| Revision as of 23:41, 18 March 2021 view sourceVictorgrigas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,777 edits →Are these videos public domain?: new sectionTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:16, 19 March 2021 view source Innican Soufou (talk | contribs)216 edits →Issue with "Deaths and injuries" sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 468: | Line 468: | ||
| :::: You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but attributing motive to a victim of police violence is not something we do here. Or, at least, we shouldn't. ] (]) 18:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | :::: You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but attributing motive to a victim of police violence is not something we do here. Or, at least, we shouldn't. ] (]) 18:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Aw, the shame. Once more, with feeling, ] isn't acceptable.] and ] are policy. . . ], ] 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | :::::Aw, the shame. Once more, with feeling, ] isn't acceptable.] and ] are policy. . . ], ] 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :: Are you ok? I'm not saying that we should ] anything. You seem to be arguing with someone who isn't in this thread and isn't saying the things you're pretending they're saying. I'm proposing that we separate the one murder that took place (of the unarmed civilian by police) and the other suicides/medical issues that people who may have been involved in the protests died from, days later. Try to stay focused. ] (]) 01:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The overwhelming majority of reliable sources attribute that motive to that "victim", I'm sorry to say. , , and so on. ] (]) 19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | :::::The overwhelming majority of reliable sources attribute that motive to that "victim", I'm sorry to say. , , and so on. ] (]) 19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::::So is there any other narrative as to her motive other than illegal entry?] (]) 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | :::::So is there any other narrative as to her motive other than illegal entry?] (]) 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:16, 19 March 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. |
|
| 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: 7 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about January 6 United States Capitol attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about January 6 United States Capitol attack at the Reference desk. |
 | 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. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | 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. |
 | Current consensus:
WP:ACDS actions:
|
 | 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.
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
| 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. |
|
| 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: 7 days |
Ashli Babbitt
{{adminstats|Yamla}} Will you please add information regarding the unarmed female air force veteran citizen Ashli Babbit they shot and killed in the 2021 Capital siege page.She was not a terrorist or insurgent she was veteran protestant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.253.138 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Babbitt is already mentioned at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Deaths and injuries.
As an aside, I think you mean she was a "protester", not a protestant.GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)- Gorillawarefare, you think they're implying a christian sect by not capitalizing protestant. Check merriam webster's. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Protestant (noun): one who makes or enters a protest. Terjen (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Huh, today I learned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
First sentence
It seems pretty clear to me that the first sentence should include "insurrection" as along the lines of the following:
- was a riot, insurrection, and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
References
- Hannah Rabinowitz (February 25, 2021). "Maryland man pleads not guilty to bringing loaded gun to Capitol insurrection". CNN.
- Claudia Grisales (February 25, 2021). "Contradicting Details Emerge In Congressional Probes Into Jan. 6 Capitol Insurrection". All Things Considered. NPR.
- Timothy Bella (February 25, 2021). "A Capitol rioter texted his ex during the insurrection to call her a 'moron,' feds say. She turned him in". Washington Post.
- David Bauder (January 14, 2021). "Riot? Insurrection? Words matter in describing Capitol siege". Associated Press.
The word was removed with an edit summary that asserted this was "unconfirmed" but that's simply not accurate; all the high-quality sources use insurrection (often in conjunction with "riot"). See, for a few: PolitiFact ("Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'); NPR public editor Kelly McBride ("insurrection" is word used "most often" in NPR reporting; "By definition, 'insurrection,' ... accurate. "Riot" and "mob" are equally correct. While these words are not interchangeable, they are all suitable when describing Jan. 6."). Neutrality 16:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, and is “the 117th United States Congress” specifically supported by sources? soibangla (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Good point. It's correct but probably needs specific sources, e.g., ("Just weeks into the 117th Congress..."). I would support moving the 117th Congress detail to the body of the article, if that works for you. Neutrality 20:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- The word has been used by some in connection with this event, but that looks more like overstatement, not warranting undue prominence in the first sentences of the lead. Some of the malefactors may have manifested insurrectionist intent or aspiration, but that does not make the event an insurrection. It seems unlikely that such an event would be described as insurrection in any other country except by a repressive regime when crushing anti-government protesters, or where unstable governments have suffered uprisings of real potency. Could this be an example of a less robust 'American exceptionalism', or simply confusion or hyperbolic usage for sensational or alarmist effect, with a literary or political or commercial motive? Historic examples would be the civil war in seventeenth century Britain, the thirteen colonies rebelling against the British Crown, the civil war among the states of USA. Note that the Insurrection Act of 1807 "was invoked during conflicts with Native Americans .... during labor conflicts... used to enforce federally mandated desegregation, with Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoking the Act in opposition to the affected states' political leaders to enforce court-ordered desegregation". Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)long overdue correction 11:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- We follow what the sources say, not editors' interpretations of history or linguistics. I understand you personally may not believe that it meets the definition, but we go by the reliable sources. Neutrality 23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- For perspective, see media critic Glenn Greenwald on The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot, including:
- "Then, perhaps most importantly, is the ongoing insistence on calling the Capitol riot an armed insurrection. Under the law, an insurrection is one of the most serious crises that can arise. It allows virtually unlimited presidential powers ... Insurrection even allows for the suspension by the president of habeas corpus: the right to be heard in court if you are detained. So it matters a great deal legally, but also politically, if the U.S. really did suffer an armed insurrection and continues to face one. Though there is no controlling, clear definition, that term usually connotes not a three-hour riot but an ongoing, serious plot by a faction of the citizenry to overthrow or otherwise subvert the government." Terjen (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- If sources were near unanimous, or even a majority, in calling it an "insurrection", maybe this should be considered. A majority of non-opinion sources (i.e. those which are written by staff writers as news, not "analysis" and the like) don't do so. "Riot" and "(violent) attack" are both much more common than insurrection, thus that being in the lead sentence (or in the lead at all, outside the limited uses it has now) is very undue. One's personal opinion as to whether the sources are right to not use the word insurrection exclusively does not mean we simply ignore uses in sources. Please feel free to look at the plethora of RMs that failed to find any consensus for insurrection being a common name for the event - while this isn't about the article name, one must seriously consider that if such a strong and charged word isn't common enough to be the title of the article, it also likely doesn't have any place in describing it in WP voice in the lead/body either. To be quite honest, I think there needs to be a 6 month ban on any addition of the word "insurrection" outside of direct quotes that are discussed beforehand on this article. This now makes over a dozen unique discussions in which "insurrection" has been proposed for the title of this article and/or a prominent place in the article (infobox, lead, section header, etc). It's clear that some will simply not rest until that word is given extreme prominence in this article - even when consensus has been time and time again that it's not due weight. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- A page title is very different from the a section. While an article can have only a single title, a topic often can be described in multiple ways. As to the recent sources, there is a strong number the use the term expressly (PolitiFact: "Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'"; Reuters: ("the Capitol, the scene of a deadly insurrection by Trump supporters"). There is, of course, no consensus to ban use of a term. Neutrality 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- There is not some "strong number", and in fact, as I pointed out in the past (few? at least two) RM discussions, more sources don't use the term "insurrection" (outside direct quotes or individual opinion) than do use it. Finding a few links (and cherry-picking quotes from them) does not make it a good argument. Note that the Reuters piece calls it an "attack" just as often as an "insurrection" - so it can hardly be argued that source is "strong" given it doesn't even agree with itself what to call it. I'm happy to change my opinion and admit I'm wrong.. if I am, but it's going to take a much more thorough analysis of sources than simply providing a few links from cherry-picked sources to convince me (and I presume others) that your argument is correct. I encourage you to do something similar to what was done for some of the RMs and pull dozens of recent sources without discriminating against ones that don't ever say "insurrection", count how many times each word is used to refer to the events in that source, and post that compilation here with the dates of each source. That's what was done for the RMs to argue against the use of the word "insurrection", and that is what should be done to counter such an argument here - otherwise, it's perfectly valid for people to opine "I feel the same arguments that applied in the RMs apply to this discussion", which is in fact what I'm arguing - not that it's not different, but that the same arguments are valid for a reason not to include it here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- A page title is very different from the a section. While an article can have only a single title, a topic often can be described in multiple ways. As to the recent sources, there is a strong number the use the term expressly (PolitiFact: "Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'"; Reuters: ("the Capitol, the scene of a deadly insurrection by Trump supporters"). There is, of course, no consensus to ban use of a term. Neutrality 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- What is an insurrection? I can only find two uses of the term in legislation. The British used it to describe resistance by Irish republicans and the U.S. uses the term in legislation authorizing the use of government force. But there's no crime as such. It apparently means resisting authority, but that's true of any illegal activity or even nonviolent protest. We should choose words with clear definitions rather than emotive terms if we wish to accurately convey what happened as opposed to editorializing. TFD (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- The (non-opinion, straight-news) sources frequently use this term (PolitiFact: "Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'"), so I don't think it would be accurate to call this "editorializing." One could say that the term riot is equally unclear and emotive. Both terms are sometimes hazy descriptors, but they are what we have, and what the sources use. Neutrality 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would also point out that, unlike the cases with "Coup" and "Terrorism", we don't have multiple high quality sources specifically saying that "Insurrection" is the wrong word. "Sedition" (which is a specific kind of insurrection) is still the right word, but few sources use it and it may be unfamiliar to the reader, so insurrection is most likely a better choice for us, even if less precise. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's an excellent point, Guy Macon. And I would add that in addition to being routinely used by a multitude of high-quality news sources (without attribution), many experts have expressly used the insurrection. To take just two examples, Naunihal Singh of the U.S. Naval War College, for example, wrote that the attack on the Capitol was "an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government" (but not a coup) ); Benjamin Wittes and many others have also described it frequently as such (see here, for example). Neutrality 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- The full quote by Singh is "What we’re seeing here is better described as an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government. It’s sedition but it’s not a coup". (Emphasis added) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- Glenn Greenwald (February 17, 2021). "The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot".
- Naunihal Singh (January 1, 2021). "A Q&A with Naunihal Singh, an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College, who wrote a book on attempts to overthrow governments".
Alalch Emis compiled this list of recent public discussions about the event in universities and other forums:
| List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- insurrection: 28 events
- storming: 3 events
- riot: 3 events
- chaos: 3 events
- siege: 3 events
- attack: 2 events
- assault: 1 event
- sedition 1 event
- This usage in academic discourse confirms what we know from press reporting: "insurrection" is frequently used alongside "riot" or the other terms, at similar rates. This seems to me to be overwhelming evidence that we should use it alongside the other terms in the first sentence of the article. I would like to know whether this changes anyone's mind. Neutrality 20:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. My answer is No, for reasons stated above. Basic WP guidance is that robotic number counting is not enough without regard to context, both of any given source and of any given article and the place in the article. For an immediate instance, the words 'academic discourse' with reference to the items listed in the table would not be well-chosen in a more exacting context, but knowing what is here being loosely referenced as such in the course of our present discussion, it is needless to point out that, of the range of meaning, it makes no distinction between the excited chatter of students and a carrefully considered discussion among respected academics with the kind of discernment and expertise that could be more worthy of attention for the purpose of improving the article in question. My supposition is that this comment of mine will not be mistaken as an Argument from authority --Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't look at all the links that use the term insurrection, but they appear to be for planned discussions involving academics, journalists and others about the Jan 6 events. It might be prudent to see how these people describe the events and whether they use the term insurrection. In the meantime, we should avoid it per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which cautions us in using terms that are not clearly defined, especially when they are emotive.
- The term insurrection in the laws of the U.S., Britain and other countries is left to the government to define. If they declare something to be an insurrection, it allows them to suspend civil liberties. In this case, the authorities did not do that, although one officer said that a riot was in progress. Although the U.S. Insurrection Act of 1807 does not define the term, Canada's notorious War Measures Act provided a great definition: "The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that...insurrection, real or apprehended, exists." In other words, an insurrection is whatever the chief executive (which ironically would have been Donald Trump) says it is.
- 18:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speaker Two (09:45) https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/house-minority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-press-conference-transcript-march-18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.166.109 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Bolding in the lead sentence
An edit was made today to capitalize the word "storming" in the lead sentence, which I undid per standard case in Misplaced Pages for non-proper nouns. That being said, the title of the article includes the year, but the bolded term in the lead sentence does not, and the year doesn't appear until the end of the sentence. This makes it seem that either the title should not contain the year (as if the year is important, it should be more prominent in the lead sentence), or that the lead may need to be reworded. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, I feel that the current title with the year does not does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence
, and thus we should eliminate the bolding and restructure the sentence to eliminate the desire to bold a term that isn't the title of the article. I propose simply removing the bold and allowing the term to stand in the sentence on its own, but I could also see an argument that the entire sentence should be reorganized to start with the date of the event (such as "On January 6, 2021, a riot and violent attack..." or similar). Thoughts? Proposals? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reorganizing the sentence is certainly a viable option. Compare similar articles such as Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot or Christchurch mosque shootings, neither of which use bolding. feminist (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I see nothing unacceptable about the current version, beyond an unimportant point of pedantry, but I would say that a minor re-wording as follows would also be acceptable, and may be also an improvement:
- The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on 6 January. It was carried out by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th U.S. president, in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the November 2020 presidential election, and was part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests,
- Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I see nothing unacceptable about the current version, beyond an unimportant point of pedantry, but I would say that a minor re-wording as follows would also be acceptable, and may be also an improvement:
- The current title is for disambiguation, really - calling it the "storming of the United States Capitol" and bolding that is fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've made somewhat of a bold change, and implemented a non-bolded version. I raised some of the same points about WP:BOLDLEAD and WP:LEADSENTENCE in the last archive (link).
On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, the riot and violent attack disrupted the joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes to formalize the victory of Joe Biden. The District of Columbia was placed under curfew, and lawmakers were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. Five people died and more than 140 were injured.
- — Goszei (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Revised version:
On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, the riot and violent attack disrupted the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Joe Biden's victory. The Capitol complex was placed under lockdown, and lawmakers and staff were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. Five people died and more than 140 were injured.
— Goszei (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I also removed some references that were only used once. They seemingly were meant to support the "riot" and "violent attack" labels, but were rather weak for that purpose. I don't think those characterizations need specific citations, because they are accepted by virtually all sources. — Goszei (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- My un-bolded version has been reverted by User:Qexigator. I continue to think we should not have a bolded title, particularly for this article, where past RM discussions and analysis have made clear that there is no common name. It is (1) redundant, and (2) creates a false impression of a common name. This is the rationale behind MOS:AVOIDBOLD. — Goszei (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Goszei: not sure about that - would that rationale apply to something like February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm? (just curious for your thoughts here) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. It reduces redundancy, and doesn't falsely imply a common name.
A major winter and ice storm affected large swathes of the United States, Northern Mexico, and parts of Canada from February 13 to 17, 2021.
It should be made clear to the reader that there is no "set name" for a topic, and that we are using a descriptive/unique title of our own conception. — Goszei (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- Goszei fair enough, feel free to change it to something like that (though the name Winter Storm Uri should still be mentioned in the lead).
- Going back to this article, I wouldn't oppose a rephrase that removes "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" from the lead as long as it flowed better. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. It reduces redundancy, and doesn't falsely imply a common name.
- The bolding stems from 11 January. Given the article name, there is no good reason for departing from it, and the two opening sentences and what follows read no less fluently and concisely. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree; the significant volume of RM discussions (as indicated at the top of this talk page) indicates that the article name is far from settled. Goszei's change avoids redundancy and is visibly more concise. In this version, the first paragraph (excluding footnotes) is 612 characters long, whereas under the current version with the bolding, the first paragraph (again excluding footnotes) is 693 characters long. This means the version without the bolding is much more concise. feminist (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- There is a good reason - including the long article name (even without the year) in the first sentence is unnatural - even if this is considered to be the common name for the event, it is more concise to simply describe the event rather than try and shove all of these words next to each other in the first sentence. I support Goszei's edit, and I encourage anyone opposing it to attempt to explain how this isn't more similar to the examples of when not to bold presented in MOS:AVOIDBOLD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that my comment expressly states " Given the article name ". Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Goszei: not sure about that - would that rationale apply to something like February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm? (just curious for your thoughts here) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- My un-bolded version has been reverted by User:Qexigator. I continue to think we should not have a bolded title, particularly for this article, where past RM discussions and analysis have made clear that there is no common name. It is (1) redundant, and (2) creates a false impression of a common name. This is the rationale behind MOS:AVOIDBOLD. — Goszei (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon - If you cannot explain your edit of 08:15, 18 March 2021 I can only suppose it was a good faith error so far as concerns the lead, and I will undo. Qexigator (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Try asking me if I made an error (I didn't) instead of assuming that I did and edit warring. Try asking what my reason was instead of assuming that I have no explanation. The reason is that I believe that there is a stronger consensus for User:Slatersteven's version than there is for yours, and I ask you to not edit war but instead to discuss why you think your version is better than Slatersteven's and see what the consensus is. BTW, repeating the phrase "given the article name" as if it was a magic word allowing you to add "riot" makes no sense at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am prepared to AGF on your part, not an intent to engage in edit warfare. You believe 'that there is a stronger consensus for User:Slatersteven's version than there is for' mine. Your opinion about that is not sufficient to remove my edit which restored long-standing bolding as stated above. There is nothing to show the 'stronger consensus' you assert.Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Editors who appear to disagree with you (ranging from mild to strong disagreement):
- (If your name is listed above, please review and let me know if I got it wrong and you prefer Qexigator's version to Slatersteven's version.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure I have ever said anything more than it was not a storming it was a riot (and that was about the page title, not the lede). So yes, I would say I would prefer riot to storm.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that both words should be in the first sentence, which should be worded similarly to “stormed the capitol building during a riot” or similar. This article is about both, and both words signify different parts of the days events. That being said, I think Guy Macon’s version is an improvement on before. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am prepared to AGF on your part, not an intent to engage in edit warfare. You believe 'that there is a stronger consensus for User:Slatersteven's version than there is for' mine. Your opinion about that is not sufficient to remove my edit which restored long-standing bolding as stated above. There is nothing to show the 'stronger consensus' you assert.Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
"Thousands"
If this article purports to be encyclopedic, can't we show better specificity than an estimate of "thousands"? Weren't there up to 40,000 protesters outside the Capitol, and 3,000 to 5,000 who broke into the Capitol building itself? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- To be encyclopedic, we can only use what is reported by reliable sources, whose numbers vary themselves. If you can find a source for your numbers, please provide it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- It seems RS agree there were approximately 800 who were on Capitol grounds (given that "rioting" is a crime, I'd question whether calling innocent people "rioters" is a WP:BLP violation). One of the currently cited sources says an official claimed "more than 800" (which is the phrase used in the Wiki article) but the other says between 700-900 and more sources here and here both say c. 800. It seems to me that "approximately 800" is preferable to "more than 800", a figure only ascribed to a single individual by a single RS. The BBC says there are some 540 "suspects" of whom some 275 have actually been arrested. Hope that's helpful! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Issue with "Deaths and injuries" section
There's not enough clarity in terms of the differing level of involvement of the individuals who died: three are grouped together, even though the first died in the midst of the riot, the second died on Capitol grounds but prior to and not as part of any "storming" (from what I can tell), and the third died during protests and was never even on Capitol grounds. Given WP:BLP considerations, don't we have a duty to make it more clear, at the very least, that the latter two individuals weren't involved in "rioting"? It seems this could be accomplished by separate paragraphs for each, perhaps? Would love to hear practical solutions to help clarify and avoid in any way insinuating that entirely peaceful protestors were "rioters". Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. There should be separate sections. One for unarmed protestors killed by police and another for people who later died who may have been involved in the protest at an earlier date. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- You'll need good sourcing making that distinction, WP:SYN isn't acceptable. It's also dubious describing as "unarmed protester" someone breaking and entering, climbing through a broken window to confront the outnumbered police who were focussed on protecting the escape of congresspeople from an angry and violent mob. Think in much less threatening circumstances people failing to obey every whim of the police are shot in sometimes gets described as "suicide by cop", though that depends on unknowable intent, so beware of martyrology promoted by those backing the rioters. . . dave souza, talk 10:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have no issue with separating out those who died during and those who dies after. But we should not be separating based upon value judgments as to (for example) being unarmed when we do not know for sure anyone was.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well we do know that only one person died during the protest. That was an unarmed protestor. The rest of the people that passed away did so at a later date by either suicide or natural causes. It seems rather careless to lump the killing and the suicides/medical issues together. Innican Soufou (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- The so-called "unarmed protester" was trying to force her way into an area that had been secured and barricaded to protect members of Congress, and was met with an appropriately lethal response. Some clarificaion as to the nature of the deaths and injuries may be fine, but we are certainly not going to memorialize Ms. "Unarmed" here. ValarianB (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well we do know that only one person died during the protest. That was an unarmed protestor. The rest of the people that passed away did so at a later date by either suicide or natural causes. It seems rather careless to lump the killing and the suicides/medical issues together. Innican Soufou (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but attributing motive to a victim of police violence is not something we do here. Or, at least, we shouldn't. Innican Soufou (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Aw, the shame. Once more, with feeling, WP:SYN isn't acceptable.WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are policy. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but attributing motive to a victim of police violence is not something we do here. Or, at least, we shouldn't. Innican Soufou (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Are you ok? I'm not saying that we should WP:SYN anything. You seem to be arguing with someone who isn't in this thread and isn't saying the things you're pretending they're saying. I'm proposing that we separate the one murder that took place (of the unarmed civilian by police) and the other suicides/medical issues that people who may have been involved in the protests died from, days later. Try to stay focused. Innican Soufou (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- The overwhelming majority of reliable sources attribute that motive to that "victim", I'm sorry to say. Rioter, insurrection, and so on. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- So is there any other narrative as to her motive other than illegal entry?Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Are these videos public domain?
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-washington-field-office-releases-videos-of-assaults-on-officers-at-us-capitol-seeks-publics-help-to-identify-suspects Victor Grigas (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class Law enforcement articles
- Low-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- B-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- B-Class District of Columbia articles
- High-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- High-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Mid-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- B-Class United States History articles
- Unknown-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress events
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report