Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:48, 8 January 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the January 6 United States Capitol attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 1 day

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Current consensus International responses get one mention in prose in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol § International reaction. More details can be added to International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The page's title was decided by this move request to be 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Current events Current events portal This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Government Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Events(s). Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Other talk page banners

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. A news item involving January 6 United States Capitol attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2021. Section sizes Section size for January 6 United States Capitol attack (59 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 96,073 96,073 Background 35 70,234 Attempts to overturn the presidential election 14,873 14,873 Planning of January 6 events 14,360 26,539 Seditious conspiracy by Oath Keepers and Proud Boys 12,179 12,179 Predictions of violence 16,219 16,219 Law enforcement and National Guard preparations 12,568 12,568 Trump supporters gather in D.C. 14,944 50,548 January 5 meetings 3,724 3,724 Bombs placed 5,338 5,338 January 6 Trump rally 13,208 26,542 Trump's speech 13,334 13,334 Attack on the Capitol 4,112 83,407 Proud Boys march to Capitol as mob assembles 4,065 4,065 Bombs discovered near Capitol Complex 168 168 Attack begins near Peace Monument, led by Proud Boys 13,386 13,386 Attackers on west terrace breach Senate Wing hallway 16,496 16,496 Evacuation of leadership amid Capitol lockdown 27,665 27,665 Oath Keepers arrive and breach Rotunda 2,419 2,419 Ashli Babbitt killed by police while attempting to breach Speaker's Lobby 7,543 7,543 Attack on the tunnel 5,919 5,919 Police clear the Capitol and Congress reconvenes 1,634 1,634 Federal officials' conduct 31 51,285 Trump's conduct 11,525 30,994 Inflammatory speech while knowing of weapons 2,931 2,931 Allegation of assaulting a Secret Service driver 4,650 4,650 Endangering Mike Pence 8,959 8,959 Failure to end the attack 2,929 2,929 Capitol Police leadership's failure to prepare 2,779 2,779 Department of Defense leadership's refusal to send Guard 12,174 12,174 Congressional conduct 2,885 2,885 Deletion of Secret Service and Homeland Security text messages 2,422 2,422 Participants, groups, and criminal charges 6,751 64,184 Proud Boys 4,099 4,099 Oath Keepers 6,238 6,238 QAnon 9,287 9,287 White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates 12,298 12,298 Others 8,256 8,256 Police and military connections 6,169 6,169 Analysis 11,086 11,086 Results 12 26,855 Casualties and suicides 14,713 14,713 Damage 8,255 8,255 Laptop theft and cybersecurity concerns 3,875 3,875 Aftermath 16 14,742 Political, legal, and social repercussions 7,003 7,003 Domestic reactions 3,141 3,141 International reactions 131 131 14th Amendment disqualification 3,462 3,462 Sarbanes–Oxley Act prosecutions ruling and impact 989 989 Analysis and terminology 1,754 12,290 Historians' perspectives 10,536 10,536 See also 1,403 1,403 Notes 31 31 References 17,438 17,438 External links 964 10,438 Federal government 3,127 3,127 Video 2,140 2,140 Timeline 4,207 4,207 Total 498,928 498,928

Military-style parties in infobox?

Both sides are armed, so it may well make sense, but I think the use of the side params should be discussed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be something to discuss at Template talk:Infobox civil conflict, since it's the standard template. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear that that is the right infobox to be using. It is not clear why certain names are included and others aren't. This is breaking news, obviously, and we should not be rushing to fit it into a template. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou. /Julle (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou for two other reasons: (a) it's very unclear how the unrest was coordinated (or whether it was) (b) parties should characterize all parties. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that part of the infobox for now given it's 4:1. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of bringing it back, it was very useful FAISSALOO_(talk) 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflicted. It was a violent confrontation. Adding side complies with standard in other American riot articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/1968_Washington,_D.C.,_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/Yellow_vests_movement. But generally US violent riot conflict do not use the tag. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/Unite_the_Right_rally A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties in infobox

Someone removed the sides part of the infobox 'as per weight of support' with only 4 or 5 users even weighing in their opinion. I believe it's necessary to know the involved parties, and that the only problem was overcomplication. I think that it should be re-added, but kept simplified. Such as Pro-Trump protesters, and then just DC, VA, MD, NJ and the national guard or something? I'm not sure but I feel putting the involved parties in the infobox will help give a better overview. Flalf 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest discussing this at #Military-style parties in infobox? rather than starting a new section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this suggestion doesn't really cover the reason given by Bondegezou and DenverCoder9 for why they opposed it. Maybe you should make a sandbox version of this proposed change with citations so that it is a bit clearer and to try to resolve the issues. So far, I am in agreement with their responses. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest it should eventually be added back, but only after the dust has settled a bit and we can get a good sense of what happened from the sources. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Public domain images

Any ideas on where to look first? Charles Juvon (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Flickr is usually where I go. You can also filter by CC-licensed images using Google Image Search. I doubt any photographers currently in DC have sat down to upload and license their photos yet, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic:

Charles Juvon (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Victorgrigas sometimes shares helpful images/videos for current events. Pinging for possible leads? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Pistols drawn on the Floor of Congress Charles Juvon (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest 1.) make a keyword list of things that people might upload footage under, like: MAGA, DC, Capitol, Capital, Revolution, Protest and so forth. 2.) look for new uploads 3.) Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud all have cc-licenses. This guy in particular is prolific: https://www.flickr.com/people/95413346@N00 4.) VOA is useable if its made by VOA staff (which is like 10% of the time) 5.) be careful of license laundering

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Leadership

Donald Trump should be added in the "leadership" section on the insurrection side in the infobox given that he blatantly incited the attack on Capitol and that the entire faction looks to him as their leader. Not listing him and painting this as a movement without leadership is blatantly whitewashing Trump of his part in the affair. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

He did not tell them to attack the Capitol. He in fact eventually told them to leave the Capitol. I don't think he is really leading the protesters/rioters in any meaningful sense. Tamwin (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it as he has publicly called for peace and wants them to stop. End of. Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's tepid message to the insurrectionists doesn't change the fact that he'd spent months inciting exactly this kind of action. There is also no question that the groups involved in the insurrection look to him as a leader/figurehead -- they have directly acknowledged his orders before, notably when obeying his now-infamous "stand back and stand by" comments last year. Even if one takes his backing down as genuine, he was blatantly the inciting figure and leader of the movement at the start of the attack on Capitol. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe him as the leader? Tamwin (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

TKSnaevarr, no. President Trump has not explicitly told anyone to storm the Capitol building, he asked them in a Tweet to stop the violence, and then in another to leave. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

But isn't he essentially giving orders? In various videos he's released condemning them, he uses the first person plural ("they stole the election from us"), identifying himself with the protestors and the rioters, and then talks about "the other side". He's aware that these people see him as their leader, and rather than dismissing them, he continues trying to appeal to them, telling them gently, "you have to go home now". You could say he's taking advantage of the fact that they see him as their leader to try and order them to leave peaceably and get them to dispel the violence. But he's not exactly distancing himself from them. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

In case this hasn't been seen, 2021 United States coup d'état attempt

Doug Weller talk 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I've redirected the page to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Off to bed now, I suppose I won't be able to sleep through the night without checking the news! Doug Weller talk 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusingly though, we now have 2021 United States coup d'état attempt pointing to one article and 2020 United States coup d'état attempt to another. Would a hatnote – 2021 United States coup d'état attempt redirects here. It is not to be confused with 2020 United States coup d'état attempt – seem flippant? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, I have corrected the aforementioned redirect. It now points to this article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: But this event didn't happen in 2020. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, you are correct. However, if people are mistakenly typing it often looking for this article, then it is a good redirect. Unless it was referring to a different incident? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it's worth revisiting in a week or so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take a look at the view count then and see if it is necessary or not. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543, your edit to 2020 United States coup d'état attempt has now been reverted by P,TO 19104 to point back to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Description as an attempted coup. Seagull123 Φ 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Seagull123, yes. The redirect was indeed supposed to point to a different article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t there be a separate but linked article entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”? Why does this specific event not have its own article? It is unprecedented in modern US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title Runnamucker (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Runnamucker (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the same event. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this event could be considered a coup, the thing is too unorganized. I was sure that Trump, despite his questionable actions, I don't think that his real intention was to block in this illegal way the certification of votes. In my opinion, it lacks the assumptions to call this also an attempted coup. DR5996 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Caused By

Since a major cause of the protest was President Trump's claims of election fraud, should that be added to the infobox in the "Caused By" section? Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/953616207/diehard-trump-supporters-gather-in-the-nations-capital-to-protest-election-resul "President Trump himself addressed the crowd and urged them to protest what he falsely claims was a rigged election before marching to the Capitol and pushing past security barriers there."Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Trump's claims being the cause was quoted by CNN in its live session. Will that be considered a reliable source? 180.151.224.189 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll need to demonstrate that this is the mainstream view among reliable sources, which to my observation it is not. He certainly helped to incite the protest, as did quite a few other people, but I don't think it should go in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note of Appreciation to Misplaced Pages contributors

May I on behalf of all readers express enormous gratitude for the contributions & editing here. A hugely impressive page on an ongoing event. Wikipedians at their best. I really hesitate to clutter this page even with this note, so feel free to remove :) Perhaps there is space in the wiki model for an additional tab to allow readers to express gratitude. Thank you all contributors for your diligent work. A European reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.66.189 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That is very kind of you to say, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Like --- N2e (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Like All of the contributors should be commended, and by that I mean those contributing in good-faith, which is the majority. I'd also like to say that I'm particularly impressed with GorillaWarfare's fair and extended engagement with various editors on the talk page, as well as their quick handling of some minor bits of disruption. I was going to leave something saying as much on their talk page, but I might as well leave it here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am more mixed on this. There have been far too many edit conflicts, and clearly there is need for a type of protection that has a higher requirement than 500 edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, This was a note of appreciation to editors, not praise for the Misplaced Pages backend. Just say thanks! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And I left my own note to editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Fair enough, I'm just giving you a hard time. Happy editing! (I'll give another thanks to editors who've helped out as well!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I too am mightily impressed by the work of my peers. I have started several breaking news articles during my 200 years on Misplaced Pages and know how frustrating and exhilarating it can be. Brilliant efforts all round today. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is an appropriate solution to edit conflicts. If more protection is needed to avoid edit wars, sure, but this would be unnecessary otherwise. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit conflicts are frustrating, but page protection is for preventing intentional disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If edit wars aren't considered disruptive, then I disagree. There have been silent edit wars on this article, where the same content has been added, removed and re-added multiple times. This is allowed due to the significant amount of edits being made, which makes community enforcement of WP:BRD impossible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Then just... enforce it? Ping the people relevant to the war on the talk page. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I wish it was enforced too, but it seems that there are far too many edits, making it too difficult to enforce. Due to the high likelihood of edit conflicts, edits were making their edits smaller and more numerous, which creates more edit conflicts and increases the difficulty in identifying and enforcing edit warring behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Never thought I’d see the day (besides Olympus Has Fallen in real life) that people genuinely appreciated Misplaced Pages. This is why we do what we do, at the end of the day. Trillfendi (talk)

Also want to say good job to those who did it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just read the entire article and am greatly impressed with it. Even if many conflicts had to be undergone by the editors, this is an astonishing production in a very short time. DSatz (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New page for efforts to remove Trump via 25th Amendment or Impeachment.

Should we start a new page dedicated to the efforts to remove Donald Trump? Even if these efforts are unsuccessful, articles of impeachment are already being drawn up by Ilhan Omar, and I would say it would be likely they will be voted on tonight, which would warrant a separate page. A vast number of Democratic members have said he should be removed via 25th amendment or impeachment, tonight. So I think we should make a page now, and if it turns out to not happen we can just merge it back into this page as its not really that notable (members have called for trumps impeachment and removal 100s of times, not really that notable unless at least there is a vote).

I would make it myself, but it would likely get deleted or by the time I was finished writing it there would already be another page lol.MarkiPoli (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We've already got Impeachment of Donald Trump which largely describes the late 2019/early 2020 impeachment, but it could perhaps be added to that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That page (along with Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump, which covers the house investigation before the vote, and Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump, which covers the Senate trial) only covers the 2019-20 impeachment. Other efforts are at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, so it would be added to that. There will need to be a new page though, if he is impeached again by the house (even if he isn't removed by the senate). MarkiPoli (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support you to write a draft, but only publish it until the articles of impeachment are official. It should be named Second Impeachment of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is far too premature to create a new page until actions are taken toward impeachment beyond just an introduction of a resolution. This should be a new section at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump for now. Reywas92 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody who can edit mention that Ilhan Omar has announced the drafting of articles of impeachment? Thank you Homo logos (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some footage that could be migrated

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biZ79MkOA5w

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Uploading to commons now. Heavy video so might take a little while. Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• here Kingsif (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

DC National guard statement

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2464427/statement-by-acting-secretary-miller-on-full-activation-of-dc-national-guard/ Victor Grigas (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

PolitiFact

I recently added a citation of a PolitiFact article claiming that what occurred can be reasonably considered a coup, but this citation was removed in another edit by another user. The removal was unexplained by the user, and I think the source (including the quotation) should still be there. AndrewOne (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It was probably an edit conflict—I've had a handful of my edits mysteriously go missing just because the page is so heavily-edited. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem supported by the source. PolitiFact only concludes "a good case can be made" and, throughout the article, the author hedges his bets, never coming right out and saying yes or no. (In any case, if it could be defined in these terms it would be an autgolpe and not a coup, but I don't think PolitiFact is probably sophisticated enough to have landed on that word yet; maybe they will in a few days. I don't say that disparagingly, just that their writers don't have any real expertise in this area and seem to be learning on the job at the moment.) Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@AndrewOne: - that "other user" was me, I'm afraid. I intended to make a simple one-word change to a different section to improve readability, but there was an edit conflict. I cancelled it completely and made my tiny change again, and I have no idea how it picked up this other material. By the time I was alerted to what happened, it could not be undone because there were almost a hundred other changes in the meantime which overlapped. Then I had to go to work and I have only just seen your note as well. So I am happy to fix it if there is agreement on what should be changed. And please accept my rather confused apologies for the problem.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is PD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8YVqgFsrdM Victor Grigas (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it? Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New draft regarding possible impeachment and removal, or removal via 25th amendment

I made a draft at User:MarkiPoli/2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. There isn't much there as of now so please edit it if you want and add to it. I believe an article is now necessary considering there are members of the cabinet talking about the 25th amendment in earnest, and 36 House democrats (at least) have said Trump should be removed, either via impeachment or 25th amendment. If anyone wants to make the article in mainspace after its cleaned up a little, go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkiPoli (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Until there is some reporting on this, it's just a conversation that is ongoing and it has been a subject of discussion for four years now. The guy has just 14 days left in office, this is more of a symbolic gesture. Liz 03:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

, , , , - For the moment, this looks serious. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

CBS News has reported itMarkiPoli (talk) 03:54, 7 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)

Unified definitions of 'rally', 'protest', 'coup d'état' and 'riot'

I have noticed that there are many conversations in the talk section that are debating to change the title of this page. Some of these arguments have almost devolved into the minutiae of what the words 'protest' or 'rally' even mean. In order to avoid the endless pit of argument, I propose that Misplaced Pages use a standardized definition. I recommend using a source that is NOT Wikitionary, since that can be freely edited and the arguing will start again.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot

This is my first time contributing to Misplaced Pages in any way, so please forgive any errors in protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:5300:6:9159:1518:3906:67cc (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Made New article regarding 25th amendment or possible impeachment

2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. Multiple, credible sources (CNN, CBS) have reported both Trump's cabinet and multiple senior Republicans are calling for his removal. So I've put my draft in the main space. Put the link in the main article if you want to.MarkiPoli (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe this article is premature as Articles of Impeachment haven't even been introduced. Until a formal impeachment inquiry is passed or another action like invoking the 25th Amendment happens this article is pure speculation and should not warrant a separate page. Some members have said they are drafting Articles right now or support impeachment but other than that nothing has happened. JayJay 05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. An article about people calling out the president for one event isn't the type of article that would pass WP:10YEARTEST – Trump has been called out many times before; this is stronger than usual, but not unique. The responses should be noted, just not on their own page for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with both of the above. This is not quite, but bordering on, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Chetsford (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bipartisan observation

Mitch McConnell and a number of other Republicans have described what transpired as a Invasion by insurrectionists not protesters.

I agree. So many across the political spectrum in America, and everyone else in the world, has certainly described it in more stark terms than merely "protests". So many public officials and experts in America, and leaders around the world called it an "attempted coup", "storming of the Capitol", "insurrection", or even "riots" for the extreme level of violence against the Capitol rather than mere "protests"? Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't a riot this was a political insurrection planned coordinated and clearly effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.23.104 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in bipartisanship. We chronicle what RS reported whether both, one, or no parties agree. Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Separate article

untitled section split off from above by User:GKFX 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There should be a separate but linked article for this attack, as it is an unprecedented in modern US history. News sources such as NYT are calling it an attack... and that’s what it is.

The article should be entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”

further discussion at link below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title Runnamucker (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, suggest WP:CITEBUNDLE. GeraldWL 15:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Incited by Trump

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 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 Misplaced Pages. Bombastic Brody (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New Photo

As a note, almost all photos of the storming (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Rudy Speaking closeup.jpg) have been nominated for deletion. Might need to find a new photo, or worst case, have none. — Yours, Berrely • ∕_Contribs 08:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Side note, I believe the new header image should probably show the actual occupation of the capitol building itself. It's strange to me that the existing one doesn't. Nekomancerjade Talk 08:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

i would like to second what Nekomancer said. The first picture shown on the page should be a photo of the actual occupation of the building, rather than protesters hanging around outside Neonpixii (talk)

proposed infobox

Extended content

2021 storming of the United States Capitol Part of 2020–2021 United States election protests and attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Crowd.jpgCrowd at the rally in D.C. Date January 5, 2021 – ongoing Location Washington, D.C., U.S. Caused by Opposition to the Electoral College vote count of the 2020 United States presidential election Status Ongoing Parties "Save America" Rally Pro-Trump protesters Proud Boys America First Neo-confederates Republican Party (partially) US Goverment US Capitol Police FBI Department of Homeland Security United States Marshals Service  District of Columbia District of Columbia National Guard Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia  Virginia Virginia National Guard Virginia State Troopers Fairfax County Police Department  Maryland Maryland National Guard Montgomery County Police Department Prince George’s County Police Department Democratic Party Republican Party (partially) Casualties Death(s) 4 Injuries At least 14 D.C. police officers Arrested At least 53 2020 U.S. presidential election Timeline 2017–2019 January–October 2020 November 2020 – January 2021 Presidential debates Parties Polling national statewide News media endorsements primary general Fundraising Russian interference Presidential electors Electoral College vote count Presidential transition Subsequent voting restrictions Attempts to overturn Protests inauguration week Lawsuits pre-election post-election Texas v. Pennsylvania Fake electors plot Chesebro memos Eastman memos Jeffrey Clark letter January 6 Capitol attack timeline reactions domestic international aftermath Democratic Party Primaries timeline Candidates Debates Forums Results Positions Polling national statewide Endorsements Nominee VP candidate selection Convention automatic delegates Republican Party Primaries Debates Results Polling Endorsements Nominee Convention Reactions to Trump's fraud claims Third parties Libertarian Party primaries convention nominee Green Party primaries debates results convention nominee Third-party and independent candidates Related races Senate House Governors ← 2016 2020 2024 → v t e References https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1346934098384793606 Yancey-Bragg, N'dea; Bacon, John; Carless, Will; Miller, Ryan W. "Pro-Trump rioters breach Capitol, forcing lockdown; one person shot; Pence evacuated, Senate chamber cleared out". USA TODAY. Retrieved January 6, 2021. Sales, Ben. "Fears as Trump supporters, including anti-Semitic groups, rally in Washington". www.timesofisrael.com. "Was the Confederate Flag Raised at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.?". Snopes.com. United States Marshals Service (6 January 2021). "The U.S. Marshals Service is joining with other law enforcement agencies in supporting the U.S. Capitol Police during operations in Washington, D.C." (Tweet) – via Twitter. Cite error: The named reference Northam1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). "Dominique Maria Bonessi on Twitter". Cite error: The named reference Hogan1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Staff, Bethesda Beat (2021-01-06). "Montgomery County police called to D.C. after protest mob invades Capitol". Bethesda Magazine. Retrieved 2021-01-06. "Delia Gonçalves on Twitter". Cite error: The named reference 4Died was invoked but never defined (see the help page). "Over 50 people arrested, 14 officers injured and 4 deaths reported amid pro-Trump protests in DC". FOX 5 DC. January 6, 2021. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved January 7, 2021. ^ Brice-Saddler, Michael; Williams, Clarence (January 6, 2021). "Three died of medical emergencies during siege of Capitol". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Notes Robert Contee III, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia chief of police, said police had made at least 52 arrests: 47 for curfew violations and unlawful entry; 4 carrying a pistols without a license, and 1 for possession of a prohibited weapon. Contee said that 26 of the 52 arrests were made on the Capitol grounds.

What about this proposed infobox distinguishes it from the current one? CaptainEek ⚓ 08:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: This infobox appears to add the participating parties. I support it's addition Bravetheif (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is only one problem at the infobox: Democratic Party, Republican Party and pro-Trump protesters (Keep america great again), have no flagicons. If somebody finaly add this, maybe could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I made an edit to your proposed infobox as three of the Template:flagicon image uses had File: appended to the beginning of them, preventing them from showing up properly. I believe that the addition of File: was a mistake and removed them. Is this ok with you? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, I like it RoadSmasher420 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not my infobox, the IP proposed it. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Against for reasons of the inclusion of political parties (fairly big-tent organizations with only nominal involvement in the actual events) and the non-WP:NPOV term "protestors." "Demonstrators," "elements" or similar in my opinion would be better. Would be in support of adding the parties involved to the infobox, but against this specific proposition. U-dble (talk) 21:53, 7 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)

The "coup" discussion

Seeing that there are now sources beginning to describe this as a "coup attempt", I wanted to make an organized section discussing the situation. It also seems that some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt, but the forceful entry into the capitol was a coup attempt. Below I will make a few sections to organize this discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources describing as "coup attempt"

This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "coup attempt" or similar (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

Generally reliable sources

• The Atlantic – This is a Coup
• Bellingcat – "what many are calling an attempted coup"
• BuzzFeed News – "Facebook Forced Its Employees To Stop Discussing Trump's Coup Attempt", "President Trump Just Used Social Media To Attempt A Coup", "Trump Is Justifying His Supporters' Attempted Coup With More Lies About The Election", "There’s No Evidence Antifa Was Involved In The Attempted Coup At The Capitol"
• CNN – "Wednesday's coup attempt at the US Capitol.", "Trump's stunning attempt at a coup"
• The Daily Beast – "It’s Our First-Ever Coup Attempt—and There’s No Doubt Who’s Behind It"
• The Daily Dot – "engaging in the first attempted coup against the American government since the Civil War"
• The Guardian – "the attempted coup continues to unfold"
• Haaretz – Trump’s Legacy: From Charlottesville to Coup Attempt, an Embrace of Far-right Violence
• The Intercept – "Trump did make a half-hearted effort to end the attempted coup he had requested"
• Los Angeles Times – "looking a lot like an attempted coup, as violent Trump supporters laid siege to the nation’s Capitol"
• Le Monde diplomatique – "after participating in the coup d'état in Congress", "A woman who participated in the coup in Congress"
• Mother Jones – "It was outright rebellion, an attempt at an actual political coup"
• MSNBC – "Trump incited a riot as part of a clumsy attempt at a coup"
• The Nation – "Joe Biden spoke about the attempted coup"
• The New Republic – "A Very American Coup", "praised those who carried out the coup attempt", "As for Trump, his cuckoo coup attempts"
• New York – "American democracy in a violent crescendo to Trump’s coup failed attempt", "Fourteen senators had originally indicated support for the attempted coup"
• The New Yorker – "Only after a riot and an attempted coup has Congress finally ended the 2020 Presidential election"
• Rolling Stone – "The Attempted Coup at the Capitol Proves This Is the United States of QAnon"
• The Times – "watching a coup unfold in the final moments of the presidency"
• Der Spiegel – "Coup of the losers"
• TheWrap – "The former NYC mayor, it seemed, tried to call one of Trump’s Senate allies to beg for more help pulling off what amounts to coup"
• U.S. News and World Report – "It looked like a coup attempt in the very sort of undeveloped country"
• USA Today – "With the Capitol's breach, President Trump's virtual coup on Twitter became all too real"
• Vanity Fair – "urging White House officials not to speak to Trump or enable his coup attempt", "Trump's attempted coup"
• Vox – "The effort is flagrantly undemocratic, a kind of legal coup"
• The Washington Post – "She was one of four fatalities from the violent coup attempt", "stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup"

Other sources

• Government Executive – "OPM Failed to Issue Guidance for D.C. Federal Workers During Coup Attempt"
• Fortune – "A coup attempt and an undivided government", "Attempted coup at Capitol presents key opportunity for cyberattack, experts warn"
• NASDAQ – "GOVTS WRAP - Blue sweep stirs stimulus reflation trade, put on pause by Trump's coup d'état attempt"
• The Mercury News – "Trump’s clumsy coup fuels dangerous national division"
• Lexington Herald-Leader – "McConnell’s defense of democracy far too little, far too late amid Capitol coup attempt"
• Kansas City Star – "Assault on democracy: Sen. Josh Hawley has blood on his hands in Capitol coup attempt"
• Washington City Paper – "D.C. Shuts Down After Violent Insurrectionists’ Attempted Coup"
• GQ – "Scenes From a Coup Attempt"
• The Jerusalem Post – "Can the coup in Washington happen in Jerusalem? - analysis"
• Business Insider – "Advertisers pull commercials around news coverage of attempted coup at US Capitol"
• Gizmodo – "American Airlines Bans Alcohol on Flights Out of D.C. After Trump Loyalists Attempt Coup"
• Mashable – "The attempted coup revealed what really poisons America"
• TechCrunch – "Social media allowed a shocked nation to watch a coup attempt in real time"
• Uproxx – "Sen. Josh Hawley’s Home State Newspaper Took Him To The Woodshed For His Starring Role In Trump’s MAGA Coup Attempt"
• Perfil – "Trump leads the US to self-destruction and there is fear of self-coup"
• elDiario.es – "An attempted coup that bears the signature of Donald Trump"
• Okdiario – "Attempted coup in the capital of the world"
• Grupo Noticias – "Attempted coup in the US: Trump supporters break into Congress and confront the Police"
• Handelsblatt – "Trump's unsuccessful coup: Biden faces a Herculean task"
• BFM TV – "Pro-Trump coup in the US Congress"
• Orange S.A. – "Pro-Trump coup in the US Congress"
• Euronews – "Calm in Washington after pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill"
• France Info – "Pro-Trump coup: "Will democracy be able to reduce these fractures?" Asks a political scientist specializing in the United States"
• Ouest-France – "IN IMAGES, IN PICTURES. The coup by supporters of Donald Trump"
• La Voix du Nord – "Pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill: one dead, curfew in effect in Washington"
• Stuttgarter Nachrichten – "Trump supporters occupy Capitol: The second coup - a low point in democracy"
• Luxemburger Wort – "The pro-Trump coup on Capitol Hill"
• Habertürk – "Last minute US coup attempt: Congress building was raided: 4 dead"
• Yeniçağ – "Coup attempt in America. Is the USA behind every coup and every uprising good?"

Sources describing as "insurrection"

This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "insurrection" (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

• Mother Jones – "Liveblog: Trump Incites Violent Insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• The Intercept – "INSIDE THE INSURRECTION"
• NBC – "A 'surreal, bizarre' day: Congress returns after pro-Trump insurrection"
• NPR – "What Groups Were Involved In Pro-Trump Insurrection?"

• Lulu Garcia-Navarro (senior NPR journalist) – "NPR guidance: we won’t be calling the people who stormed the Capitol ‘protestors’ - they are ‘pro-Trump extremists’ and what they are doing is ‘insurrection’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• CNN – "Insurrection fueled by conspiracy groups, extremists and fringe movements"
• Associated Press – "Insurrection Marks Moment of Reckoning for Republicans"
• Vanity Fair – "DONALD TRUMP SAYS VIOLENT INSURRECTION THAT KILLED AT LEAST ONE PERSON WAS JUSTIFIED"
• Vox – "The far right is falsely blaming antifa for the pro-Trump insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• PBS News Hour – "Acting U.S. Attorney General says U.S. Capitol insurrection an ‘intolerable attack’"
• The Guardian – "'Incited by the president': politicians blame Trump for insurrection on Capitol Hill"
• Washington Post – "Pence says 'violence never wins,' McConnell decries 'attempted insurection ' as Congress resumes Electoral Count."
• Washington Post - "From historic day to 'insurrection,' how the mob takeover of the Capitol unfolded in news coverage"
• USA Today "'Disgraceful': World leaders shocked by US Capitol 'insurrection' "
• Axios "Former presidents denounce "insurrection" at U.S. Capitol" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxterria (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• ABC News The insurrection at the U.S. Capitol offers a new, and perhaps final, moment of reckoning ...
• Capital Gazette From Washington to Annapolis, dismay, anger and disbelief follow insurrection on Capitol Hill
• Marketplace (radio program) What the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol means for economic recovery
• Irish Times ‘Insurrection’: How the world’s media covered the storming of the US Capitol by Trump supporters
• CNBC Trump tweets amid violent Capitol Hill insurrection as leaders beg him to address the nation
• WAMU-FM A Fatal Insurrection At The U.S. Capitol Leaves D.C. Under Curfew, Public Emergency
• Rolling Stone ‘Deeply Disturbing and Alarming’: World Leaders Condemn MAGA Insurrection
• Oregon Public Broadcasting Portland’s protesters spot double standard in restrained response to Capitol insurrection
• KMGH-TV Denver leaders react to U.S. Capitol insurrection
• Variety TV News Scrambles to Cover Insurrection at U.S. Capitol in Surreal National Moment
• Quartz Big business is turning against Trump and his fellow insurrection enablers
• KSAT-TV Some Texas Republicans decried Capitol insurrection — but didn’t connect the violence to their own rhetoric (preceding 12 added by Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC))
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – "'Insurrection at the Capitol': Trump supporters storm Congress in a deadly assault on American democracy" Alalch Emis (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

In the sections above, "coup" is more widely used internationally. On the other hand, it seems that "insurrection" is more prominent in English sources and in use among US politicians. "Storm" does not appear to be more popular than the other two, though it appears frequently in German media.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Very few not-in-the-moment sources use coup without attempted, because the word coup does imply a success. The word storm doesn't have that implication, a storm is a still a storm whether it's successful or not. Same with a protest, an attack, a demonstration, etc. I think that we should avoid using coup simply because we can't use it without putting a qualifier there, which instantly strays into commentary territory. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Holding on Changes I appreciate the work that went in to making this list, however, caution should be exercised. Business Insider is currently the subject of an intense discussion at WP:RSN and I question the quality of Uproxx for reporting civil-military relations; many of these are op-eds and editorials that are using the word "coup" as a term of art; and several of these are non-English language sources where the nuance of the word coup does not precisely reflect in English translation. Factually, if it were determined to be a putsch of some type, it would be an autogolpe and not a coup. A coup is an attack against the existing executive power, while an autogolpe is an attack against the existing legislative power. As time progresses, this nuance will be learned and internalized by reporters on beats that normally don't deal with this subject and we may see an evolution in nomenclature. We must chronicle the terms used by RS, however, that does not preclude us from proceeding with deliberation and caution, particularly insofar as current events are concerned. Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Not a survey, but thanks for the info as I agree that we should wait and created this discussion so we can pick apart the sources while we wait. The op-eds included are written by the editorial boards of the said sources, showing that the term they use is what the publication decides best describes the event. "Putsch" is not used often in English and especially not in this circumstance, though it is often synonymous with "coup" when used. Your statement that " coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue. An autogolpe or self-coup is a type of coup, so it would still be accurate to describe it as a "coup attempt" without being too specific on what type of coup it may be (which seems like many publications have done by simply calling the event a "coup attempt"). Also, we describe various self-coups on Misplaced Pages as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt", such as the 1851 French coup d'état, the 1973 Uruguayan coup d'état and the 1970 Lesotho coup d'état. So if the event were to be determined to be a self-coup attempt, then it would be acceptable to name this the 2021 United States coup d'état attempt in accordance with predecessor articles. That is, unless, sources give us a special name for the event.--WMrapids (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Your statement that " coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue." I regret to inform you that's an objectively false statement. As the French term is invoked in English, a coup d'etat is understood to be an attack against the executive power in all literature on the subject while the Spanish term autogolpe is invoked to mean an attack against the legislative authority by the executive. I can't find my copy of Luttwack's Coup d'Etat at the moment, but I'm pretty certain he clarifies it that way (and it is the definitive source on the subject), but there's a breadth of other scholarship on this as well in the academic literature (e.g. or Paul Brooker's Non Democratic Regimes ). "we describe various self-coups on Misplaced Pages as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt"" Please see WP:WINARS. In any case, this is all neither here nor there since it sounds like we both agree we should wait to implement any changes. Chetsford (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I did some searches just then, most of the articles I just read referred to it as a "riot" or the "protestors storming the capitol building". I'm not seeing a lot of obvious references to coups, and my personal feeling is, a coup would involve some level of sophisticated organistion, this is just the working of a mob. Just my 2c! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: The simple definition of a coup is "the removal of an existing government from power" (Misplaced Pages), "a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power" (Oxford) or "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" (Merriam-Webster), all meaning that it is the removal or change of a government, which generally can constitute multiple branches, not only the executive. However, it seems that you are more interested in the intricate definition of a coup according to various scholarly opinions which, as you can see in some articles above, are divided. Your opinion is respected, but we do not use WP:OR. Reliable sources seem to be using the simple definition approach. As for WP:WINARS, that is obvious. The articles were listed as examples for if this event is determined to be a coup attempt by reliable sources, not as a source to determine the article title.--WMrapids (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate you looking up the word "coup" in the dictionary, we generally frown on WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Dropping the not-a-guideline essay WP:COUP. It's a pretty hardline stance, used a few times discussing South American politics. Kingsif (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: That's helpful. It seems like many reliable sources are describing this a "coup attempt", though it's still early so we are working on determining Misplaced Pages:Verify. Due to the importance of this article, we can be sure WP:OR should not be a problem as well. WP:NPOV seems to be alright too as numerous reliable sources have verified that Biden had won the election and that such acts of reversing the election are unlawful, so describing this as a "coup attempt" would be neutral. It seems like we are just working on the verifiability regarding how to describe the event at this point (insurrection, coup attempt, etc.)--WMrapids (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• If looking at more sources, The Guardian has now collected all its coverage under the tag "US Capitol stormed" on its website. But then they have a headline calling it an insurrection, and an opinion piece saying to call it a coup. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Look at the multiple sources added above into a generally reliable section. Many new sources being released this morning.--WMrapids (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but The New York Times has published an article that explicitly rejects the "coup" label. Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is in my mind too early to use these types of words. The most accurate statement is protest turned riot. Unless someone can prove that the people involved had an organized plan to overthrow Congress, which is very doubtful, than the other labels don't apply. Also a lot of the sources using these terms are opinion pieces, they can be useful in describing what people 'think' of what happened, but not what it actually was. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside my own personal opinion about this event, I wonder why do we need to count noses & apply just a single label. Why not write something like the following: "While this has been described as a coup , others have described it as an insurrection , or a riot ." IMHO, that would adhere to NPOV: we are reporting what others say, not our own opinions. (And we can save our discussion energy for which sources to use as examples.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• this is about the name. The RtM to something other than "protests" was urgently needed, but there will be another name change, ideally in about a week from now. Alalch Emis (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitters Involvement

Twitter had a big role in the storming of the Capitol. Multiple high ranking GOP members went out and disavowed trumps actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.142.139 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Jamiroquai Protester

I was going to add a brief mention of the protestor with the hat and horns (whose actual name is Jake Angeli), as I've found four articles that mention him specifically, including some just discussing him. However, clearly he shouldn't have his own page, nor should he go on the Jamiroquai. Does that sound ok? Any objections? He has featured very prominently in the media, almost the face of the protesters. If anyone doing the major editing here has any objections?Chetsford, WMrapids, Majavah, let me know - Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What kind of mention and where in the article were you thinking? Majavah (talk!) 12:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trump video

As seen and discussed previously at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 1#this is PD. Instead of just quoting his words from the video, we can insert it as media - at least five other language versions of Misplaced Pages have - for encyclopedic documentation of 1. the response and 2. the video which has taken on notability of its own for being removed by all social media. One editor objected to its inclusion - and tried to delete it - by saying it's inciting violence. Well, we've got the speech in quotes already in the article and I'm sure you can all see it's not an incitement to anything, not that such would preclude inclusion at all per the fact we're documenting its existence and significance, and the video caption came with a disclaimer. As there was one unfounded objection and plenty of support, I feel it would be beneficial to the encyclopedic coverage of the article to include the video (here on commons). Kingsif (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be included, yeah. WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course it needs to be included (with appropriate context). WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a document of high historic relevance. We wouldn't even be having this discussion with a different country. --MarioGom (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the video should be included for its historicity but strongly disagree that the disclaimer is needed. The current disclaimer comes across as overly concerned with challenging the points made by the subject of the video instead of simply informing the reader of what the video is. Simply saying in the caption what the video is, and what happened to it, should suffice; I see no reason why the disclaimer is necessary as it is currently worded and it will only invite future edit warring for its lack of a neutral presentation. I also disagree that there's any real, settled consensus on this yet (as insisted by Kinsif), considering the age of the article. RopeTricks (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The isn't a real consensus, but there was overwhelming support at the last discussion linked at the top of this section. Some said it should only be included if there is a strong disclaimer. @RopeTricks: Do you think your sole opinion - and two reverts before bringing it to discussion on what I expect is a 1RR article - trumps the pre-established views of those that discussed it before? I'll be waiting on your self-revert. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"two reverts before bringing it to discussion" I made the last revert AFTER I posted on this talk page discussion so check your clock before you try taking that route against me again. I saw on your previous discussion you can be rather snarky in your responses, which I am not tolerating. Anyway, to answer your question, my "sole" opinion should be considered, yes, as any editor's. This is an invite to a greater, dedicated discussion on the topic to hopefully secure a final, lasting consensus, unlike the prior discussion. If every single editor agrees that the current Twitter-style "disclaimer" is suitable, then so be it. RopeTricks (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh but you still re-reverted before it was discussed, no? No need to shout. If I'm snarky to people making ridiculous accusations of inciting violence then I'll be snarky to them and it's not your place to say you won't tolerate me when I've been nothing but polite to you. It's also not your place to say that nobody can add a disclaimer because you disagree when multiple other users have already agreed on doing it. Do you understand that? Get a consensus for your choice edit before continuing to force it, and self-revert until then. P.S. And don't think that calling someone out for being "snarky" in a different situation makes your opinion superior or whatever your intention in doing that was, okay? Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the video doesn't directly incite violence. If it did, I'd push for its outright deletion regardless of alleged historical significance. However, I don't think its inclusion on the article adds anything that can't be expressed solely through prose in a sentence or two. If a video needs a caption to debunk most of Trump's words as lies, we just shouldn't be including that video. RoxySaunders (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New first lead sentence

It seems to me that the first paragraph has gotten too long. The "storming" of the Capital is only introduced after two, very complex sentences. I'd add a new, one-sentence first paragraph to the top, something like:

On January 6, 2021, pro-Trump demonstrators outside the US Capital stormed the Capital building and invaded both the House and Senate chambers.

On January 5 and 6, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gathered in Washington, D.C., to protest...

-RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Fixed I have added a new lead sentence that explicitly summarizes the storming first, before going in to the background. Does this work for you? --Jayron32 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparison with the Wilmington coup of 1898

If relevant, please consider adding mention of the comparisons being made with the Wilmington coup of 1898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.35.142 (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://news.stanford.edu/2021/01/06/stanford-scholars-react-capitol-hill-takeover/
2. https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/us-capitol-riots-almost-entirely-unprecedented-umkc-professor-says
3. https://starnewsonline.com/story/news/2021/01/06/wilmington-area-via-social-media-reacts-capitol-hill-riots/6572057002/

Lackluster police response

Seems like an aspect of this event that isn't well covered in the article. Much of the controversy has been over the lax response of law enforcement, in comparison to other demonstrations, potentially due to demographics involved. Anyone got any good sources? I'm thinking specifically of things like the cops who were taking selfies with the rioters inside the building BlackholeWA (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is some at 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Scrutiny_over_Capitol_security_lapses. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Jake Angeli - the most notable protester

Shouldn’t Misplaced Pages 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)

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected redirect at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

1. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/insurrection-capitol-extremist-groups-invs/index.html
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/man-who-posed-at-pelosi-desk-said-in-facebook-post-that-he-is-prepared-for-violent-death/2021/01/07/cf5b0714-509a-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
3. https://twitter.com/AllMattNYT/status/1346962889115103232
4. https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/local/manatee/2021/01/07/man-who-took-speaker-pelosis-podium-at-u-s-capitol-building-believed-to-be-from-parrish/6579085002/

MacCallum's alleged “support"

What the article says she said does not necessarily imply support. She said that it was a huge victory for them, which is obvious. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ExperiencedArticleFixer I think it's important to mention the fact that coverage of the riot on Fox News had a largely positive tone, at least until the violence ramped up. This is especially important given the sharp contrast with other networks. The Daily Beast article seemed like a fairly reliable source, and I thought the implication was pretty clear. But, fair enough. Should there be a section of the article describing news coverage of the event, and how different networks reacted? This source additionally mentions how Fox News, at least initially, was very much happy for the rioters, backtracking once they realized the mob was far from peaceful. RexSueciae (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be original research/synthesis unless there are analyses of published media we could cite. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The linked WaPo article, and the article from The Daily Beast (which was removed from the wiki page, hence this discussion) appear to fit the criteria. RexSueciae (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Because editors have added references to Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, I am going to be bold and add MacCallum back in. RexSueciae (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are we using such soft language

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

Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages summarises what Reliable Sources say about a subject. Being able to see something "with our own eyes" is irrelevent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 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)

Mob: biased words

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 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Many, many reliable sources use the "mob" language. We follow the language used by the sources. Neutrality 14:21, 7 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 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)

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 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Security forces present

Perhaps it should be added in the articles that the US Marshals Service were also called in? They were in the infobox as a "party to the civil conflict" and it is confirmed in this source

KnightofFaerië (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)-

References

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/buildings-in-us-capitol-complex-evacuated-amid-pro-trump-protests.html

Act of War, Enemy Combatants, & Military Tribunal?

Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal? 162.237.205.133 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that show that the insurrection is an act of war, then it will be added to the article. Misplaced Pages's job isn't predicting what might happen. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Actualy, if somebody carries a Confedarate flag outside the Capitol isnt't an act of war. But if they are armed and cause damages threatening people at the sanctum of democracy, mayby you are right. This is an act of war. Finding sources to prove something that all planet saw with their eyes is something really easy. 5.54.43.217 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism in the United States perhaps. The US government can act against domestic terrorism, but "war" indicates there is a defined enemy. I would think it would be unConstitutional to designate any one political party as the enemy. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Act of war might be a good starting place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

No, rioters carrying confederate flags, which really from 1896- till the late 2010s, were often prompted by the federal government is not insurrection. By that reasoning Antifa members carrying flags of the Soviet Union or 1960s protestors who had North Vietnam flags, were insurrectionist or enemy combatants. All evidence points to this being handled by the DC police not the army so none of the three things you mention apply here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Their point is specifically about carrying a flag of the Confederacy (i.e. an enemy state to the Union) during a coup d'etat attempt against the United States government. This could theoretically be interpreted as a nascent act of the Civil War performed by militant advocates for the (now-defunct) Confederacy. While the attempt to violently disrupt democracy has been recognized as sedition and domestic terrorism, but currently no reliable sources recognize it as an act of war. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said that carrying a confedarate flag at a protest is an act of war. But not inside the US Capitol, during an attack. I agree that there are ot too much sources that mention it as an act of war. But I think that here we have all the proves we need to talk about an act of war. In this case, are the sources necessery? Only the picture shows people with confedarate and other alt-right flags INSIDE the US Capitol attacking at police officers, is enough to talk about an act of civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

External Links / FBI

Please add FBI Seeking Information Related to Violent Activity at the U.S Capitol Building. -- Iape (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I would like to add a better infobox that had suggested at previous section. It hadn't received the attention it need. The users that noticed it supported the change.

Extended content

2021 storming of the United States Capitol Part of 2020–2021 United States election protests and attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election File:Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Crowd.jpgTop to bottom, left to right: A pro-Trump flag waving in front of the Capitol, The crowd of far-right supporters of Donald Trump at the US capital city, President Donald Trump speaking to a crowd at the "Save America" rally, Protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza Date January 6, 2021 (2021-01-06) 1:10 p.m. – 5:40 p.m. (EST) Location United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. 38°53′23.3″N 77°00′32.6″W / 38.889806°N 77.009056°W / 38.889806; -77.009056 Caused by Opposition to the Electoral College vote count of the 2020 United States presidential election Parties "Save America" Rally Pro-Trump protesters File:Proud Boys flag.png Proud Boys America First (Groypers) Neo-confederates Republican Party (partially) US Goverment US Capitol Police FBI Department of Homeland Security United States Marshals Service  District of Columbia District of Columbia National Guard Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia  Virginia Virginia National Guard Virginia State Troopers Fairfax County Police Department  Maryland Maryland National Guard Montgomery County Police Department Prince George’s County Police Department Democratic Party Republican Party (partially) Casualties Death(s) 5 deaths 4 protestors 1 police officer Injuries At least 50 Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police officers Arrested At least 68 2020 U.S. presidential election Timeline 2017–2019 January–October 2020 November 2020 – January 2021 Presidential debates Parties Polling national statewide News media endorsements primary general Fundraising Russian interference Presidential electors Electoral College vote count Presidential transition Subsequent voting restrictions Attempts to overturn Protests inauguration week Lawsuits pre-election post-election Texas v. Pennsylvania Fake electors plot Chesebro memos Eastman memos Jeffrey Clark letter January 6 Capitol attack timeline reactions domestic international aftermath Democratic Party Primaries timeline Candidates Debates Forums Results Positions Polling national statewide Endorsements Nominee VP candidate selection Convention automatic delegates Republican Party Primaries Debates Results Polling Endorsements Nominee Convention Reactions to Trump's fraud claims Third parties Libertarian Party primaries convention nominee Green Party primaries debates results convention nominee Third-party and independent candidates Related races Senate House Governors ← 2016 2020 2024 → v t e References Petras, George; Leohrke, Janet; Zarracina, Javier; Borresen, Jennifer, eds. (January 6, 2020). "Timeline: How a Trump mob stormed the US Capitol, forcing Washington into lockdown". USA Today. Retrieved January 7, 2021. Yancey-Bragg, N'dea; Bacon, John; Carless, Will; Miller, Ryan W. "Pro-Trump rioters breach Capitol, forcing lockdown; one person shot; Pence evacuated, Senate chamber cleared out". USA TODAY. Retrieved January 6, 2021. Sales, Ben. "Fears as Trump supporters, including anti-Semitic groups, rally in Washington". www.timesofisrael.com. "Was the Confederate Flag Raised at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.?". Snopes.com. United States Marshals Service (6 January 2021). "The U.S. Marshals Service is joining with other law enforcement agencies in supporting the U.S. Capitol Police during operations in Washington, D.C." (Tweet) – via Twitter. Cite error: The named reference Northam1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). "Dominique Maria Bonessi on Twitter". Cite error: The named reference Hogan1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Staff, Bethesda Beat (2021-01-06). "Montgomery County police called to D.C. after protest mob invades Capitol". Bethesda Magazine. Retrieved 2021-01-06. "Delia Gonçalves on Twitter". McEvoy, Jemima. "These Are The Four People Who Died Amid The Capitol Riot". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-01-07. Terruso, Julia. "He organized a bus of Trump supporters from Pa. for 'the first day of the rest of our lives.' He died in D.C." Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2021-01-07. Wilson, Kristin; Perez, Evan; Brooks, David (7 January 2021). "US Capitol Police officer has died following riot at Capitol". Retrieved 8 January 2021. Raju, Manu; Barrett, Ted (2021-01-07). "Facing criticism, US Capitol Police details response to violent mob, 14 suspects arrested and 50 officers injured". CNN. Retrieved 2021-01-07. Glenn Thrush, Shaila Dewan, John Eligon and Neil MacFarquhar, Questions mount over law enforcement’s failure to protect the Capitol., New York Times (January 7, 2020): "Mr. Sund said more than 50 Capitol Police and Washington Metro Police officers had been injured, and several Capitol Police officers were hospitalized with serious injuries." ^ Cite error: The named reference Brice-Saddler was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Notes Robert Contee III, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia chief of police, said police had made at least 52 arrests: 47 for curfew violations and unlawful entry; 4 for carrying a pistol without a license, and 1 for possession of a prohibited weapon. Contee said that 26 of the 52 arrests were made on the Capitol grounds.

I agree with changing this to include the parties involved in the incident, however, one change would be the fact that the picture shouldn't be of the protest before the storming of the Capitol, considering that's not what this article is about, but that the picture should show the insurrectionists storming the Capitol inside or outside the building. There are plenty photos there, and I think it'll help make the article more about the incident rather then the prior protests. Foxterria (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a new edit, corresponding at the new infobox at the topic. Also there are an image added and the sides. I think it would be better than the infobox at the topic.

I also agree wit this edit, though I think that you should include the leading figures such as Trump, Pence, Giuliani, Pelosi, etc. in the infobox. SpaceSandwich (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Any additions could be useful, if they are confirmed.

Discussions on the first sentence

First sentence

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’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)

• 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 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}}  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)

Conspiracy theories

It should probably be mentioned somewhere in the "Reactions" section or elsewhere that quite a few pro-Trump Republicans (like Matt Gaetz) are trying to spread a baseless conspiracy theory that it was actually Antifa masquerading as Trump supporters. It's already gaining ground. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Related: A man who stormed the U.S. Capitol in a horned fur cap is an “Antifa thug.” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional Sections?

What with the increased coverage about individuals claiming that the individuals who stormed the building were ANTIFA protesters pretending to be MAGA followers and multiple conspiracy theories arriving or being pushed by conservative news sourcesshould there be a "Conspiracy theory/Controversy section" for this article? Further what could be added is the dichotomy between the BLM protests police response and the police response here, as I believe there are articles already out about it? Also should there be an "Investigation section" or "Planning of protest section"? The investigation section since the FBI has already reached out to the public asking for help and arrests have been made Along with the use of social media to help plan and incite violence. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/07/antifa-capitol-gaetz-trump-riot/
2. https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/known-antifa-members-posed-as-pro-trump-to-infiltrate-capitol-riot-sources/
3. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/police-response-black-lives-matter-protest-us-capitol/index.html
4. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/a-tale-of-2-americas-comparing-tepid-response-to-capitol-riots-with-blm-protests/2274129/
5. https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article248327960.html
6. https://abc7.com/fbi-information-at-us-capitol-washington-dc-riot-capital-building/9435616/
7. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-twitter-parler-proud-boys-boogaloos-antifa-qanon/6570794002/
8. https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/06/tech-leaders-speak-out-about-platforms-roles-in-us-capitol-riots/

In contrast to the BLM protests/riots/etc.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that a lot of comparisons have been made between the police response to the BLM riots and this event, yet there's nothing about this in the article. I've seen some news coverage doing these comparisons, so there's definitely sources. It seems pretty important to me, as the responses were incredibly different. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide these sources when suggesting changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

OmegaFallon, I found some sources to back this: CNN, USA TODAY, and The Guardian, The Washington Post, and CBS News, among others. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

May well be more trouble than it's worth, but I wondered what others thought of including a further reading section to collect some of the longform narrative pieces like the following. (I saw one last night from WSJ too, but I don't have the URL handy.) There's a zillion news articles around and I thought it might make sense to highlight, for our benefit and for posterity, the ones that describe the whole event and not just episodes that are part of it. FYI, the below are collected at the Wikidata item, which is well worth a look if you haven't seen it yet. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Jaffe, Logan; DePillis, Lydia; Arnsdorf, Isaac; McSwane, J. David (2021-01-07). "Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren't Ready". ProPublica.
• Buchanan, Larry; Gamio, Lazaro; Kelso, Christina; Khavin, Dmitriy; Leatherby, Lauren; Parlapiano, Alicia; Reinhard, Scott; Singhvi, Anjali; Watkins, Derek (2021-01-07). "How a Pro-Trump Mob Stormed the U.S. Capitol". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

'2021' in the title really necessary?

Is the '2021' in the title necessary? There isn't really an event like this ever in history, and no media outlet or source is calling it "the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" (Or "The 2021 Siege of the United States Capitol"/"The 2021 Coup of the United States Capitol"/"The 2021 Riots of the United States Capitol" etc). We call it the 'Storming of the bastille', not the '1789 storming of the Bastille'. For a recent event, we call it the 'COVID-19 Pandemic', not the '2019-2021 COVID-19 Pandemic'. We need to make sure that this wikipedia article is easy for people to access in the future. Foxterria (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s how it’s always been done SRD625 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Capitol was stormed by the British Army during the War of 1812. So the year is necessary. Smartyllama (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: But we call the incident in which the Capitol was stormed by the British Army the Burning of Washington Foxterria (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That may be the main article but there’s a section on the storming of the Capitol and I wouldn’t be opposed to 1814 Storming of the United States Capitol as a redirect there. Multiple sources have described this as the first time the Capitol was stormed since 1814. Even if we don’t have a page just about the 1814 storming, we still need to distinguish this from that. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Adam Kinzinger videos

I've just added two PD videos of Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill 11): one of his speech when the House returned to debate, and the other of his Twitter video today as the first GOP lawmaker to call for 25th amendment removal. Either of these might be good to use in the article. Kingsif (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, Thanks, the first would be good for 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count. Reywas92 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ASHLI BABBIT, the woman who was killed

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 Misplaced Pages, the World's News Source.

The police officer who shot her has been suspended. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt). Also, Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Need to add visual material that reflects the identity of perpetrators as Trump supporters

The photographs and videos currently included in this page do not sufficiently reflect the identity of the perpetrators as Trump supporters. Given that there are now conspiracy theories indicating that the ANTIFA incited the storming which are being circulating in the right-wing media, it is imperative that this page thoroughly debunks any falsehoods and presents sufficient evidence to unequivocally put such conspiracy theories to rest. There are numerous photographs and videos that clearly indicate the political affiliations of the perpetrators, including Trump flags and items of clothing prominently displaying the Trump name. These need to be included in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppt91 (talk • contribs)

If you have access to such images (which are compliant with Misplaced Pages's image use policy) can you include them here so we can see them? Also, as a side note, we don't include images merely to "identify perpetrators". I agree some better images of the actual event would be useful, but not for the reasons you note. However, we don't have a magic picture fairy who can just wave their wand and make images appear. A real live person has to 1) take the picture 2) agree to license the image for uses compatible with Misplaced Pages's license 3) upload the image to Wikimedia Commons so we can 4) add it to the article. If you can help with ANY of those steps, it would be most appreciated. --Jayron32

You're not wrong, but I don't know if it will accomplish what you think it will. These people will just as easily believe that "antifa infiltrators" put on some MAGA hats to blend in. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

While I do agree that visual parts of the articles could be improved, you're coming to it from a wrong angle. Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a battleground. It is also nota place for righting great wrongs. While there is some call for due weight and balance, we should just follow reliable sources, and the cultural consensus will make it to the top. Melmann 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we will need to rely on fair use here. Some of the most gripping images are owned by Getty (I've seen their watermark clearly on them), as well as other for-profit groups. They might permit CC-NC relicensing, which I believe falls under fair use. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Many sources are providing proof - more of which will be forthcoming - regarding Antifa's obvious roll in the violence at the Capitol. This was clearly a democrat putsch. https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/known-antifa-members-posed-as-pro-trump-to-infiltrate-capitol-riot-sources/

Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump Is A Juggernaut - No. NY Post is not ]. Jdphenix (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Cursory link: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#New_York_Post RoxySaunders (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

First time since war of 1812

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 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

International reactions

So now there is a separate page, obviously we can and should summarize here. However the current summary is vastly inadequate and borders on disinformation. It is not sufficient to say outside observers expressed concern and were shocked as if that's all there was. The current version goes even further than before in practically equating Ireland/France/Sweden/Germany's responses with that of Belarus or Russia: Some criticized the government of the United States itself, comparing the riots to other chaotic events throughout history. But there is a wide diversity of responses, all of which are notable and who says what has deep implications, especially once the next administration takes power:

• The following blamed Trump for the crisis (relevant to how they treat him as a legitimate or illegitimate interlocutor for the American people in the two weeks he is still President, if he remains so): France, Germany, Ireland, Nigeria, Sweden, Malaysia
• Said it was internal matter for the US: Mexico, Russia
• Russia made a cryptic statement about Maidan (i.e. the Ukrainian protests that toppled a pro-Russian head of state) that may be interpreted either as mocking American democracy or... something else.
• Explicitly described the protests as illegitimate,unlawful, as an insurrection, threat to democracy, etc: Canada, France, United Kingdom Germany, Israel, India (yes: both Israel and India), Austria, Bahamas, Trinidad, Estonia, Iceland, Lux, Slovakia --- relevant in the context of the "free world" relying on other members of the "free world" to maintain democracy in their country should it be challenged, and the US' history of intervention in the internal affairs of country's facing challenges to democracy, especially in Eastern Europe.
  • As a self-coup or autogolpe: Bolivia
• Stated that the protests damaged the ability of the US to criticize other governments or governing systems, or of double standards: Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, Russia sort of, China (bonus: South Africa advocated that Americans should "follow the example of great democratic states like South Africa")
• Explicit support to Joe Biden: Argentina,
• Call for a peaceful transition of power and/or stated the election results were legitimate: a lot.
• Endorsed Trump's claims about the election: Belarus, Brazil, some populist parties in Europe.

The summary should be fixed so that these are not all lumped together in some way. (Not all of these have to be distinguished -- just two or three "most notable" stances can be mentioned and that would be good). --Calthinus (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Facebook ban of President Trump?????

Is it true? Not mentioned in the article.

Facebook and Instagram 24 ban. Later increased to 2 week ban.

Twiiter 12 hour ban and threatened longer unless Trump complied and removed 3 tweets. What did those tweets say? Twitter ban reported to have been lifted.

This is good info for the article. Has any President ever been banned, especially for this long? If so, Mr. Facebook is stronger than Mr. Trump. All the pleading in the world won't help. Vowvo (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has contained this information for some time now. Majavah (talk!) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New Name

I think we can come up with a better name per Misplaced Pages: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 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)

Add new tags

We should add the rebellions in north america and 2020s coup attempts categories to the page. Elishop (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Meaning Category:Rebellions in North America and Category:2020s coup attempts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it's Category:2020s_coups_d'état_and_coup_attempts to be more precise. Elishop (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Public domain images

Hey, does anyone know if any public domain images of the incursion into the Capitol itself exist? The current infobox images seem a tad detached from the subject at hand since they're from the rally earlier in the day. If such images exist, I think they'd be well placed in said infobox. U-dble (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

25th amendment, Section 4 interpretation.

Description of Section 4 of the 25th amendment is inaccurate. It doesn't remove the president from office. It strips the president of his powers & duties, passing it to the vice president. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The article seems to sufficiently recognize this distinction, except in the two sentences like called for Trump's removal from office, either through impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Many sources (and the article on 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office) conflate "removal from office" with "no longer being the Acting President", and the functional difference is so small that this sentence doesn't strike me as inaccurate. RoxySaunders (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as we're careful, not to let MSM's inaccuracy overwhelm the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No result; we've just had a massive RM on the issue that was closed due to receiving over 200 comments in less than 18 hours, and the closer there said that any further requested move should not be discussed for another week, to allow for a breather for the article. I intend to help enforce that close, at least until after the weekend. Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → United States Capitol insurrection

1. Better meets the requirements of Misplaced Pages:Article titles.

2. Supported from WP:RS. See:

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

3. Accurate. This was "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Remember, wikipedia does not Misplaced Pages:CENSOR.

4. Given the connection of "storm" to QAnon, title is not Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. See storm Casprings (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I’ll repeat my comment in an earlier thread on the sources listed in 2 above: 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) 22:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

They delayed the certification of the president elect and came directly from a political rally. It was certainly political. Misplaced Pages:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t say it wasn’t political. Most dictionaries use insurrection as a synonym for rebellIon, revolt, uprising etc. A bunch of crazies bursting in to the Capitol and once in there, not knowing what to do other than put their feet up on Pelosi’s desk, get thrown out in a couple of hours taking the metro home doesn’t meet the dictionary definition in my view. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. I see where you're coming from, but this has been already discussed multiple times. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above two comments and that the current title better adheres to WP:NPOV. — Czello 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per DeCausa ,Czello and EDG 543.Already discussed and the current title is more neutral and adheres to NPOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Storming is something hostile forces do, not American citizens peacefully protesting an illegal election.Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Trump Is a Juggernaut: Your reply makes no sense. You voted against renaming the article (away from "storming") and yet you oppose the use of the word "storming". — Czello 22:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I oppose both titles. I thought that was clear. I'd also like to refer you to WP:DNB Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
      • It wasn't particularly clear, and that was hardly a bite. — Czello 22:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any further move at the moment. It's disruptive and distracting. --MarioGom (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Though there has being discussion prior to this new requested move, I agree that the name of the incident that occurred at the Capitol should be called what it's being called by the media at large, senior officials from both democratic and republican party members and other affiliated security branches of government. This was an insurrection against the United States Congress, and at large the media calls them insurrectionists or terrorists. The media does say that the insurrectionists 'stormed' the Capitol building, but calls the event and those who stormed the building insurrectionists or people carrying out a coup. As stated in this thread it supports Misplaced Pages:Article titles. Foxterria (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• I support it as well SRD625 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose -- no, please. See my comments on the previous name change discussion. I personally think that "2021 United States Capitol riots" would be the most appropriate title. The newly-proposed one is unwieldy. RexSueciae (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title has been discussed to death and most of us would like to move on. I think the year is important in identifying this specific event. I don't think "storming" is off-limits just because QAnon also uses that word. If it is off-limits, the next-best alternative is riots, because it describes what MAGA's did, rather than what they were trying to do. "U.S. Capitol Insurrection" is much worse because it introduces needless ambiguity as to whether it's an insurrection at the Capitol, of the Capitol, or by the Capitol. RoxySaunders (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This proposal conflates too many things: a) the descriptive term (e.g. "protest", "storming", "standoff", "breach", "insurrection"), b) how much chronological information to include (e.g. year, month-year, none), and c) the structure of the title. Personally, I care the most about "a", and dislike both "protest"/"protests" and "storming". It seems most urgent to have a serious conversation about the term before structuring the title around the term. Of the terms I listed, I mildly prefer "standoff" to the others, but my mind can be changed. -- RobLa (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The current title is the result of a previous consensus and accurately reflects the events and coverage of them.. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - insurrection would be a more organized undertaking in my view. This was just a misguided unstructured mob, so storming is rather appropriate. If some future investigation reveals that they were actually organized, equipped and commanded in some way, then I would agree to call it an insurrection. Crnorizec (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Insurrection would be an apt title for the events that transpired. District9123 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Decausa. 777burger 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly support - It's the term that most accurately describes what happened as detailed above. It's the term that elected officials are using on the floor of the House and Senate, it's the term that's being used in the media, and it's the term that most people will use when they look up the article. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support But I think a discussion of what elements we want in a title should be complete first before moving again. Do we want the year? "Insurrection"? Some variation on "coup"? It's all still being discussed. But being made aware that "storm" has QAnon connotations, I think a move away from that should happen in some form. If this gets broad support, count me in. Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think "insurrection attempt" would be a better phrase, though I think "coup d'etat attempt" would be better. Skrelk (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I would not be inclined to support this change if they had simply broken into the capitol building. However, considering individuals were occupying offices of extremely high-ranking government officials and made their way on to the floor of the upper chamber of the legislature, there is really no other description that fits. Maybe "insurrection attempt" Cliffmore (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Nothing else to add UnknownM1 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as it's more accurate. Elishop (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - When I searched for this article, I assumed that it would be something like "US capitol insurrection wiki". I believe most people will search using this. It's accurate and is more appropriate given the significance of what occurred Teammm 
  _email 23:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, I voted my support for the previous move, I don't think it needs to be moved again just yet. give it time! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not Yet While I support this language with my personal politics, unless this event begins to be discussed more in this framework, it would be NPOV. And while it might become framed in this way, we don't predict the future here. I suspect this move request to be closed under no consensus and reopened in the future should the public terminology of this event changes. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per points made in previous name change discussion Admanny (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "storming" is a more neutral term and more in the tone of an encyclopedia. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Definitionally the incident was a violent uprising in a direct attempt to halt the progress of democracy. If this isn't an insurrection, I don't know what is. Ottoshade (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is both appropriate to the incident and to WP:NPOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Regardless of the eventual name change, these were not "protests", as protesting does not involve invading any capitol building unlawfully. "Insurrection" is a stronger word than the action of "storming". If the name were to be changed to insurrection, then I do not oppose it. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support with minor change to 2021 United States Capitol insurrection - NPR, Associated Press, CNN, New York Times (per McConnell) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support given that we have more than half a dozen news organizations calling it 'insurrection' along with multiple politicians, it's apt to call it 'insurrection' instead of calling it something else violating WP:NOR. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:06, 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.

Oregon, for the "Outside the District of Columbia" section

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/01/06/pro-trump-election-rallies-close-oregon-marion-county-offices/6558277002/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/pro-trump-protesters-gather-near-oregon-capitol/283-9d75e29c-d3d8-4b48-8818-054a7ff54282

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/01/06/oregon-capitol-salem-trump-protest-election-results/

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2021/01/protest-set-for-oregon-capitol-as-trump-stages-dc-rally-lawmakers-convene-to-confirm-electoral-college-vote.html

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/operation-occupy-the-capital-salem-01062021/

Sharing again, mostly as a reminder to myself, since someone else archived a section with these sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is factual. I watched the original sources, and he claims, of course, that the election was stolen and that there was fraud. But from what I saw he never actually told anyone to go to the capitol and certainly never said to storm it. I think this is a bit too inflammatory and NPOV, and should be replaced with something like "after being inflamed by unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, a mob of armed rioters stormed the United States Capitol, breaching security and occupying parts of the building for several hours" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:1f70:a494:9e9b:b503:b4d0 (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to wp:boldly fix this sentence. BrxBrx(talk) I will there with you"! And with that sentence he lyed again.--93.211.213.235 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

After looking into it more, it seems he did say "i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today", however he did not tell them to storm the capitol. Just to protest there. Also that quote was not present in any of the three sources cited for that sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:1f70:a494:9e9b:b503:b4d0 (talk • contribs)

1. Please sign your comments. 2. If you dispute this, simply edit the page to reflect what the sources say. BrxBrx(talk) 23:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: Actually they cannot be bold and edit, the article is extended conformed protected, and they are an IP. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, maybe they could use the edit request function then, with a specific request for how to cure this allegedly faulty wording. BrxBrx(talk) 23:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, or rather: none of the three cited sources actually support the claim that Trump ordered them to storm the Capitol. They all report that he told his supporters to march there, but clearly that's not the same. The closest quote is from Times: "'If you don’t **fight** like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,' Trump had told the crowd, urging them to head to the Capitol" . I can't and won't edit, but that seems far too weak a source to start the entire article with such a disputed/unclear/open-to-interpretation statement. (It should obviously be discussed in detail in the remainder of the article.) 2A02:908:1013:7780:F0E3:646A:F748:4C1E (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Look more, b/c "Trump Is Said To Have Discussed Pardoning Himself" --93.211.213.235 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been fixed. --108.17.71.32 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with pictures in infobox

None of the photos featured in the infobox actually show the storming or occupation of the US Capitol building despite the title of the article being "2021 storming of the United States Capitol". The photos seem like they would be more appropriate to be featured on an article for the "Save America" rally" or the 2020–2021 United States election protests. Should this be rectified? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close to enforce the RM moratorium through the weekend. Sceptre (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 breach of the United States Capitol – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOL. Using "Storming" kinda has an alarming sound that comes across as not totally neutral. Additionally, breach has been commonly used in reliable sources.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/Capitol-cops-police.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/06/us-capitol-building-washington-history-breach
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-breach-security-failures/2021/01/06/e1e09b80-5061-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.html
• https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/photos-pro-trump-supporters-breach-the-capitol-building/2531640/ Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - though I'm not seeing Breach as much as Insurrection, Riot, Invasion and Siege in the headlines here. Examples: CBC, Toronto Star, Economist National Geographic. But Storm? Given that it appears that the QAnon nutters appear to use "Storm" as a codeword for their takevoer ... the use of Storm is very concerning, and should be quickly changed! Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close Not another one. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: "Breach" is too neutral of a term to accurately describe this incident. Brad (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No such thing as "too neutral". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There most certainly is such a thing as too neutral.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose it was a storming. They unlawfully took control of the capitol and forced a joint session of Congress to evacuate. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I have no problem with the current title but it does seem more that credible sources use the term "breach" rather than the term "storming". However, two title changes in two days seems like a lot so we should be patient and wait to change again. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel storming reflects what happened accurately.RKT7789 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close let's wait a few days for what the public reflects this as before considering another move. The last request was literally just closed an hour ago. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: A breach is not what happened Cliffmore (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and procedural close per DividedFrame and Kingsif. "Insurrection" was used more by sources than "breached", and the proposal to move to "insurrection" was unsuccessful. The current title is good enough; let's hold off on starting more proposed name changes unless and until one of those proposals emerges as the obvious WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:14, 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.

RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

(Technical note - I see that RFC's are one per article, but this stems from discussion here and Domestic terrorism in the United States#Attack on the United States Capitol (2021), and content at Terrorism in the United States. This article seemed like the better place for it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs)

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General comments

Wrong information

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)

Police death: ERROR

The police man who died was not injured. He died of a stroke. Google "capitol police stroke" and many news articles. Misplaced Pages should not knowingly have errors or people will mistrust or laugh at WP. Vanny089 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

God forbid people mistrusting Misplaced Pages. You can make an edit request using the template and providing sources. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article currently reads: hree other rioters died as a result of medical emergencies during the incident and a Capitol Police officer died the following day. While the wording here may be confusing, the article does not allege that the officer's death was a result of injury, only that it was related to the events of the day (as reported in reliable sources). Some local news outlets reported that "According to the force's union Chairman Gus Papathanasiou" the officer had a stroke during the confrontation and died the next day. If there's a reliable source for this then it should be added. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

NPR is saying that the officer died after being "assaulted in Wednesday's riot by violent protesters loyal to President Trump" and was attacked "with metal pipes, discharged chemical irritants, and other weapons" per https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/07/954333542/four-dead-police-injured-dozens-arrested-after-siege-at-the-u-s-capitol?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social Please avoid spreading misinformation. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Persons of interest in unrest-related offenses - Photos

DC Police released this pdf - I know that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper but was wondering if this link can be placed in the external links section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

False information

A statement was just released saying that no police officer died and the claims are false, making the death total still 4 Darce98 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Source? Multiple credible sources are saying that a police officer died, with some saying that there may have been two officer deaths. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class District of Columbia articles
• Mid-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress events
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment