Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Jake Angeli - the most notable protester

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.

---

Shouldn’t Wikipedia mention Jake Angeli, the most notable protester with costum and horns? He gained world fame and surely is notable. Topjur01 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as it is clearly expressed he is a neonazi, conspiracy theorist and Proud Boys member. Samuel D Rowe (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I created a one-sentence stub to get the ball rolling. Improvements welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently the section "Response" lists three protestors: "Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli..." Proposal: Extending this paragraph with two other protestors with a sentence like: "Further identified protestors include Richard “Bigo” Barnett who was sitting in Pelosi's office and Adam Johnson who was smiling while carrying away a lectern."

Sources: --- 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done Notable involved protesters/rioters/terrorists/<your loaded descriptor term here> will be mentioned at some point if they aren't already but not as a result of this edit request. Especially due to the fact many sources are still in the air. Additionally we shouldn't glorify the involved parties unless they are supremely notable or necessary to mention. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support Topjur01 for the inclusion of an image of Jake Angeli (and a brief but of info about him). He appears to be heavily associated with the protest, and there are pictures of him in the media - not just the US media, but International media. IMHO, for whatever reason, he seems to have been picked as the poster boy of the protesters. There is a bunch of RS referring to him, including articles discussing him in the title. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

#metoo. Jake Angeli is THE symbol of that crazy event. Virtuella (talk) 03:24, 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.

Why are we using such soft language

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.

---

Why are we normalizing this by using soft language like storming. CatLife4ever (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the wording that reliable sources use. Majavah (talk!) 14:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources also use insurrection. Storming was chosen by the user who started the request to move, as the media was using the verb "storm" while the situation had been developing to describe what's going on, but immediately afterwards the media and public officials also started using "insurrection" to qualify the event. There is no serious division here: "storming" the how to the what which is the "insurrection". I believe that eventually, the name will be changed to insurrection. Probably already more reliable sources use and advocate using "insurrection" at this point. Some advocate using it with particular certitude, and the same can't be said about storming, which appears to be an ad-hoc term. It hasn't been demonstrated on this talk page that more RSs use "storming" in the title, it's just a vague impression of some, and possibly not a currently relevant impression as the headlines are multiplying. Alalch Emis (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO "Insurrection" is more of a value judgement, and a statement of intention. It's more ambiguous than "storming", which describes the physical act. Personally, I don't find "storming" to be particularly soft language either; it's usually reserved for times of war or insurrection, and it (accurately) implies violent conflict and forceful entry. 69.172.176.96 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia need to use reliable sources and I agree. But we are talking about something that is happening live, we see it with our own eyes and all the planet watch it. So, I agree that generaly the language is too soft. I am not talking about the word storming. But I think we have to talk clearly about a dark day for democracy. I think we have to talk about Neo-Nazis supporters of Trump (this is something clear, the alt-right flags are clear even in the image of the infobox), aiming to destroy democracy. Why we are hiding obvious things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarises what Reliable Sources say about a subject. Being able to see something "with our own eyes" is irrelevent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet more sources national and international use the terms 'coup' and 'insurrection' than 'storming'. Very few reliable sources use the latter. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources are using all kinds of language for this, they are definitely not just using storming Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As of the last few hours, insurrection seems to be the word of choice from reliable sources. We can wait until Monday when we will know more. Spudlace (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming is the correct word because it describes the facts of what happened on the ground. To use the word "coup" is to add an interpretation separate from the ground truth. Unless there's broad consensus, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. That's why storming is such a good word for a fraught event: it describes exactly what happened. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection is the ground truth. There was no consensus about "storming", only consensus about "not protests". There will be another RtM in a few days to change the name to "insurrection". This term is supported by RS. Alalch Emis (talk) 13:14, 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.

Mob: biased words

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.

---

Should some other neutral word (e.g. crowd, supporters, etc.) be used (except for quotes) or is it ok as it is from the aspect of NPOV? Mob sounds derogatory to me and we should use neutral language regardless of our opinion about the event and the people involved. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Many, many reliable sources use the "mob" language. We follow the language used by the sources. Neutrality^talk 14:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• These sources have an opinion about the event (as they should). Our job is to keep that voice out of an encyclopedia.

• These same sources might describe a homicide as a "slaughter", but it's our job to use a more neutral word. There's no point in using a value word when there are equivalent words without the negative tone. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point of view, but there are also numerous sources using the word 'rioters' or 'crowd' or something else. And the media takes a stance that or another way, which we as an encyclopedia should not. Taking a look at WP:NPOV, I find the following: "neutral terms are generally preferable" and "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:EPSTYLE states: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think mob is fitting to be used occasionally throughout the article. The definition provided by a Google search was "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." While not all demonstrators were there for violence, there obviously were many that were. We could use mob more frequently when addressing the individuals that breached the building? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The point isn't the definition. The point is the connotation. There are logically equivalent words without the value judgement.

This could work in specific contexts (as occurs in the article: "angry mob", "violence of mob"). Then, the more specific question is whether we should use this in the lead: "Subsequently, a pro-Trump mob marched on Congress and eventually stormed the building." Probably something else would work better in this place; the section providing details uses the terms "rally attendees" and "rioters", so one of these terms should also be used in the lead. Also as per WP:LEAD. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Mob" sounds right because this is language from sources. And the "mob" is not necessarily disorganized. Some of the video show groups or organized and apparently trained attackers. That is exactly how Russian GRU-led forces took over the entire Crimea without firing a shot. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• From Merriam-Webster: "a large and disorderly crowd of people; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action." The crowd storming the capitol was large, very disorderly (had no clear goal in mind), and there was much documented destruction. I can't really see any argument for them not being a mob. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition misses the point that the word is charged. "demonstration" equally fits the definition because it includes violence, but we would not want to use that word either for its charged connotation. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy does not forbid, for example, to acknowledge rather common opinions such as death being bad or puppies being cute. Nor does it require us to describe serial killers in such a way that reading the article does not negatively affect your opinion of them. If you feel describing the events here reflects negatively on, say, the president-unelect, the cause if far more likely to be found in the nature of the events themselves rather than the way they are presented. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A serial killer can commit an heinous act, and this article should make anyone think less of the protestors, but it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to describe a murder as a "slaughter". That's the point OP is making and I agree with her/him. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• While I have added two uses of the word "mob" to the article myself, I think we should be very careful here. I have reviewed the use of the word "mob" in several hundred pages in the category Category:2020 United States racial unrest, and we rarely use the word at all in Wikipedia's voice, even when it is used in a cite or quotation. For the curious I counted (roughly) 7 usages in WP voice, 2 referring to historic incidents, about 10 in references and 2 in quotes. This article has 4 in WP voice, 6 in quotes and 28 in references. So:

  It looks as though we are following sources.

  We are not using "mob" a huge amount, but still far more than we usually do when discussing something that can convincingly fit the definition.

• However Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, no tone. We should wherever possible avoid words that imply judgement, even when that judgement is widely shared.
• For this reason we should avoid "mob" in WP voice wherever possible.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

• Strongly agree. There is no point in using the word "mob" when there are equivalent definitions without implied judgement. Removing "mob" loses nothing. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you a lot to everyone for your insightful feedback. It seems reasonable to me to conclude that this word mob could work in some contexts, but should be used very sparingly and hesitantly. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we haven't reached consensus about whether it's ok to use at all, but for now editors should really favor equivalent, neutral words that lose none of the meaning. In a week we'll know what to call it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus about it existed on Wikipedia at large long before you got here. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 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.

Incited by Trump

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.

---

New York Times has gone ahead and labelled the riot/protest/blabla an "attack incited by Trump." Should be included in the article somewhere. 180.151.224.189 (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Donald Trump has called the people to do that. We have to consider him as an abettor of this. Also I hope the term protest would be removed soon from the title. The apropriate title is 2021 Far-right attack at the US Capitol.

No. The article MUST remain neutral to both parties and not heavily BASED and lean and pander to the far-left. Bombastic Brody (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen no evidence that President Trump, explicitly or otherwise, Called for anything like the storming of the Capital Building. I have found what appears to be a transcript of his remarks here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-told-supporters-stormed-capitol-hill/story?id=75110558Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with brody, it wouldnt be too neutral to say that donald trump insited the 'Storming' Call me Deathisaninevitability Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Right now in these times of tension, we really do not need to incite more claims that will only cause more tension between users and their political affiliations here on Wikipedia. Bombastic Brody (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved partially with the article renaming/move, but I would like to challenge the idea that changing an article title to be more descriptive counts as pandering, in itself. "Protest" is already such a vague word, especially given how many take place in DC all the time. And in this case, in particular, it's hard to define who the "sides" are—falling into standard left/right divisions is unhelpful here. my 2¢. Wingedserif (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What's unhelpful when they're clearly the far-right? 92.0.9.176 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that incitement to riot is a crime (as per https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2101.html), which President Donald Trump has not yet been convicted of, it seems premature to describe the riots as incited by Trump. Perhaps that he has been accused of inciting the riots?

Agreed, thank you. Also please sign your comments. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't post in this section unless you've read "WP:BLPCRIME" below. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:17, 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.

2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump

New related article at 2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump. Casprings (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like that one sentence stub you started was turned into a redirect to 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office on grounds that it was a "duplicate article with no extra content".[1] Any further comments on this should probably be made on Talk:2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office#2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Crimes Currently Under Investigation

I'm posting a reminder about WP:BLPCRIME.

As an example, please do not use the word "murder" for a possible crime currently under investigation. Unlike other edits, this is a very serious problem. This isn't just about this article: it's about Wikipedia and legal liability.

Similar words that have legal implications are sedition, assault, etc.

I know there are a lot of sections on this talk page but it's very important for the integrity of the encyclopedia so I'm posting here as a reminder to everyone. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We cannot say someone was murdered unless there are convictions and reliable sources stating such. A felony murder investigation is just that, an investigation. We cannot predict the results of the investigation. While it is very likely that Sicknick was murdered, we cannot say that on the article until it is backed up. As far as I can tell the line "and murdered a police officer" was added by Gouncbeatduke, which I removed. I also edited the page to remove a New York Post article that was being used as a source - we do not consider NYP to be a reliable source. Spengouli (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There were 26,031 recorded/reported murders in the United States (according to the National Vital Statistics System - Mortality data 2021) A decreasing percentage (~54% in 2020) of murders ever successfully result in a conviction (per https://www.statista.com/chart/28644/rate-of-homicides-that-go-unsolved-in-the-u). An act can be described as a murder even if no-one is arrested, tried and convicted. If a death can be attributed to the intentional action of person(s) unknown, without whose actions the death would nor have occurred, then the death is a murder. Describing the death of USCP Officer Brian Sicknick as a murder does not expose Wikipedia to legal liability (false claim). 104.11.217.82 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mob of rioters" => "rioters"

There's been a lot of back-and-forth about crowd, mob, group, etc. "rioters" is still correct and shorter.

Let's add something when there's consensus about what to call it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Rioters" and "mob" are synonyms, so I don't think one can/should be preferred over the other. Crowd is used less often in the article, mostly in quotes or referring to the rally Trump had prior to the event. ChipotleHater (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Since they're synonyms, we don't need both. I think this is the point you're making but I'm not sure. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they're synonyms. Among other differences, "mob" has a pejorative, emotive quality that "rioter" doesn't really carry. One can speak positively of riots and rioters much more easily than of a mob. We should avoid using "mob" in Wikipedia's voice. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Riot is legally defined in federal law,[2] unlike 'mob' outlined here[3] Qexigator (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is redundant and prefer the shorter version --RL0919 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Crowd Size?

There is little information about the size of the January 6th crowds, even though Trump's crowd sizes are often claimed to be shattering attendance records. At a minimum the article should document the fact that the crowd of pro-Trump rioters inside the Capitol was the largest and most enthusiastic mob ever to vandalize the Capitol in the 2020s (and possibly any federal building ever throughout the 21st century.) Also, it needs to be mentioned that FoxNews's and OANN's ratings were sky-high on January 6th. Timothy Horrigan (talk)

Agreed, thank you. There's been a lot of discussion about wording and not enough good comments like this. Let's focus on the hard numbers. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it normal to describe news channels' ratings for specific news events? CNN also had a great day. Sudopudge (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

largest and most enthusiastic mob ever to vandalize the Capitol in the 2020s They also observed the velvet ropes, which was dissonant.

The lack of info on the crowd size is also interesting, I believe that those with bias (i.e. almost all US commentators, for a start) have conflicting reasons for wanting the crowd to be small and large. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Interestingly, this article lacks contextual information regarding events preceding the march on Congress. If placed in the context of being the third rally/protest, as organized by Women for America First, and labelled "Save America March", one can begin an accurate assessment (of both the event, and crowd size). Such rally/protest included a pre-rally at Freedom Plaza, the afternoon into evening of the 5 Jan 2020. The 6 Jan 2020 rally, with admission beginning at 0700 EST, centered on the Ellipse at the White House, with a crowd that eventually extended to the Washington monument, and flanking it to both sides. At a minimum, at least a Field Army (100,000-300,000) assembled. As those assembled then marched down Pennsylvania Ave to the U.S. Capitol, it is difficult to ascertain how many assembled outside to "have their voices heard (regarding election integrity)". As this article, rather biasedly, only includes information regarding the "storming", I personally would estimate 100s to less than 10,000 were actually allowed inside by Capitol Police. Photos will likely be forthcoming on the larger group that, like myself, though being on the Capitol footprint, remained outside, and easily was tens to a hundred thousand. 73.191.183.56 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Wrong information

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 article made a couple of false statements in just one sentence when they said "TAKEN OVER FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1814". First off it was taken over in 2018 by an anti-Kavanagh protests. Then secondly the Trump supporters did not break down the door AKA "TAKE OVER" there is video after video showing the Capitol Police opening the doors and letting them in..— Preceding unsigned comment added by BhcPatriot (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen no such video User:BhcPatriot. I've seen lots of photos and video of doors being barricaded, and police trying to unsuccessfully push rioters back through doors and windows. I did see a barricade outside being moved in a video ... but that's not a door into the Capitol. Can you provide a link? Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DONOTFEED Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It would violate WP:AGF to suggest that a user is a troll, after a single polite request. You shouldn't do that - instead a variant of WP:ROPE may be better. Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time the capitol has been violently breached since 1814. The 2018 rally you're referring to did occur on capitol grounds, but remained largely peaceful, and protestors did not attempt to forcibly enter any restricted areas in the Capitol Building. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally watched live on PBS as rioters broke windows and entered the Capitol. Your claims are false, unless you can find a source proving otherwise. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed false information. "MLive" may not be a reliable source. Protesters have forcibly stormed into the capitol building at least in 2018 during the Kavanaugh hearings, in 2017 during Jeff Sessions hearings, there are probably other similar incidents as well. But the real biggie was 1954, when Puerto Rican nationalists entered the capitol and started firing weapons.96.241.129.33 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence for “forcible storming” in the above links - can you find a source for broken windows? Recollections of seeing live TV can be inaccurate (memories can be strange that way - cf Mandela effect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:AA30:2D4C:CE8:3B69:7FC4 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As it says in one of the linked articles "Televised hearings are open to the public" so they didn't break in. They were allowed to be there, until they started disrupting the hearings. Sjö (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Under deaths section there is a line about a Capitol Police Officer dying, the article it links to states that this was false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.216.101 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears his death was prematurely reported. Then he actually died. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:34, 8 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.

Trump incited the riots?

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 just had a quick question regarding this. So, early on in the article, the phrase "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." seems to imply that he encouraged them to specifically "storm the capitol" which he factually did not do. While I agree that his rhetoric definitely raised the temperature, in his speech he literally called for the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today" Casting the blame on anyone for inciting something is a matter of opinion/a judgment call unless they outright call for the act that is carried out. Not trying to say Trump didn't raise the temperature just that the word "incite" ( definition: to urge or persuade someone to act in a violent or unlawful way) seems to imply a direct correlation between what Trump specifically called for (a peaceful and patriotic protest) and the what actually happened (storming of the capitol).

Perhaps a better sentence would be "The riots occurred following fiery comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." This implies a correlation between the two (the Trump speech and the riots) without implying that he specifically encouraged riots. You could even tack on a "which many view as having incited the violence" to the end of it.

So in conclusion I think that the sentence "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." would be more factual if it were stated as "The riots occurred following divisive comments made by Trump at an earlier rally, which many view as having incited the violence." I think this maintains the NPOV better, without implying that Trump specifically called for the storming of the capitol and without making a judgement call on whether or not Trump incited the riots which is a matter of opinion.

Let me know what you think. --Brboyle (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Spare us all the weasel-wording. Front-page, above the fold headlines from some Thursday papers

• Boston Globe: TRUMP-INCITED MOB ATTACKS THE CAPITOL
• Chicago Tribune: ‘Insurrection’ at Capitol: 1 DEAD AMID CHAOS INCITED BY TRUMP
• Des Moines Register: CAPITOL CHAOS (first story hede: "After weeks of egging them on, Trump then asks rioters to leave")
• Los Angeles Times: TRUMP-INCITED MOB STORMS U.S. CAPITOL
• New York Times: TRUMP INCITES MOB
• Politico: DEMOCRACY UNDER SIEGE: Trump rioters storm the Capitol, halting election certification
• San Francisco Chronicle: INSURRECTION: As Democrats win the Senate, a violent mob incited by Trump storms the Capitol and delays certification of Biden’s victory
• Washington Post: Trump mob storms Capitol: President incites crowd to acts of insurrection, violence

So please, no bogus Wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some lead paragraphs, with emphasis added. I can do this all day:

McClatchy News:

"Hundreds of rioters encouraged by President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, crashing through police lines to lay siege to the building and force a halt to the constitutional process of certifying the Electoral College count after the Nov. 3 presidential election."

LA Times:

"Violent supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, shattering windows, ransacking offices and pounding on the barricaded doors of the House chamber while shaken lawmakers huddled inside.

"The extraordinary breach of democratic order — blamed by both parties on the president’s incitement — forced members to flee the House and Senate floors under armed guard, delaying Congress’ constitutionally mandated count of electoral college votes."

New York Times:

"Congress moved late Wednesday toward confirming President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory after a mob of loyalists urged on by President Trump stormed and occupied the Capitol, disrupting the final electoral count in a shocking display of violence that shook the core of American democracy.

"There was no parallel in modern American history, with insurgents acting in the president’s name vandalizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, smashing windows, looting art and briefly taking control of the Senate chamber, where they took turns posing for photographs with fists up on the dais where Vice President Mike Pence had just been presiding."

WASHINGTON SCENE by Peter Baker: "So this is how it ends. The presidency of Donald John Trump, rooted from the beginning in anger, division and conspiracy-mongering, comes to a close with a violent mob storming the Capitol at the instigation of a defeated leader trying to hang onto power as if America were just another authoritarian nation."

Washington Post:

"As President Trump told a sprawling crowd outside the White House that they should never accept defeat, hundreds of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup that they hoped would overturn the election he lost. In the chaos, law enforcement officials said, one woman was shot and killed by police.

"The violent scene — much of it incited by the president’s incendiary language — was like no other in modern American history, bringing to a sudden halt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory."

--Calton | Talk 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's not mention that all of these "reliable sources" hate Donald Trump. Topcat777 (talk) 18:44, 8 Janurareee 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, since that would be, you know, false, and the (utterly rejected) go-to excuse for conservatives trying to suppress bad news. By all means, go to the reliable sources noticeboard and give that tactic a shot. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be so condescending. I'm not weasel-wording and I think it is inappropriate of you to suggest that I am trying to mislead. The change I suggested doesn't deny that any of the newspapers reached the conclusion that Trump incited the riot, it just allows the reader to realize that whether or not someone incited something is a matter of opinion. My statement is not deliberately misleading and in fact reaches mostly the same conclusion as the original statement, it just makes a clearer point that Trump didn't literally call for the violence, something I feel is important in gaining neutrality. I know that all of those papers reach the conclusion that he "incited" the rioters but I think maybe there is a better way of saying it.

Nothing wrong with me suggesting a dissenting opinion, especially when I'm not really disagreeing but rather trying to come up with a way of saying it that doesn't imply that Trump literally called for/deliberately incited violence, which he factually did not. He raised the temperature and parroted falsehoods/other divisive rhetoric, but saying he "incited" violence appears to me to be those newspapers taking a step past reporting the facts at face value and instead implying that Trump said something directly related to the protesters committing acts of violence when in fact he did the exact opposite and urged them to remain peaceful (a fact that as far as I can tell, all of those news sources and the sentence I am questioning fail to lend any credence to. This alone would immediately raise a red flag interns of their reliability if I were you)

Implying in the opening of the article that Trump incited the violence without mentioning that he literally told those at the march to "march peacefully" is misleading by exclusion of information IMO and thus would seem to violate the NPOV. But, I guess if the general consensus is that these headlines that exclude this fact are more worthy of inclusion (due to them being "reliable sources" in the eyes of Wikipedia) than what Trump actually said, so be it. --Brboyle (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be so condescending.

I'm being factual; learn the difference

I'm not weasel-wording and I think it is inappropriate of you to suggest that I am trying to mislead.

You're right, and I misspoke: "weasel-wording" is "...words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." You're attempting the precise opposite: in the face of OVERWHELMING and completely across-the-board characterization -- of the "sun rises in the East" and "the sky is blue" variety -- of what happened, you're attempting to cast doubt or fuzz up events. So yeah, that's you attempting to mislead, and it's irrelevant whether it's incidental or deliberate. If you don't want to be accused of trying to mislead, try this: don't try to mislead. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brboyle: I agree that the incivility from Calton is completely unwarranted and unproductive. I also agree that the current phrasing—"riots were incited by" Trump—is unacceptable, but for slightly different reasons:

• Despite many claims he "encouraged" or "urged on" a crowd that later turned violent, none of the cited sources state that Trump "incited riots". But more important is the likely reason for the omission of that phrase:
• To "incite a riot" is a Federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 2101, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment—and just in the last two days there are already numerous articles questioning whether Trump can or should be charged with or impeached on the basis of that and other crimes. Indeed, this is not the first time Trump has been accused of incitement—and it's worth reading about the dismissal of just such a claim in Kentucky.

That given, the WP:BLP guidance here is crystal-clear: regardless of what RS may say, we must take care to clearly state that potential criminal acts ascribed to living persons are merely alleged until they have been convicted of them. This is doubly important given that there are potential charges actively being discussed—and even cited in the instant article. While it's well and good to cite sources to support statements such as he "stoked the crowd" or "encouraged them to march to the Capitol", we must take great pains to avoid asserting that Donald Trump has committed any crime for which he has been neither charged nor convicted. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the arguments given and I agree with Elle Ekpyros and Brboyle. It would violate WP:BLP to say that Trump incited the riots. I agree with Brboyle's proposed wording because there likely is a connection between Trump's words and the actions of the rioters, just Wikipedia can't directly state that connection. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

the incivility from Calton

It's not "incivility", it's a straightforward explanation of what he's doing and why it's wrong. If he -- or you -- doesn't like being told he's wrong, he ought not to be wrong in the first place. It's not my job to pretend something isn't real, nor pay attention to what looks more a rhetorical tactic than a it does a genuine concern for "civility".

the WP:BLP guidance here is crystal-clear

Why yes, yes it is. Let's emphasize the part you left out:

For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

Note the words "public figure"? Or are you suggesting Donald Trump is NOT a "public figure"? --Calton | Talk 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It would seem you're confused as to what I wrote. I never suggested that accusations of a crime should be left out—indeed, I pointed out the part of this article in which they're discussed. What I very clearly stated was that to assert that anyone (public figure or no) committed a crime, absent such a legal finding, is obviously against the WP:BLP policy. You must have missed the sentence before the one you quoted above: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." When you couple that with the guidance from WP:WEASEL (which I've already pointed out to you after your repeated accusations that I was using "weasel words"): "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." This should all be quite obvious—it's why we don't write that "OJ Simpson killed his wife", but rather "Prosecutors charged OJ Simpson of mudering his wife, but he acquitted at a criminal trial." President Trump has been informally accused of inciting a riot, and officials appear to be considering charges, but he has not been arrested, indicted, charged, or convicted yet—so he is presumed innocent and it is a BLP violation to say he "incited rioting" without making it clear that the crime has merely been alleged (and who has alleged it). Hope that helps! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to a calm, polite request for civility with an accusation that it's a "rhetorical tactic" made in bad faith is a perfect example of your chronic incivility. Perhaps you're unaware of how unpleasant editing here is made by having one's contributions reverted with an arrogant, snide an entirely false accusation that one has used "weasel words". I maintain that such repeated accusations are uncivil—especially when it's been pointed out to you that they're false. After you first did this to me, I pointed out to you that I was doing the precise opposite, and you simply doubled down and did it again (although you appear to finally have understood my point, per your acknowledgement above). Your condescending and antagonistic tone is also uncivil. Telling people that they if they find you rude, they "ought not to be wrong" is another perfect example. Do you really believe that the legion fellow editors who have tried to point this out to you over a period of years are all wrong? That you are in fact respectful and polite—and just inexplicably misunderstood by so many? While I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don't understand this, I must assume good faith—and, assuming it's true, I sincerely hope you find someone who can help you to develop more productive socialize skills. Good luck! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As a final note, I'd point out that this purported "fact check" does a pretty decent job in laying out the facts: Trump did not explicitly advocate any sort of violence—indeed, he called for peace. And it makes clear that any claim he implicitly or subtextually encouraged illegality is a "subjective call"—and making subjective calls is something in which Wikipedia, it goes without saying, cannot engage. While it's right and good to point out that some (indeed, many) people have accused Trump of inciting or encouraging violence that day, there is to date no objective evidence that he did so. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:43, 9 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.

Lead section too big and comfortable to read

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.

---

Self-explanatory. Thoughts? Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the lede is too but if you think it is - try to rework the information into relevant sections of the article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree but I expect it will be easier to condense when things cool down. Right now a lot of editors want to get a point in. It's best to wait and then keep the best content. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Q746371/DenverCoder9. 7 paragraphs are too much (WP:MOSLEAD says a guideline of "no longer than four paragraphs" though I've seen up to 6 paragraphs be OK), but some of them are short paragraphs and once the dust settles we can reduce the lede then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 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 deadliest riot in D.C. since 1968?

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.

---

The recent riot has caused the deaths of five people. In 1968, 13 were killed in D.C. during rioting that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Would this be worth mentioning in the article? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Feels a bit too much like WP:SYNTH. Unless a reliable source has explicitly discussed this, we probably should leave it out for now. SpurriousCorrelation 04:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also we need to be careful about "first" claims like these. See "1814". DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

1814 wasn't a riot, it happened in wartime involving the British forces. I'm merely talking about riots here. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Causality is not yet clear in all cases. But no overwhelming objection in due course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:21, 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.

FBI photo of pipe bomb suspect

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.

---

Are these images in the public domain? https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc Victor Grigas (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Public domain, these images were prepared by a US Government employee as part of their job or duties, and would be in the Public Domain. DCai169 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just adding a pointer to #Photos of suspects below. Regardless of the licensing, we should not be adding these images. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The poster might have been prepared by a government employee (i.e. the FBI), but the provenance of the photo itself is what matters. If the FBI got it from somewhere or someone else, then they can use it per fair use, but that wouldn't make it public domain as is explained in WP:PD#US government works. Not everything you find on a US government website or released by the US government 100% originates with the US government. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:37, 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.

George R.R. Martin

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.

---

One of the citations comparing the event to the Beer Hall Putsch (citation 348) was a quote from author George R.R. Martin.

Is Martin an appropriate source for this topic? He is a fantasy writer who lacks expertise on both American politics and Nazi Germany.

(Painting17 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

No he is not, it can be used on his own page for his personal views, but not actually describing what happened here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm striving to be more proactive about removing content like this. I get the sense that a lot of edits are being made by people with elevated heart rates and a strong political opinions. It's not going to be easy, but we need to focus on what happened in the events and leave commentary for the appropriate sections. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:50, 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.

Identification of rioters: Holocaust denier Nicholas/ Nick Fuentes

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.

---

Please add some words about him:

• https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/white-supremacists-among-those-who-stormed-the-u-s-capitol-live-streamed-inside-1.9431649 → "Gionet and Fuentes both attended the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017."

• https://www.comicsands.com/white-nationalist-killing-state-legislators-2649769286.html → "encourages his viewers to kill legislators in his stream" ... "Fuentes' alarming comment was first flagged and tweeted by Megan Squire, who, as Daily Dot confirmed, is a professor at Elon University studying extremism."

• https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/sturm-auf-den-kongress-amtsenthebung-donald-trumps-moeglich-a-375d55ae-b459-40a1-ab3b-0da0f94cbe20

• https://www.belltower.news/usa-the-storm-stuermt-das-kapitol-109893/

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/far-right-agitators-roil-the-conservative-movement-on-college-campuses-in-battle-to-define-trumpism/2019/11/16/a757d88a-0723-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

• https://www.wired.com/story/dlive-livestreaming-site-extremist-haven → "Fuentes, who hosts the far-right podcast America First and received $44,000 in donations through DLive in the last two months of 2020, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

• https://www.mlive.com/politics/2021/01/far-right-activist-who-encouraged-us-capitol-occupation-also-organized-stop-the-steal-rally-in-michigan.html → "The Capitol Siege of 2021 is going to become America’s Tiananmen Square." + "Why, because we had no leverage, what are we going to do? What can you and I do to a state legislator, besides kill them?" "Although we should not do that. I am not advising that, but I mean, what else can you do, right?" --93.211.211.47 (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the fact that he’s a Holocaust denied matters that much, but I support the addition of this information if he was influential. —Bray (talk) 21:05, 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.

Discussions on the first sentence

First sentence

Note, there is an in-line before the lead of the article. Until consensus is reached, please do not add/change the lead with any of the words or phrases in question.

I think the first sentence should include something about the storming happening at the urging or incitement of Trump. That is really quite central to the reception of the incident and its political magnitude. (RS have overwhelmingly stated that Trump and his associates incited (or similar wording) the storming, so that's not the issue here, only whether it's important enough to be in the first sentence)

I would propose e.g. one of these:

• On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of Trump and his associates
• On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol, incited by Trump and his associates.

--Tataral (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My official thing is a strong oppose to adding anything about Trump into the lead. I am not as opposed to the 2nd one, but the first one I am very strong to oppose it. That lead sorta says “Pres. Trump said ‘Storm the Capitol’, which he never said.” Elijahandskip (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead already includes a ton of material about Trump, including his incitement. The question here is only whether it's important enough for the first sentence as well. Note that the proposals above are only two possible wordings to summarise how Trump's incitement was central to the incident. --Tataral (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the 2nd one saying that. “Urge” doesn’t refer to incitement. It refers to “ recommend or advocate (something) strongly.” (Oxford dictionary). President Trump never recommended or advocated to storm the capital. So if urge is added, it says a false statement. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has insisted on the "urge" alternative. Personally I prefer the second version at this point. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.

Read the talk message above. There is an on-going discussion about the lead hosted by WikiProject Current Events. The discussion can be found here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC) That may be the case, but the content of this article is really decided here on its own talk page, so discussion regarding the precise wording of this article should take place here rather than somewhere else (particularly a rather obscure WikiProject devoted to an equally obscure portal, that few editors and readers really use). --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I moved the discussion to the talk page. Look below for the official discussion about it. {Also, if you look at the Portal:Current events, you can see the daily view count. Had about 60,000 views since January 1. Not really that obscure.} Elijahandskip (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC) It is better to continue the discussion here based on the concrete proposal. Your new/second section is not any more "official" than this discussion. This article alone had nearly 200,000 readers only during the last six hours of yesterday, and probably at least a million readers today. --Tataral (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Just copy/paste the proposal below. Also, the discussion on the WikiProject was before the proposal, so technically it should all be moved together (Time checking and stuff for formatting). Elijahandskip (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC) The fact that you started a discussion on a little-noticed talk page for a little-noticed WikiProject, where no editor active on this article would look for any discussion of this article's content and its details, and with no other participants, doesn't mean that your discussion was "first". This discussion was first, on the talk page that matters for this article. --Tataral (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

---

First Sentence (Lead) Discussion Originally on WikiProject Current Events-Moved here

This discussion is about the lead for the article. Originally, the lead read “On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of President Trump and his associates.” The new lead currently leaves the “urging of President Trump of his associates” off due to Wikipedia needing a neutral lead. The discussion is about whether to add that last part into the lead, or keep it out of the lead. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, even if you are not a part of the WikiProject.

• Leave it out due to President Trump’s message on twitter to leave peacefully. President Trump never said the words “Storm the capital”, so saying that he urged them to do it would be a lie and would be a slight “bias” on Wikipedia’s part. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Of course, Trump didn't stormed the capitol himself. And of course he said on twitter that people should go home (BUT THE STORMING HAD ALREADY DONE THEN!). Donald Trump is the abettor of the storming. (By 5.54.43.217 {User didn’t sign})

Discussion was originally on WikiProject Current Events. It has been moved here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.

There is a discussion on the first sentence above (Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#First sentence. I suggest you move this section there as a sub section. The only reason I don’t want to move the discussion again is the amount of “times” of interrupting the talk page. So far, this is the 3rd discussion about it on this talk page alone. It is also at the bottom currently, so people will move to here instead of the one above. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Also the discussion on the WikiProject page was before your discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC) That doesn't matter. No editor active on this article would look for any discussion of details in this article on that WikiProject page, and this talk page is the central place for discussion of this article's content. --Tataral (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• That "Trump didn't storm the capitol himself" and that he "said on twitter that people should go home" don't change the fact that reliable sources have overwhelmingly reported that Trump incited the storming. The question here is only whether it's important enough to be included in the lead, based on how it is covered in RS. And Trump's incitement is really the key issue here. Washington DC see protests every day, but not violent mobs incited by the president. --Tataral (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is included in the lead, just not the first sentence. It's a few sentences down. I have no further opinion on the matter, but wanted to correct an incorrect statement in your summary. --Jayron32 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant the first sentence rather than the entire lead, as I clarified in the main section devoted to this question above. --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tataral, that was exactly what I said (see the second half of my comment). I think that almost all sources agree that president Trump is responsible for what happened. The video on twitter doent't change it. About the question if it's important to be included, the fact that we are talking about the president of the United States himself, makes it more important than any other person had evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

*Support adding it back - Having accurate information about seditious acts against a country is important. Even if someone is able to make a well reasoned argument per WP:NPOV, I believe that WP:IAR needs to supersede. This is important enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Had a chance to calm down. The first sentence as it is now is still too loaded. Perhaps something like this, "On January 6, 2021, a mob of rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, occupying the building for several hours." Jdphenix (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose re-addition - per Elijahandskip. Jdcomix (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• The WP:RS sources about the riot (looking particularly at WaPo and NYT) tend to include Trump's inciting role prominently, so I would support us doing similar. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support adding it back - The New York Times speaks of Trump openly inciting a mob that then attacked the United States Capitol. Later, they add "Mr. Trump encouraged his loyalists in his capacity as a leader of their movement".−:They also quote Mitt Romney with "... the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning. What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the president of the United States.”". Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "incited", "white supremacists" in the first sentence per Elijahandskip. This information can be discussed later in the paragraphs, but for a first sentence, it is much too loaded Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support re-addition. Reliable sources like CNN, NPR, and the Washington Post are reporting that Trump's actions incited the riot. Therefore, I find it acceptable for the sentence to read that the riots were inspired or incited by Trump. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing per WP:BLP and Elle Ekpyros and Brboyle's comments elsewhere on the talk page. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The ongoing discussion here regarding the above concrete proposals is now moot due to subsequent changes to the lead including the first sentence. --Tataral (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is now moot. Decent consensus to prevent the word "Urge" from being used in first sentence. Any agree to form that consensus from this discussion and close it? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:06, 8 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.

"Capitol insurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

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.

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Capitol insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Capitol insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:08, 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.

Recommend changing linked article of "total war"

In the paragraph below quick facts the Trump jr. quote of "total war" is linked to the internal article of "war". The phrase "total war" is a term of its own and has a dedicated Wikipedia article. Recommend to change linking accordingly as this significantly changes the context of the term used.

Snippet of referenced section: Trump Jr. threatened the president's opponents by saying "we're coming for you," having called for "total war" in the weeks leading up to the riots. Troubadix77 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. — Czello 09:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we move this article to wikinews?

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 should because A.) We could continue updating it and B.) It could keep trolls from bringing people to argue about stupid stuff that leads nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8FE:4840:4169:A880:FFB4:A3E5 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Assuming this is a serious proposal, no. This is a notable event which deserves encyclopedic coverage. I'm sure coverage at Wikinews would be appreciated there, though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, Wikinews is a separate site from English Wikipedia, run under its own rules. We don't generally shuttle articles back and forth. Also, in my opinion, Wikipedia's coverage of important current events is much more comprehensive and balanced than that on Wikinews, because there are generally more participants here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 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.

LOL someone changed the pictures

who keeps changing them to a confederate flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.238.103 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A vandal made the change on Wikimedia; it's now been fixed and the user has been banned. — Czello 11:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to protect the photos on Commons? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If persistent disruptive editing continues I see no reason why we shouldn't request their protection ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

All the vandalistic revisions have been deleted on Commons (for now). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Role of Capitol Police in the early entrance to the Capitol building

Having seen serious reporting on the role of (some) Capitol police in hindering, or not hindering and possibly aiding, entrance to the Capitol, am a bit curious why it is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that it was the ease of entrance, facilitated by (some) of these armed security force ppl, is why a number of persons (see the lede paragraph) are calling it a coup. Would be helpful to gather articles and references and explicate the situation, to see if their is a consensus verifiable view on these alleged actions. N2e (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mind sharing this serious reporting you've seen? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't come across any 'serious' reports so far, but Tyrese Gibson has been posting a lot of videos on his Instagram. One of them also shows a 'protestor' carrying the disputed flag. Not sure about the credibility or sources though. example 180.151.224.189 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This Reddit-linked video may apply to this question: 'The police opened the gates for Capitol rioters'. Reddit says it was posted at about 4-5pm EST. Might be worth preserving. It's clear in the (small) video that many other people are videoing the event ... so there may be more. Twang (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A section in the article has been added—2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Scrutiny of Capitol security response—with quite decent sourcing. Thanks! N2e (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there are many protesters on the near side of the barrier already. This may have simply been a pragmatic move to reduce the chance of crush injuries or stampedes. (Another part of the barrier was beached by force, presumably before this.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Note: it's gone (or renamed or moved?; looked like this not long before disappearing.) What's desperately needed, and is the kind of work where wikipedia can really shine is to report who said what when, according to which reliable source, so the reader can as readily as possible, see the conflicting and connecting claims and refer to the sources. For example it currently reports, "Three days before the riots, the Pentagon twice offered to send in the National Guard, but were told by the United States Capitol Police that it would not be necessary," as fact, instead of as something anonymously sourced in an article that then states, "Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection ... the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration," which seems to be in or more likely is almost but not quite in direct contradiction with another RS, Politico, for, "Robert Contee, the acting Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, said after the event that his department had possessed no intelligence indicating the Capitol would be breached". In other words, we must not speak disputed-by-RS claims in wikipedia's voice as fact. Likewise, we have Forbes (a staff reporter) saying "Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Thursday that the Department of Defense “repeatedly denied” requests to authorize deployment of Maryland’s National Guard troops to help quell violence at the Capitol on Wednesday". https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/01/07/maryland-governor-says-pentagon-repeatedly-denied-approval-to-send-national-guard-to-capitol/?sh=72825b6a6cb4 Let's get to the point where one can read the article and have a good sense of why there was reportedly a delay of two and a half hours between when the DC mayor requested national guard and they began moving toward DC, with clarity on the timeline of messages from the Mayor (and Hoyer, Pelosi, Schumer, etc), to Hogan, to Ryan McCarthy, to Christopher Miller, and back to McCarthy, which took some 90 minutes. We should at least add some {{disputed}} & {{who}} templates 'till we can get this sorted. Somebody?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)