the congressional committee preparing for the inaugural ceremonies, has estimated that the number of participants who will be allowed into secure perimeter areas at the inauguration will be dramatically reduced to below 3,000, down from the 200,000 or so who are normally included.

Or should they be included in the inauguration article itself? Juxlos (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

As its about the inauguration it should be in the article about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Ashli Babbit, the woman who was killed

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

---

This person had an article but it was speedily deleted and supposed to be merged but was not merged.

Who is this person?????? Many news articles but I want a concise summary here on Wikipedia, the World's News Source.

The police officer who shot her has been suspended. Wikipedia needs at least a separate section on her in the article. Vanny089 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, a full section is WP:UNDUE in this very high-profile main article on the attack. A short mention, maybe two or three sentences, is appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the discussion was conclude to redirect the article (NOT merge the text) back to this one (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt). Also, Wikipedia is not the World's News Source. You seem to be mistaken about that. --Jayron32 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to include the names of the protestors who were killed at the rally. Maybe not full biographies, but definitely include them. W33KeNdr (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@W33KeNdr: Disagree. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor a newspaper, and in the case of low-profile individuals whose sole notability is their death/injury as part of a violent insurrection, the article's text should presume in favor of their privacy. Obviously it's important to note any deaths from this incident, but not to unduly publicize the identities of people who many sources would describe as terrorists. RoxySaunders (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

may discover that the other 3 deaths are not notable but Babbit is notable because of much coverage in reliable sources. However, like Melania Trump, I don't care do u. Carry on with wp. Vanny089 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Very good reference

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55581206

It is is on the BBC

Vanny089 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think an unarmed protestor being killed by the police at a rally is an important part of this story, and including their new had been a Wikipedia norm for all protests. W33KeNdr (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said previously, it's absolutely important to the story that a woman was shot while she and a mob of armed protesters attempted to force their way through a broken window into a chamber of evacuated congresspeople. This woman's identity MIGHT be notable if she receives sustained coverage in reliable sources, or if she is recognized as a police martyr, and her death sparks a movement in her name. At this moment, it's too early to tell, and we should err on the side of caution. RoxySaunders (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There's agreement that there's precedent for adding it, but the question is whether it's the correct organization. Given how long this article is becoming, it would be appropriate to move all the coverage and facts about the Babbit incident to a separate page. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a mention that an unarmed protestor was one of victims of police violence at the rally is extremely important. W33KeNdr (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

First time since war of 1812

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

---

I don't think this is really accurate or at least lacking context due to the 1954 United States Capitol shooting. I understand that overrun is different than attack, but I think the context is needed. Here is a source to back up [2] 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thought the same thing when I saw that line, there was also a 1998 shooting. [3] Flalf^Talk 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be removed. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this from the lede (at least for now). The term "sack" doesn't seem to apply here, and there's been violence (shootings and bombings) more recently than 1814. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit you were referencing, and it seems to have returned, Power~enwiki. Neutrality, just tagging you to make sure that you were aware of the rationale behind the deletion. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Zanimum, thanks. "Sacking" isn't accurate (and I removed that), but the sources cited are pretty clear that this is the first time that the Capitol itself has been "overrun" or "breached" in this way. The other attacks (shootings, bombings) etc. didn't involve this kind of mob attack. If we wanted to include the "first time since 1814" fact but also wanted to put in a footnote about previous incidents of violence, that would be fine by me. Neutrality^talk 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Overrun is ... barely acceptable. I assume this will be revisited in a few weeks, but it's fine with "overrun" for now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I see you trying to hold the line and want to thank you for it. When an article has a word like "overrun", you know it needs to be edited. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

New Name

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

---

I think we can come up with a better name per Wikipedia:TITLE, I don't think you need the title for it. Also, I am not so sure about the word storming. Riots seem a little better. I will hold off on a move request, but I think something like United States Capitol Riots. Casprings (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think "protest" or "rally" are the most accurate. W33KeNdr (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Protests was the original name, and both riots and rally were discussed above. See Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Closed_discussions_re:_page_title, a consensus on the current title was made after an RfC. Flalf^Talk 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened to that discussion? I don't see it now. --Chronodm (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Found it — moved to the Archive page. My NPOV objections re: Stormfront, Daily Storm, and QAnon stand -- this language is not NPOV, even if some of the media are also using it. --Chronodm (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much discussion on riot. If we look at WP:RSes, there is alot of support.

ABC: US Capitol riots by Donald Trump supporters end with four deaths, including a woman shot by police

BBC: Capitol riots: What happens on Capitol Hill?

CNBC: More than 50 police officers were injured at the pro-Trump riot at the Capitol

I also think we need to add Trump to show the connection. Perhaps Trump's United States Capitol Riots. Casprings (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It should not be called storming, protest, or rally. It was an insurrection. Call it what it is, not what you want it to be. Sources calling it insurrection:

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

The list goes on and on. Maybe call it United States Capitol insurrection. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I can buy that. If sources say it was a a violent uprising against an authority or government we should say so.Casprings (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Every one of those sources listed refer to the Capitol being stormed (mostly in the first paragraph). Several of them only use the term ‘insurrection’ in the article title and not in the body of the article, often within quotes i.e. not in the voice of the source. Insurrection appears to be used as a loaded term. At best, the cited sources indicate no more than equal support for storming and insurrection. It seems to me using dictionary definitions that storming is more appropriate - insurrection gives more political heft to what was simply rabble violence. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's claimed that the discussion has been closed, but I don't see where it was discussed or who decided it was closed. Given Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, not to mention QAnon's repeated use of "storm", I really don't think it's a neutral choice. --Chronodm (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgot about that. Might start to put together a move request and bring it up. United States Capitol insurrection.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please. Some other possibilities: the New York Times are both using the words "riot" and "breach" as well as "storm"; CNN is using "riot" and "domestic terror attack"; Fox is calling it "Capitol riots". (I'd supply detailed references but I haven't got time to stay on this right now.) --Chronodm (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason I was fine with storm is because, in my opinion it can be either negative or positive, so I think it's pretty NPOV. Flalf^Talk 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming seems good but only for part of what happened. (Even then, it's important to think carefully as the unfolding of events becomes clearer.) Possibly occupation might be an alternative if one was wanted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

2021 Invasion on the US Capitol and Coup d'Etat attempt , could be a clear and exact title.

United States Capitol Insurrection: Out of all the terms I've seen to describe it (riot, mob, storming, sedition, coup attempt) I feel they lack the specificity of insurrection, a term with a dictionary meaning of "violent uprising against authority or government" and one that also has legal ramifications in the United States via the Insurrection Act of 1807. Another point is does this need a year in the title? The insurrection act article doesn't seem to suggest any such major incidents at the Capitol that would warrant a pre-emptive disambiguation by adding a year to the title, and specific incidents rather than generalised titles (eg the nat turner slave rebellion, the selma to montgomery march and the george floyd protests) don't have a year in them. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

'storming' is commonly used for an event of civil disorder such as Storming of the Bastille, or the mob Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad[4] or Tehran[5] [6] while words such as 'insurrection' and 'coup' are politically loaded. On the day, the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was an act or event of civil disorder not amounting to an insurrection. It could be described as a mob invading the Capitol. While President Trump's speech-making, videos or twittering, could be part of an attempt to overturn the election, they were not acts of insurrection. Qexigator (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. Also see WP:BLPCRIME. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bastille storming was the first act of a revolution as they attacked a symbol of power, and the Embassy was just a violent protest against an invader who had been at war in their country for 20 years. They are both on the other ends from the 'middle ground' of what was an Insurrection that stopped the lawmaking process of the US Government because they wanted their fascist leader to stay in power. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The main point is that the disorder and rampage, including riotous conduct, criminal assault, malicious damage to property and theft within the Capitol did not stop the lawful proceedings of Congress at the time or any later lawmaking of Congress. The proceedings were suspended, and when order was restored continued and completed after a few hours. The proceedings were affected by some lawmakers deciding to withdraw their objections, which the objectors were aware would have been outvoted anyhow. That did not amount to an insurrection event, nor a coup, whatever the intent of the wreckers may be supposed or hubristically self-declared to be. 09:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the term invasion (or coup d'etat but we have to wait the court to add it) than the term insurrection because: Insurrection is a situation that people revolt violently against an authority. Some times people that rebel are completely right and they are fighting for their freedom. With the term invasion, it's clear that a crowd invaded the sanctum of democracy. Because the actions need to be judged not only by what happened but from whoose happened. Here, a far-right neonazi croud tried to destroy democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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