Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:56, 3 June 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: 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.

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.

Current consensus: International responses aren't individually mentioned but are discussed in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol § International reactions. 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. The decision to not use the word "urge" in the lead, in reference to Trump's actions, was agreed in this subsection. There is no consensus to call this event Terrorism as per this RFC When discussing rioters charged with crimes, for all people who are not public figures, the person's alleged crime(s) and general description should be included. However, no names should be included. When discussing public figures charged with crimes, both a name and description should be provided. Names of all rioters convicted of crimes may be included. Consensus reached here. WP:ACDS actions: Under ACDS, starting Jan 16, a move request cannot be opened nor be closed to move to a title using the word "insurrection" for a month. See the Arbitration enforcement log (diff) for details. Expired since Feb 16. Under ACDS, only users who possess the extended-confirmed user right may close discussions for this page. See the Arbitration enforcement log (diff) for details.

A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 6, 2021.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, 2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt, Not moved, 6 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, Moved, 6 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 Terrorist Attack on the United States Capitol, Not moved, 21 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → United States Capitol insurrection, Procedural close, 7 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 breach of the United States Capitol, Procedural close, 8 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → The Trump insurrection, Procedural close, 9 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 breach of US Capitol, Not moved, 15 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol, Procedural close, 16 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Insurrection at the United States Capitol, Not moved, 16 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol riot, Not moved, 23 January 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack, Not moved, 4 February 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol, Procedural close, 16 February 2021, discussion RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → January 6 United States Capitol attack, Moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack, 31 May 2021, discussion

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

Template:Vital article 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 Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Current events 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. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-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 / History High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history. 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).

Other talk page banners

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was copied or moved into Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was copied or moved into International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. 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}}. 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. 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: January 3 to 9, 2021 (5th) January 10 to 16, 2021 (7th) A special subpage has been created to develop supporting materials for any current or future article naming discussions, on a collaborative basis: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. Please hold a discussion on which evidence is relevant for naming purposes there (particularly pertaining to search engine results). This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Alex Pasternack (2021-01-14). "As a mob attacked the Capitol, Misplaced Pages struggled to find the right words". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2021-01-15. Retrieved 2021-01-15. Alex Hern (2021-01-15). "Misplaced Pages at 20: last gasp of an internet vision, or a beacon to a better future?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-01-15. Retrieved 2020-01-15. At 6.34pm UK time on 6 January this year, one Misplaced Pages editor, with the username Another Believer, decided that events in Washington looked important enough to warrant an article. Tentatively titled "January 2021 Donald Trump rally", the initial entry was brief: "On 6 January 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington DC to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election." {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2021-01-15 suggested (help) Heather Kelly (2021-01-15). "On its 20th birthday, Misplaced Pages might be safest place online". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2021-01-15. Retrieved 2021-01-15. This month, the online encyclopedia's strengths and quirks were on full display as hundreds of volunteers furiously worked to create a page for the Capitol riots as events unfolded Jan. 6. As it transitioned from a protest to something more violent, Misplaced Pages's volunteer editors added key details while debating the article title, as shared by editor Molly White. Was it a protest, an insurrection or a riot? It ended up the "2021 storming of the United States Capitol." Hundreds of people were working on the ballooning document at a time, which has now been touched by nearly 1,000 editors, is more than 10,000 words long and has been viewed nearly 2 million times. Stephen Harrison (2021-01-15). "To Celebrate Misplaced Pages's 20th Birthday, Try Editing It". Slate. Archived from the original on 2021-01-16. Retrieved 2021-01-15. Take the recent debate over the nomenclature that Misplaced Pages should use to describe last week's frightening events. Should that destruction and violence be described as President Donald Trump's supporters "storming" the United States Capitol, an "insurrection," or a "coup attempt"? Is it "terrorism"? "The long-standing consensus is that article titles on events, such as this, should reflect how reliable sources have described the event," said Chet Long, one of Misplaced Pages's long-term volunteer administrators, who edits under the username Coffee. The issue here was that reliable sources have covered the event using all of that nomenclature. At publication time, the Misplaced Pages article is named "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" based on the consensus of editors that the majority of media sources have also characterized it as a "storming." Of course, reasonable minds can disagree on that decision, which developed after spirited, reasoned debate. One thing is clear: That's not a boring issue. The language that the world's most popular internet encyclopedia uses to describe the events of Jan. 6, 2021, will affect how that day will be perceived by the public in both the short and long term. Grace Gedye (2021-02-04). "When the Capitol Was Attacked, Misplaced Pages Went to Work". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2021-02-04. As protestors at the Capitol turned violent, one major debate among Misplaced Pages editors was how to describe the event in the page's title. Was it a protest? A riot? An insurrection? A coup attempt? Section sizes Section size for January 6 United States Capitol attack (59 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 96,069 96,069 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 51,288 Trump's conduct 11,525 30,997 Inflammatory speech while knowing of weapons 2,934 2,934 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 4,090 4,090 Oath Keepers 6,247 6,247 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 10,494 Federal government 3,127 3,127 Video 2,140 2,140 Timeline 4,263 4,263 Total 498,983 498,983

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: 7 days

Wouldn't splitting the peaceful protests and speeches of January 6 off from this page be a superior solution than renaming?

I'm following up on User:Feoffer's suggestion made in a thread above. I have previously opined that "storming" is the better term because it's the most precise descriptive word which has been presented to the actions of those breaking and entering the capitol building on January 6 of this year. Given the good faith enthusiasm and persistence of those who seem to prefer (through pagemove) to emphasize the non-violent behavior of the vast majority of those present on the capitol grounds that day, perhaps another article could be created. Pardon me if I'm ascribing intent, but my suggestion is made to answer reasonable concerns I've seen raised in previous discussions on talk. I would argue that the precise reason many reliable sources use softer words like "riots" and "protests" is because many RSs doesn't want to tar and feather all participants in the events of that day. This doesn't answer naming issues here, but it certainly separates the two discrete events, one largely law-abiding, and one demonstrably not so. Such a splitting might obviate many assertions about pagemoves here, IMHO. It would also serve to avoid painting negatively all 1/6 participants with an overbroad brush, which is a weakness of the current state of affairs. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The evolving events of Jan. 6 are a single subject, and this subject is best treated when not split into it's violent and non-violent aspects, as violence is just another part of the fabric of reality and doesn't qualify things as special and therefore needing special and separate treatment. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you generally, but in the valid example Feoffer gives above, Kenosha unrest and Kenosha unrest shooting were separated for exactly the reasons I've asserted above. I'll quote the closer there: "The main argument in favor of splitting, phrased several different ways, is that there is enough coverage in RS to support the independent notability of the shooting and that the shooting's notability overshadows that of the protests at this point." That appears to be the case here as well. The breaking and entering overshadows the main events of the day and falsely paints peaceful protestors as criminals. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Many reliable sources do use 'riots' but they don't use 'protests' at all to refer to the whole goings-on that day. There's evidence that they don't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but I can't work on that right now and likely can't for the next couple weeks. There's definitely a lot of encyclopedic information out there about the lies leading up to the "Save America Rally", and that rally and march over, that is separate from information about those who entered, vandalized, and rioted at the Capitol building. Reliable sources also do, when referring to people who remained a good distance away from the building itself, refer to the participants as "protestors" as opposed to rioters or "insurrectionists". A split should be heavily considered for both ARTICLESIZE reasons (it'd allow this to be expanded with further information about the events that took place in the building) as well as for encyclopedic reasons. Would need careful watching of both articles to ensure neither turned into a POVFORK and didn't duplicate content between them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes and no. I would't go for a strict 'split' for the reasons Alalch states, but I think we absolutely should make an article focusing primarily on the peaceful protests, summarized as needed in this article. This is particularly the case in light of Sund's testimony that a coordinated, planned, surprise attack began "approximately 20 minutes before ended". The vanguard of highly-motivated violent insurrectionists may never have even been at Ellipse. Feoffer (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In the abstract, I agree with you on a daughter article as a good thing, but it may not be viable. That's because I don't think that there's any additional layer of depth not already contained here that "waits" to be included in a daughter article, in order to justify it's existence; conversely, there is no extraneous layer of detail in this article. I don't see how removing anything with regard to the rally etc. could make this article better. So ultimately I don't see a benefit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't excise anything from this article. As to benefits, consensus for an "insurrection"/"attack" title might be one benefit. Agreed that there's no content that particularly "waits" to be included -- we could use a little more info about what Jones, Flynn, Papadopoulos and Stone had to say on Jan 5, but we should do that here. Feoffer (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The events of that day are only article-worthy because of the unprecedented domestic breach of the Capitol and the ensuing violence. While the pre-attack, nonviolent Jan. 6th rally was the largest such protest, and perhaps the only one in which Trump himself spoke (I won't swear on that, but I think it's true), it was also just one of a series that had occurred in D.C. between the election and January 6th. The other rallies don't have their own articles, nor would this one if it had remained nonviolent. (The other protests are described in 2020–21 United States election protests, which could be fleshed out further with nonviolent Jan. 6 details if desired.) While reasonable people can argue that the nonviolent part of the day should be emphasized more in this article, and that this article should have a more neutral title to reflect the totality of the day's experience, it would be a mistake to give the morning Jan. 6th protest rally its own article. (I'm humorously imagining a line at the end of the new article that says, "To read about what happened after 1:37 p.m., see next article.") Splitting this into two articles is not a realistic way to represent reality. Moncrief (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment D'oh! BusterD (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Huh? Moncrief (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. No offense intended. I was visualizing your imagining and it made me feel a bit foolish for my suggestion. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, got it now! No worries. I'm glad I could make you chuckle. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I need to disagree with the premise of your first sentence. The events of the day were article-worthy because for the first time in American History, a group of protestors invited and encouraged by the current President of the United States gathered in the capitol to express their dissatisfaction with the U.S. Congress performing a purely administrative function and approving the output of the Electoral College's vote on December 14. All because they didn't agree with the outcome of the EC's vote. That was unprecedented. I'd like to think wikipedians would have covered such unprecedented activity before any violence broke out. As it turns out, User:Another Believer created this page at 18:34 UTC (2:34pm EST): "On January 6, 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election"(NPR and Washington Post as sources) as events were unfolding. BusterD (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your points are fair enough, but all of Trump's reactions to the election results were unprecedented. It wasn't just a January 6th thing but part of a larger pattern. Perhaps that can be made clearer in other articles like 2020–21 United States election protests. I don't see the need to create a new article specifically about the first half of January 6th for the reasons you specify. Moncrief (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Moncrief, I don't support an article for that one protest, but I think that an article covering the early January protests/rallies/etc in general is likely due - including information about Trump's repeated exaggerations and outright lies, as well as protester activities. That would go on to cover the march to the Capitol, and then summarize (with a hatnote here) the storming thereof. Alternatively, I thank you for saying "reasonable people", because I've been looking for this to summarize more about the non-violent part of the day all along. However, we then run into ARTICLESIZE issues and a potential split for that reason anyway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez We very much have that article already 2020–21 United States election protests#January 2021 — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Alalch Emis. That's a much better example than the one I gave for nonviolent Jan 6 events and earlier. I'm going to edit my answer to include that link instead. Moncrief (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, there's definitely more encyclopedic information about the two days prior than just two short paragraphs - hence why I'm saying it may need to be split out of that article too for ARTICLESIZE and then summarized there and here - would also allow this article to be expanded much further without running into size issues. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If the relevant sections of the protests article (the parent article to the storming article) were expanded, it would be done simply by copying the corresponding portions of this article there. The result would be duplicate content, and that isn't satisfactory. Logically, a "solution" would be to indeed make a second daughter article and do what you propose. But if that article is also to be composed of the same content present here (indubitable), in order not to produce duplicate content, portions of the storming article in it's current state would have to be split elsewhere -- Well, I don't see how moving anything from the background section elsewhere would make this article better (only worse). And this article must be the best it can be and has priority over many other considerations because of it's formal importance rating. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but it's a little complicated, and from where I'm coming from, ultimately - no benefit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lol at protest article cliffhanger! If we make another article just on the protests, it would have to summarize the attack and links to the protests, not just pretend it never happened. Just as: Kenosha unrest summarizes the fatal shooting. Feoffer (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Moncrief, there's really only one event. It started down the National mall and moved to the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think the point people are making is that many of those who were at the rally at the Ellipse didn't end up going to the Capitol. But of course I agree with you in that I think the events of the day are inseparable for the purposes of a Misplaced Pages article about the event. Moncrief (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Berchanhimez, re: more accurately described as a group of people not present at the rally/protest but who stormed the Capitol building... I've not seen that said before, that there was a group of people who did not attend the rally but did storm (or whatever wording) the Capitol. Do you have a source for that? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Muboshgu, it would be more accurately stated as "people present in DC for the purpose of storming the Capitol, not for a peaceful rally/protest". It's well known, and others here have stated (and our article itself does) that the storming was started by people before the rally even ended and people started marching there. No, they didn't breach the building while the rally was ongoing - but the rioting started before the peaceful protestors even left the Eclipse. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Berchanhimez, this article is massive. I do see that some went to the Capitol before Trump finished speaking. I do not doubt that some were there to peacefully protest and others were there to fuck shit up. I do not know how easily we would be able to separate one from the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose largely per JzG above. One mob, one event. There is no "peaceful" aspect of the 2021 riots on which to base an article. ValarianB (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. non-violent behavior of the vast majority of those present on the capitol grounds? Like the guy who climbed up on the gallows and inspected the noose? Like the "tourists" who entered through windows and doors broken down by others and stayed "between the stanchions and ropes?" Quoting ValarianB: One mob, one event. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't see this as two sister articles but as mother-daughter articles where the Save America rally is the mother and the storming of the Capitol is the daughter. I disagree with another editor that the demonstrations were only notable because of the attack on the Capitol. A huge rally of Trump supporters to influence the tallying of electoral votes would have been notable on its own. What is unusual is that the storming of the Capitol is significantly more notable than the demonstrations themselves. In practical terms therefore, we would be spinning off the article about the demonstrations. TFD (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

An estimated eight thousand isn't a huge rally by Washington standards (1.8 million at Obama's first, 1 million at his second inauguration, 470,000 at the 2017 Women's March, 250,000 at the March on Washington in 1963). If it hadn't ended with the storming of the Capitol, it would have remained just one of the 2020–21 United States election protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability is based on media coverage, not on numbers. While we can never know what that would have been had the demonstrations been non-violent, there is sufficient coverage to write a detailed, neutral article. The Million Worker March of October 17, 2004, attended by 10,000 people, has its own article, while the October 26, 2002 anti-war protest in Washington attended by 100,000 people was largely ignored by the media and lacks an article. Of course the U.S. media focused almost entirely on presenting the pro-war position up until the actual invasion of Iraq. Just to note, there are articles on the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and the 2017 Women's March. The Smithsonian lists them among the 11 most significant Washington Protests. It also includes the 2002 demonstration. TFD (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the history of the Million Worker March, I'd say that the article was created by someone who was involved in the event, not because there was much media coverage. I found a lot more coverage for the October 26, 2002, anti-Iraq war protest (CBS, NY Times, UPI, CNN, WaPo, ABC) with one brief search. But that rally was one of many in the U.S. and globally, and it's mentioned in Protests against the Iraq War. This rally was also one of many mentioned in United States election protests until it evolved into the unprecedented storming of the Capitol. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2021

This discussion was listed at Misplaced Pages:Move review on 1 June 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: Consensus for moving to 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is clearly consensus for moving to a title with 2021 United States Capitol. Consensus clearly supports the proposal to remove storming from the title as not enough of a common name, but likewise rejects the proposal to use the date (January 6) in the title. The overall weight of consensus, especially per WP:COMMONNAME, is that any title should explicitly mention United States Capitol, and that January 6 is not common enough at this time to be used in the title. While there is more support for attack than riot, this may be because only the former was mentioned in the initial request. Using riot may receive more support than attack in a separate requested move discussion, and both have more support than the current storming. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

It was proposed in this section that 2021 storming of the United States Capitol be renamed and moved to January 6 United States Capitol attack. The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links: current log • target log This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → January 6 United States Capitol attack – 1. The current title does not meet WP:COMMONNAME, per analysis here. The current wording is rarely used and it is a bad name per WP:COMMONNAME. The word attack is far more common. 2. WP:RS's refer to the date when referring to the event. If you google January 6th, it pulls up news articles about the event and this article. 3. United States Capitol is still needed to identify the article, as it is for a global audience. 4. We are comparing this title versus the current one. What I suggest might not be perfect, but it is an improvement. Casprings (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Minor change per (MOS:ORDINAL) since I opened this last night. Removed the th.Casprings (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. Obvious improvement; "Storm" is not a COMMONNAME. Feoffer (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support. I can live with this title. I prefer 2021 over January 6, but neither is really ambiguous (assuming there isn't another attack on the Capitol this year or on any January 6 in the future, that is) and I agree that "attack" is preferable to storming - if only weakly so. I personally still prefer "riot" as I think it is more common and has a more accurate meaning, but "attack" is better than "storming" per COMMONNAME. I'm not going to hold this proposal back regardless of my opinion on its prematurity, and I appreciate that it is, as the OP suggests, an improvement - not perfection, but better than it is now. I encourage all who opine to consider that - it may not be the perfect title in our opinion, but it's definitely an improvement per our titles guidelines/policies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: is it too late to consider January 6 United States Capitol attack without the ordinal? Or have you found that the th is much more commonly used? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Either works for me. Feoffer (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Consider this a vote for 6 over 6th per MOS:ORDINAL. No comment on the overall RM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Meets the criteria of the event's common name. Attack is probably the best of all the options -- none of which is stunningly ideal, but each of which at this point is better than storming. (I actually favor riot a bit, but that seems less likely to get consensus. My dark-horse favorite is assault, but that's been a non-starter in the past.) One thing: I don't think ordinal numbers ("th") pass the Misplaced Pages smell test. I recommend January 6 United States Capitol attack, even though it's true that everyone pronounces the th. It's just one of those wiki-things. Moncrief (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support January 6 United States Capitol attack (without the 'th'). "January 6" and "attack" constitute the common name of this event, not the "storming". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't feel there is a clear WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources yet, so this is an exercise in picking the least-bad interim name. Per my comments above, I oppose having "January 6" in the title and not having 2021 - the year is more important in all contexts that aren't saturated with Trump stuff already. Neutral on "attack", if I had to pick a word between "protest" and "insurrection" I would pick "unrest" but attack is an improvement over "storming". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel like a WP:COMMONNAME hasn't been decided yet for this case. Some sources are calling it an "insurrection", others are calling it a "riot", and so on and so forth. Maybe we should hold off on a potential rename until about a year, when sources have decided what to commonly call it. Love of Corey (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Of course without the "th" as per MOS:ORDINAL. January 6 is clearly the common name at this point - if it changes to 2021 in the future, we just change it again, but it seems that January 6 is becoming more and more ubiquitous. And, although perhaps not a PERFECT term, "attack" is a more prevalent and more neutral term than "storming". BappleBusiness (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support for at least the "January 6th", with the "th" -- and no, I don't care what MOS:ORDINAL says -- and weak support for the "attack" part. I've seen "January 6th" as a modifier and even a noun phrase shorthand, so leaving it out makes no sense. Still thinking about "attack" versus "storm", but "riot" doesn't get any consideration. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Strong agreement that "protest" and "riot" are inappropriate in title. Sund is clear: this wasn't spontaneous, it was planned and coordinated. Feoffer (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support appears to be a more common name.Storm is not a common name .It could be riot.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Move to 2021 United States Capitol attack and oppose use of January 6. Assuming any move at all has to be made (I haven't looked at the specific evidence for/against storming/attack), it should have a year identifier rather than a date, which is a standard recognizable format found in Wiki titles. This may be fresh in our memories now, but in five or ten years someone might look at this and wonder January 6th from which year? Also, it's not like the proposed title is actually commonly found in sources. I seem to get only two results when I Google it, one of which is our article.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't support a move at this time, but to be fair – that Google search is flawed. US and other English-language media rarely say "United States Capitol", they say "US Capitol" or just "Capitol". Similar searches yield tens of thousands of results, e.g. "January 6th Capitol attack", "January 6 Capitol attack", "January 6th US Capitol attack", "January 6 US Capitol attack", etc. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support but without the "th", as per September 11 attacks format. As of this writing, a google search for "6 attack" produces 526m results, while "6 storming" only yields 4.4m hits. Meanwhile, 6 insurrection" (the other possible name that comes to mind) gets 18.4m results. Definitely seems like attack>insurrection>storming is the common name for the event. pluma♫ ♯ 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is not remotely comparable to September 11. The date is not the key indentifier that has become etched in people's minds. It's the words "capitol" and probably "attack" which do that. September 11 attacks is a common name exception to WP naming conventions, but there's no rationale to make such an exception here.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Agreeing with others that comparisons to Sept 11 are inappropriate, but the proposed title is utterly in line with naming convention for events: When Where What. There's only one Jan 6 attack, while there've been two 2021 attacks so far. I think a lot of people are opposing the date disambiguation just because they mistakenly think it implies similarity to Sept 11. It doesn't, we use that style all the time, eg June 9 Deng speech, May 12 Karachi riots, February 6 Intifada, May 16 coup, June 25 cyber terror, March 18 Massacre, March 19 shooting incident, etc. Just a boring disambiguation. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – it would look clearer as "attack on United States Capitol", and be more in line with sources calling it the "January 6th attack" or "January 6 attack". Calling it the "2021 attack on United States Capitol" looks premature and less well sourced. Thus, January 6th attack on United States Capitol, or January 6 attack on United States Capitol if more standard usage. . . dave souza, talk 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• January 6 attack Because it's common and three-parted, not because it should resemble September 11 attacks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Best option -- simple, concise, clear, and common. Props to its proposer, who has a gift for naming as demonstrated by their most excellent username. Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I stole the idea from House Democrats and Dave Souza, but thank you! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  The House Democrats suggested your username? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - storming as in "to attack a place or building by entering suddenly in great numbers" is a more accurate term than attack, which doesn't capture the "entering suddenly in great numbers" part. Comment - Alternatively riot leading to storming. Terjen (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, maybe move to 2021 United States Capitol attack instead. The problem with "January 6th" or "January 6" is that it is missing information about what year the attack was in. It could even be interpreted so that this were an annually recurring event. JIP | Talk 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Storming" was always a weird euphemism, the usage of which by sources seems to have dipped over time. ValarianB (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I checked a few dozens of recent sources. The words "January 6" are usually not used as a name in articles about the events, but simply as a qualifier, e.g. "the Capitol riot on January 6". Even in expressions like "the January 6 Capitol riot" it's not clear that this can be considered a name for the event – I guess it's more likely that next year most sources will say something like "the Capitol riot on January 6 2021". It's not impossible that "January 6" will become a name like "9/11", but it's much too early to tell, and I'd guess it's unlikely. Maybe this move request was started because of the vote on the commission today in the House of Representatives, which is sometimes called something like "Jan. 6 commission" in headlines? Then I'd say it's a case of WP:RECENTISM. Also, "riot" still seems to be a more common name for the event than "attack". That has been the case from the beginning, and it hasn't changed. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of year for Jan 6th outside US the actual day won't have registered on most readers worldwide. Looking at UK, African, Australian and Indian news sources will confirm that. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support a move to either the proposed location or 2021 United States Capitol attack. Seems a straightforward improvement, and any choice of naming is going to be a compromise to most people. Per WP:NOYEAR we don't need the year for this, but I can understand the desire to retain it for recognizability. VQuakr (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above — RealFakeKimT 14:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per previous attack RM !vote (diff). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Nah. I think debating 'storming' vs. 'attack' is appropriate, but not debating "2021" vs. "January 6". I'm not sure "January 6" will be remembered/used in the same way as "September 11", though time will tell. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support move for the following reasons: 1) This event doesn't have one, formal, commonly accepted name like "World War II" or "Academy Awards", so for that reason we're left with coming up with a neutral descriptive title. Any such descriptive title will never be completely identical to other such descriptions in sources, because each source will come up with their own shorthand descriptions of the event, and the same source will also probably use many such descriptions. 2) There is unlikely to be one, singular, obvious, best title. 3) The proposed title is better than the current one, and at least as good as any of the other multitudes of other titles that have been, and could be, proposed. It is neutrally worded, accurate, and contains common descriptors that make it easily recognizable. This checks all of the boxes for me. If a slightly different title that met these requirements had been proposed, I would have supported that one too, because there is no one best title, there are just a bunch of "good enough" titles, and the proposed one fits that category well enough for me. --Jayron32 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment

1. IMO nothing's changed since previous discussions. "Storming" captures the spontaneity and crowd dynamic better than "attack," and I agree with others that 1/6 is only famous to US politicos.
2. This particular discussion hasn't dealt with similarity to Storming of the Bastille; I'd be interested in reading some debate on whether that's appropriate.
3. We should remain conscious of Wiki's power to self-fulfill, especially in this case where there really isn't consensus. Today, NYT published an op-ed in which the author calls it an "attack" -- but the editor headlined it "storming." A weightier burden than usual.
4. There's an independent value to consistency. Not changing the title frequently, in the context of an extremely active page, entails a heavy status quo bias. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Storming" captures the spontaneity and crowd dynamic better than "attack,". Actually, Sund has testified this was a coordinated, planned attack that began before the Trump rally even ended. Feoffer (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on sourcing for our timeline there were both a group of coordinated, planned stormers AND a group arriving from the Ellipse speeches who acted more spontaneously. At 12:53, rioters were already breaching barricades, reveals videos by ProPublica. By 1:03 p.m., a vanguard of rioters had overrun three layers of barricades and forced police officers to the base of the west Capitol steps, reports the NYTimes. Yet Trump's speech didn't end until 1:10, according to the Secretary of Defense. The crowd at the Ellipse had 1.5 miles to walk to the capitol building. A routine calculation would indicate that the rally crowd didn't reach the capitol until 1:40 or thereafter. It is a mistake, based on sources, to lump all the rioters together. Some had special training and coordination; most were following spontaneously the explicit instructions given by Donald Trump in his speech less than an hour before. BusterD (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

All reasons I argue against "storm" as over-implicating the protestors who later walked through the breached Captiol -- the attackers who actually caused the initial breach likely weren't even at the protest, at minimum they weren't there for all of Trump's speech. Feoffer (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Injecting the date rather than the year into the title is a terrible idea. I also prefer "storming" to "attack", as it is a much better descriptor for what actually happened. There is also no definitive common name/term for this event. Various terms have been used, including "storming", "riot", "protest", "attack", "insurrection", "mob", "demonstration", "assault", "rebellion", etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. There has been no clear name established in reliable sources that unambiguously meets WP:COMMONNAME. Until there is, it's disingenuous to propose a name change based on that guideline. The word "attack" may be somewhat more common, but it's also a more common word used in the English language generally, so that doesn't mean anything. The word "storming" is a more accurate description of the event. And omitting the year from the title makes no sense at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" is a more precise description of the unlawful actions of the day. I too have noticed that some version of the word storm is often used in the headline or lead of an article, but varied nouns are used in the body of text for interesting writing's sake. It has not escaped me that many of the rioters, notably Ashli Babbit, believed their actions that day would "bring the storm." There's some symmetry in using an identical term used by rioters in one context and by journalists in quite another--describing the rioters. User:Anachronist makes a good case that there is no common name unambiguously used by sources. There are a wide variety of terms used. Finally, I must concur with User:GordonGlottal that making move requests so frequently "entails a heavy status quo bias." BusterD (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The similarity to Storming of the Bastille flatters the rioters, some of whom chanted "Storm the Capitol" during Trump's speech. Other similarities include Storming of the Legislative Council Complex, Storming of the American embassy in Khartoum, Storming of the Venezuelan National Congress, Storming of the Winter Palace, Storming of the Tuileries, and Storming of the Annaberg. Interesting that several redirect; to an attack, an assault, a battle, an insurrection. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The argument that we should parallel QAnon buzzwords in our title is... novel but deeply unconvincing. Feoffer (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC) --

I made no such assertion. I made several points, one of which is the term is used by both pro-riot and journalistic sources. This is hardly controversial and is well documented. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean to use that as a straw man, it's just no, we don't care what Babbitt would call her crime. RSes, yes. Babbit, no. Feoffer (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: I would argue that this fits COMMONNAME perfectly; when the attempted insurrection is mentioned, it's almost exclusively referred to as "January 6th", in the same way that the 2001 attacks are referred to as "9/11". DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Attack" still remains a remote second/third name for this event, behind "riot" and "insurrection". There is clear evidence of this at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. As for "January 6", I can see some currency to that as I peruse the recent news articles in the various compiled searches, but it seems plausible that this usage will fade as we roll into the next year. If "January 6" without a year modifier persists into 2022, there is a stronger case to use that in the title, but we should wait before making a rash comparison to the naming scheme of 9/11 or 7/7, as some editors seem keen to do. Time will tell, and this is too soon. — Goszei (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: You could have just replied to me, since it's obvious you're referencing me - directly beneath my comment. Is half a year "rash" to you? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not addressing any editor in particular, as several editors have invoked 9/11 and 7/7 in this thread and in the thread above. "Rash" was admittedly not the best word to use, but I maintain that this is premature. "September 11 attacks" was surely prevalent in December 2001, and the name persisted into 2002 and beyond. As we are still in 2021, there is insufficient information to determine if the date-only name will persist into 2022 and beyond. — Goszei (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your position. If I read your response correctly, you also agree that "attack" is more prevalent than "storming" - so shouldn't we try to improve the article (for this aspect of the request)? And if we know that "January 6" is the most prevalent name right now, and that it's unclear whether "January 6" will stick or fade within the coming years, wouldn't it make sense that we change the article to reflect the current name, at least until we have time on our side? BappleBusiness (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring by date to events that happened previously that year is common practice in contemporaneous news, and happens all the time. For example, "April 19 bombing in Oklahoma City" in 1995 and "22 July attacks in Norway" in 2011 make sense when the years are still 1995 and 2011. However, those faded away quickly in the next year, becoming "1995 bombing" and "2011 attacks" in reference. Misplaced Pages is not the news, and so we should always take the longer view, including when we title articles. When given the option between a naming scheme that only rarely has produced a long-lasting title, like 9/11, and the far more common outcome, we should not play the weaker odds and force ourselves to flip-flop when 2022 comes along. — Goszei (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "attack", it beats "storming" on commonness, but loses on precision. I personally think that "riot" is blend of qualities that best meets the WP:CRITERIA (the most common, and reasonably precise). — Goszei (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Worst case scenario we have to add the year back in later; Seems improbable that we'll need to disambiguate "Jan 6 US Capitol attack" anytime in the next three years at least. Feoffer (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

To summarize my evaluation of the terms at play: on usage in RS it is (riot >> attack > storming), while on my evaluation of precision it is (storming > riot >> attack). "Attack" doesn't capture the mob violence well, and makes it sound like the building was hit by a missile or the like. "Storming" captures the mob violence very well, and furthermore conveys that the violence happened inside the building. "Riot" doesn't convey mob violence in the building, but I think this can be overlooked given the overwhelming usage in RS, which we should defer to on naming judgement. If the editorial boards of the major newspapers have coalesced around a term, as has happened here (try other terms, if you like), we should follow their lead. — Goszei (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Storming is more precise than attack. We use attack for the September 11 attacks. We have an article called Storming of the Bastille, which is about French insurrectionists who attacked and entered a government building. Also, there is no common name at present, so we should use the most descriptive one. TFD (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This was my EXACT thinking a few months ago. But it's since emerged that the initial breach happened before Trump had even finished speaking (and it's a long walk to the Capitol). Chief Sund has concluded: "This was not a demonstration. This was not a failure to plan for a demonstration. This was a planned, coordinated attack on the United States Capitol." Feoffer (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Any time there is a demonstation, there is the possibility of violence. That's why police presence is always increased. But in this case there were only 500 Capitol police on duty and, as Chief Sund said, the House (which was Democratic controlled) rejected a request for additional military backup. What do you think would happen in any demonstation where the demonstrators were angry and there was reduced police presense? As an article in TMZ points out, "The way it works in most police departments around the country ... when there's the possibility of social unrest it's all hands on deck. That did not happen here." Sund bases his conclusions (made Jan. 15) on the dud bombs outside the DNC and RNC HQ. But we don't know who left them, so it's just speculation. It could be that he is just trying to defend himself. TFD (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"It could be that he is just trying to defend himself" A suspicion I initially shared, but now that we're a few months out, it's clear Sund's timeline (breach before end of rally) is backed up by video evidence and RSes. Feoffer (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "January 6" instead of "2021", neutral as to "storming" versus "attack". Disambiguating an event by calendar date alone appears to be quite uncommon. In the absence of strong evidence that "January 6" is universally associated with this event in the same way as, say, September 11, we should default to the more normal strategy of disambiguation by year. Rublov (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is excellent. Misplaced Pages can be proud of having gotten it right so early and stuck with it. Srnec (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose replacing "2021" with a yearless "January 6", neutral on "storming" vs. "attack". It's a big mistake to get rid of the year. It seems the reason that sources are only saying " January 6" and don't feel the need to say "2021" at the moment is because it was literally this year. We should see what sources say when we're further into a non-2021 year (like, you know, 2022) before seeing whether sources include "2021". Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment support changing to "riot" and leaving the date per Goszei. Spudlace (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement compare to the current version, but I think a better title would be simply United States Capitol riot or United States Capitol attack. My very best wishes (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue with that is that there has been more than one such event in history, from the Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Capitol up to the April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

But those were "burning" and "car attack". The titles are not exactly the same. "Capitol riot" seems to be the most common name right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted that you are submitting this idea. Just letting you know why it will be pushed back against; the terms are too broad. Riots and attacks have happened at the U.S. Capitol complex at other times. Moncrief (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Which other riots (rather than just ordinary demonstrations or protests) do you mean? There were also many riots in the US, but which of them targeted the Capitol complex? My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that it's helpful to the discussion at hand, but there's been all kinds of violence at and even in the chambers. The Bonus Army came to demand WWI bonuses and they had to call in the Army. Riots have broken out on the floor of the House and Senate -- in the 1850s one senator was almost beaten to death on the floor of the Senate. Feoffer (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes , but it was described in sources as a violence and a brawl , not a riot, an attack by the mob on the Capitol or insurrection. I am not sufficiently familiar with US history, but it seems there was no other case when the Capitol would be taken over by an organized mob incited by the President and the members of a major political party. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose changing "2021" to "January 6", neutral as to "storming" versus "attack." It's still 2021. If after 2021 the attack is commonly referred to as "January 6," (akin to September 11) we can change the title. Right now, it's too early to tell. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. Reliable sources universally refer to the month and day (January 6). The right-wing euphemism of "storming" for the actual attack and insurrection has been challenged by several academic scholars who have noted its propaganda value. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Viriditas, do you have any sources for that statement? I see the term used in numerous non-right-wing media. While looking for such sources, I came across an article by Patrick Cockburn (not to be confused with Alex Cockburn) in The Independent that says that terms such as coup and insurrection are reminiscent of "war propaganda." That's not something we should be associated with. TFD (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I just finished reading Mr. Cockburn's article you linked, and I'm deeply confused. Virtually every major point he made is either misinformed, erroneous, or out of touch. This might be due to newer evidence that has come out since that time or due to his contrarian nature, I don't know, but his point about the singular British film crew is just out there. Is he unaware that ProPublica alone uploaded 500 cell phone videos of the event? I suspect Mr. Cockburn means well, but this article can't be taken seriously due to errors like this. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• It's difficult to give much weight to Cockburn as he is clear that his was a minority opinion criticizing mainstream reporting: "The three-hour takeover of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob is portrayed as a “coup” or an “insurrection” egged on by President Trump." It's somewhat moot as we're not proposing a title switch to "coup" or "insurrection". 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Viriditas, Cockburn is an award winning journalist who has been a columnist for The Independent, a British newspaper that is one of the world's most respected news sources, for thirty years. He was criticizing "US media reports." Weight means that we should not limit our perspective to U.S. media. I notice you failed to answer my request to provide sources for your claim that, "The right-wing euphemism of "storming" for the actual attack and insurrection has been challenged by several academic scholars who have noted its propaganda value." I assume that means your claim was false. TFD (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I certainly can't speak for V's original comments, but FWIW, I know it's a fact that "The Storm" is the preferred nomenclature among a certain segment of far-right propagandists. But that's by no means the only consideration. IF RSes were still using Storm as one of the three COMMONNAMES, we might not mind that "Storm" was also a propaganda term. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• You should provide sources for your claims. I would point point out that the term "The Storm" does not refer to the storming of the Capitol, but to a conspiracy theory that top Democrats will be arrested. The far right would not refer to the events of Jan. 6 as storming the Capitol because they see it as a legitimate protest. TFD (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Storm" does not refer to the storming of the Capitol, but to a conspiracy theory that top Democrats will be arrested Point being, the term is tied to right-wing propaganda, which is what Viriditas originally asserted and I confirmed. It's well established that a segment of extremists identified Jan 6 as the storm. Feoffer (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• That makes no sense. No reasonable reader is going to mix up "The Storm" and "The storming of." Perhaps you think we should rename the January 1998 North American ice storm because readers might think it was a right-wing conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support I support the move per the argument above,in addition that it was an attack on the capitol from a security perspective,the capitol was breached and people died.Alhanuty (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Partial support of changing "storming" to "attack"; oppose changing "2021" to "January 6". Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing "2021" to "January 6", in the vast majority of reliable sources, January 6th is mentioned. Nojus R (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Love of Corey, Terjen, and Chrisahn. Zonafan39 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Partial Support, but better is to change title to "January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex", which is the name used by the House of representatives in the bill for a January 6 commission. These other alternative names should be included in bold, in the article's first sentence, as alternative names, because they are massively used in media stories- 1 - "Capitol Riots", 2- "January 6th Insurrection", 3 - "January 6th", 4 - "January 6", 5 - "1-6". At a minimum, all of these names should be in bold in the first sentence of our article. Note that the expression "January 6 Commission" also implicitly names the event as being "January 6". MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose January 6, neutral on the noun. Regardless of what RS say, the fact of that matter is that all of the RS come from 2021, so it is really WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL to believe that they would continue to call it the January 6 attack years down the line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment "January 6th insurrection" is what AP is calling it. AP is picked up by many other sources. "Storming" is most accurate for what physically happened, but lacks info on the intent, and is not being used so much in major media stories. "Attack" lacks info on the intent. "Capitol riots" lacks info in intent and on specificity of what physically happened. MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - If the article title changes, I would prefer if "January" were included in the new title due to April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Love of Corey (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose changing "2021" to "January 6". I would not be opposed to using both at the same time, but why remove the year? "January 2021" is also a plausible option. Neutral about "storming" and "attack". Super Ψ Dro 09:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As someone outside the U.S. I've never seen the event referenced by the specific date like the World Trade Center attacks. In fact I doubt most people outside the U.S. would even be able to remember the date if asked. I also think 'storming' is a very handy neutral term that is also very descriptive of the event while completely sidestepping the political hot potato that is 'riot/insurrection'. Attack doesn't really have the same descriptive quality since the event differs a lot from other events that are described as attacks, no weapons where used by the attackers, none of the defenders were killed, the building wasn't damaged, etc. --KristinnKr (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"building wasn't damaged"???! "no weapons"???!!!? Feoffer (talk)

• • Comment - Your larger points are valid, but weapons were indeed used by the attackers. Not a bomb, but certainly weapons were used. Also, phrasing this as neutrally as possible, defenders did indeed die. There are defenders who are dead now who would not be were it not for the events of that day. Moncrief (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know how we fell down this rabbit hole of comparing this to the World Trade Center -- it's a total distraction. The argument for including date in the title is just boring old disambiguation, like June 9 Deng speech, March 19 shooting incident, or February 6 Intifada. Feoffer (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - "Attack" has become the common name. –dlthewave ☎ 12:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Attack", while the common name, may not be WP:NPOV. Also, User:KristinnKr made some very good points; terms like "riot", "insurrection", or "attack" may be biased towards the Democrats, but going too light would not be neutral, which could include terms like "protest", "march", or (Jimbo forbid) "liberation". "Storming" is a term that is the most neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvadingInvader (talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think things are always "equal" in political disputes. See false balance, which is why Misplaced Pages articles resolutely say that climate change is real. Consider the balance of reliable sources (see Misplaced Pages:Perennial sources) and note that some of the pet GOP online sources are discouraged for a good reason. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but open to alternatives. ~ HAL333 18:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" best reflects the nature of what took place. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the longevity of this topic including "2021" is the most ideal and accurate title for this. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. "Storming" succinctly captures the crowd dynamics of the event. "Attack" is accurate, too, but a little vaguer. KFan3 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Jayron32. Shoestringnomad (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of the year from the title ("2021"), consistent with my belief that a year should almost never be included in an article title except 1) as part of the common name, 2) as part of a descriptive name due to the lack of a common name, or 3) absolutely necessary for disambiguation. Support use of the term "January 6", as this has become the common name in the media. Oppose use of the word "attack", as the analysis clearly indicates that the common name would either be "riot" or "insurrection." Oppose use of the term "United States Capitol" as being needlessly descriptive. The best title would be "January 6 Capitol riot" or "January 6 Capitol insurrection".  Mysterymanblue  21:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per above supporting. This was a semi-coordinated attack on the Capitol building, and forevermore should be called what it was. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" best reflects the nature of what took place (a mob, by force of numbers and violently intimidatory behaviour, breaching a protected building) and no COMMONNAME has as yet established itself. I endorse the excellently succinct analysis of Anachronist. "Attack" is very vague and appears to be supported partly because it (very marginally IMO) implies pre-planning. I think it reasonable to assume that some attendees came with consciously formed insurrectionary intentions (or insurrectionary fantasies at least), but to seek to extrapolate from that a general character to the event is to generalise everyone's motive as the same and to mistake journalistic hyperbole for WP fact. If - collectively - these were insurrectionists, they were the most chaotic, most easily deterred, most absurdly dressed insurrectionists of all time - on their way to a fancy dress party while busy taking 'selfies', all while seizing the reins of govt? It is possible to be appalled (as I am) by the destructive, intimidatory and frankly infantile behaviour of these rioters without needing to imagine that any meaningful plan to overthrow government existed, or certainly was held in common by this mob. "January 6" has no resonance AT ALL outside US and even inside US it may never acquire the recognisability that some editors here believe it already has. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"January 6 has no resonance AT ALL outside US" We add dates to titles for simple disambiguation, we don't require international recognisability. Nobody outside of Taiwan recognizes "March 19" -- perhaps no one in Taiwan would recognize it -- but March 19 shooting incident is a perfectly appropriate article title. Feoffer (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It isn't practical, nor even desirable to treat "disambiguation" as distinct from "recognisability" - the dabber has to be recognisable to fulfil its function. I'm not going to comment on the Taiwanese incident's title - but presumably you recognise that what happened in and outside the Capitol is also of interest to those of us who are not American. We rememmber what happened and are interested in how investigation and coverage evolves, even if we don't remember, or refer to the exact date in the way that a US person might. I'm not even very opposed to changing from year to date, as long as people recognise that it will probably need to be changed back in 12 months time, and that what may be more specific to US readers, may well be meaningless to non-US ones. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even very opposed to changing from year to date, as long as people recognise it will probably need to be changed back in 12 months time. Thanks for saying that, and I certainly don't oppose including the year -- either now or in future, whichever people/MOS want! Others are getting tripped up on why we add dates to titles, saying things like "It's not impossible that "January 6" will become a name like "9/11", but it's much too early to tell" when the actual reasoning is far more mundane. Feoffer (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support For removing "2021" in favour of "January 6" as it is less ambiguous but, oppose of changing "storming" as it already accurately describes the event. The Meta Boi (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing title to "2021 United States Capitol raid" or similar. The definitions of "raid" and "storming" per Webster's Dictionary: Raid: "A hostile or predatory incursion, a surprise attack by a small force". Storm: A violent assault on a defended position." Both terms are technically correct, however, I believe "raid" is more concise. "Insurrection", meaning "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government" may also be correct, but "riot" is not. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 03:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title is not ideal, but the suggested title is not much of an improvement. There are sources that use January 6 in particular, but I've seen no evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME, nor that "attack" is the correct wording to use. - Aoidh (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is awkward. The most WP:COMMONNAME is insurrection. Google "2021 insurrection" gets 31 million results vs. half that for "2021 storming".

Requested move 1 June 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: moved per RM closure above. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack – Consensus on talk for move, but target is a disambig. Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Feoffer, Onetwothreeip, and Srnec: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Onetwothreeip: as the RM closer should be the one doing the moving. Is this in fact the consensus title? 162 etc. (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I have changed the disambiguation page into a redirect back to the primary topic, and have left a link at the top of the subject article to the second disambiguation entry. All that is required now is to swap the two articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 United States Capitol attack is the consensus title as of the recent discussion. I have tried to move this as requested of me, but I am unable to do so due to the redirect (formerly disambiguation) article taking the place of the consensus name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm contesting this close. I have left a note on the closer's talk page. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In light of Srnec's contesting of the non-admin closure, we will need an admin to come close the discussion. (Even without Srnec's objection, we need an admin to effect a move). Feoffer (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Feoffer and 162 etc.: Is admin closure required if one or two people object to the close? There were many participants in the discussion, so it's inevitable that one or two people may object. I'm willing to request the technical move myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MR has the procedure to follow. User:Feoffer seems to have reverted your close; that should not have happened. However, if I was in your shoes, I might step aside for this one as it's a pretty volatile discussion and might be more of a headache than it's worth. 162 etc. (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with all options. Apologies for any mistakes. Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I note that Feoffer has reverted the undoing of the close and we can proceed as normal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection to the requested move to 2021 United States Capitol attack as per User:Onetwothreeip and RM discussion. Any editors who believe this close to be improper are urged to consult WP:MR for the proper followup procedure. 162 etc. (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The page hasn't been moved yet, but I've filed an MR. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please make the move. I'm sure examination of talk will confirm the consensus for replacing 'storm' with 'attack'. Feoffer (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

123 is one of the most active editors on this page and should not have attempted to close a contentious poll. SPECIFICO talk 11:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard Did you mean to copy this technical request discussion over to this page? There's an existing move request permalink which was just closed as Consensus for moving to 2021 United States Capitol attack yesterday. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: This should not be up for discussion again. The RM was just closed. There is also an MR disputing that RM. Let's not make it even more complicated. 162 etc. (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Unless an administrator is overturning the closure of the discussion for a valid reason, this cannot be a contested technical request. A discussion was closed, it is at move review, and the norm is to allow the move to be completed while the move review is pending. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've merged this section with the initial RM, as it wasn't really an RM, just a continuation of the previous one. Grouping for clarity makes sense here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

More needed on causation, direction, prediction

These points need sourcing, but they should all be in the article. There are likely sources for all this by now in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. There are certainly sources from broadcasters such as MSNBC, which makes the following three points over and over almost every day since Jan 6, using expert sources to state the points.

• Causation - The article mentions the role of social media sites like Parler, but lacks info on public-information failures as underlying causes of the storming event. Facebook algorithms lead users from false statements about the election and other inflammatory topics, to ever more inflammatory false statements. Twitter allowed massive numbers of posts of inflammatory false information, with at best belated tepid disclaimers. Broadcasters on pubic airwaves, like Fox News, did (and continues to do) "news" stories that are no more than inflammatory propaganda, with typical headlines looks something like - "Evidence Found for Massive Election Fraud, says so-and-so", then the story does not mention that there is no such evidence. Then they run similar headlines and stories over and over, sometimes changing the "so-and-so" making the false claim. Any reasonable viewer not anticipating propaganda would be left thinking there was a newsworthy reason for running the stories, and that there is in fact evidence of massive election fraud, and any patriot would think there was cause to try do something about it on January 6. (Fox did the same thing as to Obama's birth certificate, creating years of stories from nothing, and creating Trump.)
• Direction - The article lacks information on overt or implied direction to be violent on January 6. Trump told the Proud Boys, known to be prone to violence, that they should stand back and stand by, told them there was election fraud when there was not, then directed them to attend an event that would be "wild". Trump then stood in front of a crowd including Proud Boys (etc.) and told them to march to the Capitol or they would lose their democracy, then lied that the US President would be physically marching with them. Any reasonable person would expect violence to result from these directions. Our article mentions the direction to the crowd to march, but does not give enough context as to why any rational person would expect violence by some of the crowd members as a result.
• Prediction - The article lacks information that violence was widely anticipated for January 6. The underlying causation allowed for (self-fulfilling) prediction of the event, such as Trump "predicting" it would be "wild", and Bannon overtly saying "all hell is going to break loose tomorrow (January 6)". MBUSHIstory (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Think there's a lot of validity in that, but "Trump then stood in front of a crowd including Proud Boys (etc.) and told them to march to the Capitol" seems at odds with the fact that Proud Boys left the rally before Trump's speech began (and made their way to the barriers around the Capitol before Trump finished speaking), and "then lied that the US President would be physically marching with them" was apparently a metaphor for he'd get driven in the official car to the White House where he would virtually be with them by watching them on television. . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

dave souza is correct that the source in the Wiki timeline article says that 300 members of the Proud Boys were reported to already be at the Capitol before Trump directed the crowd (which may have had other Proud Boys and definitely had numerous people in paramilitary gear) to march to the Capitol. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As a reasonable person (formerly) invited to quite a few events billed as "wild", the only thing I've ever assumed that inherently promised was loud music, mixed genders and plenty of alcohol. Those things can cause a brawl or two, of course, but it's almost always the unreasonable people fighting. That is to say, the ones who show up anywhere someone tells them "the party's at" and fight anyone who tells them to back up, relax or get out. Hard to know why these types exist, but we've all seen them, and no reasonable advice can usually change their minds, semipresidential or otherwise. Not saying all young American men are what sociologists call "the total douchebag", but it's quite possible many in attendance were, in fact, born or raised that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk is correct that the "wild" tweet by itself, with no other context, does not indicate a prediction of violence. We can't make the inference from the context, but we can provide info on the context. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Even when I've been sold the idea that "all hell is going to break loose tomorrow", it predictably turned out to just be more wine, women and song. I think we already provide more-than-ample coverage of Trump uttering "fight" in the crowded political theatre. Other standard pointless ad-babble for a party might be "wicked", "killer" or "dope show"; ignore 'em if you got 'em! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, that demonstrates Trump's expertise in dog whistle politics. Reasonable people see the words as innocuous, the various cults and factions he's been cultivating see the same words as legitimising their inclination to violent assault on the Constitutional governance of the US. For context, a May 2019 study correlated Trump's political rhetoric, especially that aimed at extremist audiences, and incidents of hate crimes, ranging from racially charged instances of vandalism and threats to physical assault and murder. In June 2020, the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church was seen as "promising violence, anticipating it, and sending out a dog-whistle to a white supremacist fan base about their 'Second Amendment rights'." Whether because of the ban on weapons at the January 6 events, or extremists being more talk than action, murders didn't materialise, but violence causing severe injuries came close. There were "peaceful demonstrators", but for them the violence wasn't a deal-breaker. . . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Source of opinion: Burton, Nylah (2 June 2020). "Opinion: Trump just declared war on the American people". The Independent. Retrieved 27 May 2021. dave souza, talk 07:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure the lack of a civil war in the following year completely spoils Burton's prophetic credibility. If she was wrong about that declaration seven times, she can just as easily have misinterpreted the wonky holding of a Bible. Has she even met a white supremacist Trump fan, much less asked what he or she saw in that scene? If not, her guess is no better than what a white supremacist might say "her people" believe. Conflict of interests here, clearly, I take it with a grain of salt. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a published opinion, to be treated cautiously, and of course I would take your opinion with even more salt, subject to dietary considerations. . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, dogwhistling is like gaslighting. The only people who seem to think it's intended are the ones who feel it's used against them. As a man accused of passive aggressive manipulation before, I know better than to outright deny its existence, so let's just say it's possible a political novice like Trump is cunning enough to pull it off, yet somehow stupid enough to blurt out all the uncharming and self-defeating things he's otherwise known for. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Both dogwhistling and gaslighting don't quite fit, but share the point of being techniques of persuasion. As a reality TV star he's got a lot of expertise and ability in such techniques. . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Aye, but as a narcissistic genius raised on pro wrestling, I'm two steps ahead of him and I'm telling you, Dave, the old dog's still wet behind the ears, can't even "work" a slight ramp, an umbrella or the covfefe machine. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages, on second thought, a dog whistle is supposed to be subtle, "without provoking opposition" and "alienating the smallest number possible". I'd say he fell way short of those criteria. Is there political jargon for a candidate who whistles poorly in a way his opposition hears more clearly than his lunatic fringe? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The techniques differ from that. Like creationism, blatant misinformation gets opponents bogged down in explanations while supporters hear what they want to hear. Am sure I've seen an article discussing Trump's usage, but can't find it offhand. As for political jargon, the big lie seems to have some traction. With the refinement that belief in the big lie becomes a loyalty test for the party. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump used the tactic of energizing his base, which also antagonized the other side, rather than appeal to the middle, which is more typical in U.S. politics. Hence dog-whistling would be counter-productive: he told his supporters what they wanted to hear and did not care what the other side thought. The more the Resistance attacked him, the more his base loved him. I don't think anything more can be read into it.

The "insurrection" was just a group of angry demonstrators who took advantage of poor security.

TFD (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty to be read into it, but we need systematic analysis in good sources. At this stage, "There is no room for rejecting Trump's Big Lie, as Republicans who do so are ostracized by the party leadership", "Republicans' lack of faith in our current election infrastructure is a direct result of Trump's historic efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 results." As for the poor security, which presidency and administration was responsible for that? . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that CNN is a particularly good source for world history. That should be obvious with your link which begins by admitting that they got the "Big Lie" term from Mein Kampf. It's a big leap to compare Hitler's claim that the Jews betrayed Germany in WWI (which he would use to carry out the Holocaust) with Trump's claim the election was stolen. The historian cited, Timothy Snyder, who has written for CNN although your link doesn't mention that, is highly controversial for promoting the double genocide theory, that Stalin and Hitler were equally guilty. It's controversial because it excuses Hitler for defending the West from Communism, thereby mitigating the Holocaust. While his books are popular, his theories have been ignored in academic literature. Daniel Lazare has an informative article about him in his article, "Timothy Snyder's Lies," published by Jacobin (09.09.2014). Ironically, Snyder draws inspiration from the same historian (Ernst Nolte) who has inspired modern neo-fascism. TFD (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Lot of interesting points and complexities in Lazare's article, won't be able to follow that up in detail. Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election does point to contested usage from both Democrats and Republicans. Doubtless historians will find a lot to analyse in the recent events, will try to watch out for sources. . . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Attack on POLICE?

Okay, the beginning of this article has clearly been edited to push a pro-police agenda. The article has been edited to portray this as an attack against police, rather than the U.S. or Congress. The facts are that the terrorists breached the Capitol, interrupted Congress, and had intentions to hang members of Congress, all the while the police stood by and watched. The attack was quelled by the National Guard, and not the police, and they were not called until hours after the attack on the nation had begun.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I edited that, and it's only pushing the same idea already in the body and infobox; that at least 138 police were injured, mostly by getting attacked by rioters. If I was pro-police, I'd pretend they weren't hurt. Having your building breached and getting interrupted by someone possibly intending to hang you isn't fun, but it's a world away from being hit with solid objects, pepper spray or electricity. Saying they were the victims of a violent attack also in no way suggests they quelled it. If you want to put the National Guard over as the cops' saviours, I wouldn't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I vaguely see where you are coming from. However, I don't think painting the police as the true victims is going to properly portray the intentions of the attackers, or the damage that could have been done. This attack interrupted Congress. A gallows was erected, and members of Congress very well could have been killed. There is a major difference between getting hit with rocks while wearing body armor and being hanged because you believe in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And nothing happened, so its an accusation. They did however directly attack serving police officers.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe nothing happened, but their intentions were clear. Look at the video footage or read the news. There were insurrectionists in the chambers of Congress. Someone had handcuffs. A gallows had been built. This would definitely have been worse if it went on for another hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Could you please sign your posts.) One demonstator had plastic ties that could be used as handcuffs, but they had been left by Capitol police and he says he picked them up so police could not use them on demonstrators. The gallows was displayed outside and never brought into the building. It was a prop and doubtful it could have worked. Even if it did, it would have taken days to execute all the legislators. Odd too that none of the demonstrators carried guns, although they are easily obtainable. TFD (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Demonstrators, marchers (as advertised) or mob attempting to coerce congress? Oddly enough, FactCheck.org on March 10 debunked "none of the demonstrators carried guns", and says 23 people have been charged with having deadly or dangerous weapons during the assault — including Alberts who was arrested and charged with the federal offense of carrying a fully loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun on Capitol grounds. Similar;y, Rouan, Rick (4 March 2021). "Fact check: Claim about FBI official who said bureau recovered no guns at Capitol riot is missing context". USA TODAY. cites Capitol Breach Cases | USAO-DC | Department of Justice which lists Alberts and two others, charged with "Possession of an unregistered firearm" etc.. There may be others, despite Washington, D.C.’s unusually strict gun laws, which require firearms to be registered with local police. So these laws and restrictions on Capitol grounds perhaps influenced the "marchers". .. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to add, Enrique Tarrio didn't take his high-capacity firearms magazines or a gun to go with them to the rally, as he was busted on on January 4, and banned from going to the events. The police had an active crackdown on gun possession in the run-up to January 6, pour encourager les autres. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. None of the news reports I could find said that the demonstrators were armed and the charges I found related to arms found at their homes or in vehicles near the demonstrations. I suppose since few arrests were made at the time, that there would be no way of knowing if anyone was armed unless they openly carried their weapons or used them. But the point remains. If the 8,000 demonstrators had collectively planned to murder the 535 legislators and install Trump as a dictator, they would have been better prepared. The insurrectionists at the Beer Hall Putsch and the 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt were heavily armed, and even they were doomed to failure. TFD (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear any open carry would have meant immediate arrests and custody until licenses were confirmed for any with licenses, and even Trump enthusiasts might have thought that shooting cops would be bad PR. A lot of it seems to be intimidation rather than intent to murder. Pity the police weren't so confident, a lot would have been spared injuries if they'd just let the "demonstrators" in to talk to Republican senators. While some groups planned various manoeuvres, like most mobs there was no need of a plan, and they probably genuinely thought they could intimidate senators into not certifying 'Biden, leaving Trump as legitimate president because they'd stopped the steal. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) "they would have been better prepared" The bomber certainly came prepared. Alberts, in body armor and gas mask with a loaded weapon, certainly came prepared. Lonnie Coffman came with his own arsenal and bombs The folks who breached the perimeter before the speech was even over seemed pretty prepared. RSes agree was a coordinated attack to affect the transition of power. (Now, the QAnon Shaman, I'll give you, probably never woke up that day imagining anything like what would happen to him. ) Feoffer (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

While is purpose of any demonstration outside a government building is to influence government, that is a right protected by the First Amendment. There are no reliable sources that say that entering the building was planned and no evidence that the person who planted the pipe bombs coordinated with anyone in the demonstrations. The fact we don't know who he was is probably evidence he did not. I don't see why fear of arrest would for open carry would bother these people, especially once they entered the building, since trying to overthrow the government can also get you arrested. It's pretty crazy to think that a country that spends a trillion dollars a year on defense could be overthrown by a few thousand hooligans, even if a few dozen came well prepared. TFD (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Read some of the prosecution submissions. Any lingering questions about whether there was a planned, coordinated attempt at insurrection are resolved after reading a Dec 26 Oathkeeper message that says "wait for the 6th when we are all in DC to insurrection". In another message, the same suspect emphasizes "this isn't a Rally". Feoffer (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. Here is a link to the indictment. There is nothing in either document that alleges the incursion of the Capitol Building was pre-planned. The only specific violence referred to was a plan to attack antifa. (I don't know why they thought antifa would be there.) And although the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and far right groups may have led the incursion, there is no claim that majority of participants had any contact with them before Jan. 6. Ashli Babbitt's social media posts for example have been published and she does not seem to have planned her attendance with anyone. Kelly seems to have believed that Trump would dissolve Congress, thereby stopping the vote and extending his term. (I know it doesn't make sense, but then neither does their belief system.) TFD (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in either document that alleges the incursion of the Capitol Building was pre-planned. Yeah, for that I'd point you to the Norfolk FBI who on Jan 5 correctly reported the Capitol building was a target, with maps of the escape tunnels being shared. Feoffer (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Washington Post article about the Norfolk FBI report and cannot find a copy of the report, so I am relying on an article from NBC News. It says the FBI has said there was no credible evidence of a conspiracy (before the Jan. 6 demonsrations were underway) to breach the Capitol Building and no one has been charged. You would think with over 400 people charged, some evidence would have come to light. No doubt some blogger said "Let's take over the Capitol Building," but then did nothing further. Certainly some said "Let's break windows," but that doesn't mean they planned an incursion. If you look at the much ballyhooed map, which includes the tunnels, it says that 3,500 guards would be on duty. 8,000 largely unarmed people are unlikely to take a building from 3,500 armed and armored police. (They didn't guess that Capitol security would be so incompetent there would only be 500 guards. And note where the map tells demonstrators to go. The plan was to block legislators from entering the Capitol. There wasn't even a plan to breach the Capitol grounds. Note also they planned to assemble in the morning between 6AM and 10AMahead of the afternoon vote. But no one showed up until after 11AM. IOW the plan was not even carried out. TFD (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If there was "credible evidence" available to the FBI in advance, they'd be embarrassed. So they now dismiss the credibility of comments like "Barging into the Capitol through multiple entryways is the surest way to have our bases covered and apprehend these traitors." Don't see where NBC give the planned assembly times, but note that the Ellipse gates opened at 7am, and by 9am there was some sort of crowd to hear the first speech. A Proud Boys contingent left the rally at 10:58 to march toward the Capitol Building, around 12:30 a "fairly calm" crowd of about 300 built up east of the Capitol, and at 12:53 rioters, including Proud Boys, broke through the barriers and onto the Capitol grounds. So, reasonably consistent with a supposed plan to assemble in the morning between 6am and 10am and the Proud Boys' actions looked planned, as did the Oath Keepers moving to the Capitol later, but that's no indication of an overall plan. As for Capitol security being incompetent, think there were reports of instructions to protect the "patriot demonstrators" and not have the show of force that met BLM. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The times were written on the map by whoever prepared it. The Ellipse is 2 miles from the Capitol. The fact remains that the insurrectionists did not show up at the Capitol between 6 and 10 AM which was the plan on the map. And again that plan did not include storming the building or even the grounds of the Capitol. TFD (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't check out the on the map. That plan didn't happen, there was chatter about breaching the Capitol grounds, surrounding the entire Capitol complex , and on ambitious post saying "patriots as can be. We will storm the government buildings, kill cops, kill security guards, kill federal employees and agents, and demand a recount." That's a rant, ending on a note of bathos, not sure it's a good idea to ignore that sort of commenting. Seems odd in the circumstances that the FBI needed a tip-off before they could "hunt for threats of violence or domestic terror plots social media", but that's what FBI Director Christopher Wray said. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

People say things like that on far right blogs all the time. To prove conspiracy you would have to show that there was an agreement between the person who posted the suggestion and the persons who attempted to carry it out. TFD (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I see we're back to pretending an untold number of congresspeople were violently attacked, rather than 138 cops. Which is fine, if you base your history on a few supposed goals rather than on the whole objective result. I still feel actions should take priority over intentions in fact-based recaps, even when intention is clearly known, and this article should be no exception. But since it is the exception, and does prioritize ambition over outcome, I won't insist. Please try to not let this new style spread to established events, like the time Hinckley meant to assassinate Reagan and impress Foster (for example only). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mock Gallows

For the record, the gallows were clearly labelled as an art piece. Adda'r Yw (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned in an article in Smithsonian Magazine: "The first large item to greet me? A wooden structure on its side with signs affixed to the base. A square piece of plywood read “THIS IS ART.” Graffiti from a variety of hands covered the legs and sides of what I recognized as gallows, sans noose." Terjen (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the press have reported it to be "mock gallows" including this recent Associated Press based article. Perhaps we should include that fact as well. Terjen (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You have no knowledge when and who later put the graffiti on the gallows - photographed with noose, widely published, Please no OR here. SPECIFICO talk 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We should obviously not quote Smithsonian's observation from the day after, assuming that was your concern. RS have said it was a mock gallows. Terjen (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain to me (and more importantly to readers): Apart from a post-hoc observation that the gallows was never used in an execution, in what ways does a "mock" gallows differs from a "gallows"? Feoffer (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mock as in being an imitation of something. It's intended to seem real but is not the real thing. Terjen (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as your definition hinges upon the intention of the builder of which we have no sources, we should side with the majority of RSes. There are cases where a minority opinion might beat majority -- I'd support RSes that show the gallows were non-functional rather than merely theoretically 'intended' to not be used. Feoffer (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

These definitions of "mock" are from the cited dictionaries, and don't hinge on us determining the intentions of the builder. We have high-quality RS: Associated Press explicitly says "mock gallows" in their May 28 article. Terjen (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated by RSes that the gallows was somehow "non-functional", we absolutely must mention that; there's a proud tradition of non-functional "guillotines" in political speech. But "art" of gallows can function quite well as an "actual" gallows unless RS are sure it's very carefully constructed to be non-functional. Feoffer (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That RS calls them "mock gallows" is sufficient for us to report them as such. Terjen (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

One source"s passing remark? No. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) RSes refer to them as "gallows", and while at least one source called them "mock". If the minority verbiage is well-substantiated in a way we can explain to readers, we should share that info with our readers. Feoffer (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the original article directly from Associated Press dated May 28, 2021. Terjen (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A single source cherrypicked. The gallows symbolize the insurrectionists' oft-voiced intention to kill VP Pence. Think of the many celebrities who've killed themselves with less substantial apparatus. Look at the sturdy joinery at the beam end. Look at the well-tied nylon noose. I see no qualified opinion this was not lethal. SPECIFICO talk 09:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please no OR here, as a wise editor once said. Terjen (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I am recounting narratives of countless mainstream reports. Have you read widely on this? If so, it's not apparent. SPECIFICO talk 09:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Look at the sturdy joinery at the beam end. Look at the well-tied nylon noose." Please provide a RS for these claims. If you can't, it's OR, obviously. "I see no qualified opinion this was not lethal." Please provide a RS saying this was lethal. If you can't, it's OR, obviously. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In a SKYISBLUE way, of course it could be lethal. You could hang someone in the loop, bash his head against an edge or place him underneath and have some goons sit on it. But it definitely wouldn't have met any state standard for an official execution gallows (missing even a shoddy trapdoor), and quite obviously wasn't lethal or even harmful (beyond stiff mockery) on this relevant day. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to the argument that this was created as a work of speech or was not functional -- but we need an actual source saying one of those things, and we don't have it. Feoffer (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Would the complete absence of sources even implying the gallows performed its function as the usual kind of gallows practically always does be enough to call it "an unused gallows" in Misplaced Pages's voice? We're allowed to paraphrase, remember, even encouraged (in normaler articles). If you insist no qualifier is best, I understand; let the reader decide whether it served any supposed purpose by the time the afternoon was over. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could take Steve Rose of The Irish Times' word for "mock gallows". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Or trust Chauncey Vega of Salon.com, who's been calling it that since January 8. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to go with what do the bulk of RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No. We have an up-to-date high-quality reliable source substantiating the use of mock gallows: The May 28 Associated Press article. Currently, gallows is mentioned twice in our article body, cited to lesser sources:

• Snopes page from January 9.
• New York Times photo essay from January 6.
• Washington Post opinion piece from January 15.

We should replace these citations with a reference to the Associated Press article, and change the wording accordingly in the body text. Terjen (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-functional art? Sturdy crossbeam with noose—the "makeshift gallows" looks plenty functional to me, considering that people have been lynched by hanging from tree branches, lamp posts, bridge railings, the balcony of a courthouse. And the storming of the Capitol was an art performance, including the chants of "Hang Mike Pence?" So by the next day the noose was gone (souvenir, evidence?), and the gallows had been adorned with graffiti and a piece of plywood proclaiming. Unable to remove pieces of the structure, I opted for photographs of the graffiti, with Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia referenced in ink amongst notes such as “Where are you Thomas Jefferson?! Revolution 2021!!!,” “hang the thieves,” “hang treason,” and “God Bless the USA.”

References

1. Jett, Brandon T.; Robinson, Assison (January 15, 2021). "The chilling similarities between the pro-Trump mob and lynchings a century ago". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 2, 2021.
2. Blazich, Frank (February 4, 2021). "The cold morning of the day after". National Museum of American History. Retrieved June 2, 2021.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mmmm https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/07/USAT/247dbc80-2689-4c87-bc21-b31a1142185e-XXX_TH__DC_protests697.JPG

If this is genuine its not a real Gallows.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Neither is this but the message is still clear. But back to the "technical merits" of the gallows: the beams are at the end of the platform. I can think of at least a couple of ways that would work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

True, which is why we go by what RS say, and whether it was a mock gallows or real does not affect that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is genuine its not a real Gallows It's not WP:SKYBLUE from the image that the gallows is non-functional. Feoffer (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure I was the one who was talking to you about functionality and blue skies. Still waiting to hear from you on whether AP, The Irish Times and Salon are satisfactory sources. But if you'd rather associate my policy-driven ideas with Slater's arguably more philosophical take on the reality of it all, I'd totally understand why, no rush! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, see what others think, but I think describing it as an "unused gallows" is more provocative than just "gallows", like it implies the gallows were waiting and able to be used. Obviously, we DO want readers to come away knowing that nobody was hung on the gallows. Feoffer (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The gallows are mock in the sense that they would not work. They are too small, too rickety and there's no trap door. Here's an article with an image of the mock gallows with a person standing on it for perspective. It's miniature. It would only be effective against an animal the size of a rabbit or chicken. I think the term we should use to describe them is model. TFD (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Very Biased Article

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

Be advised that this is an extremely biased account of the events that led to the January 6 riot. The article assumes that the claims of serious election fraud are "false" and ignores all the evidence that supports the claim. It describes Ashli Babbitt as an "insurrectionist," which is obscene. She was a military veteran protesting what she believed was a stolen election. She believed that the Senate should not certify the election results from the states where there was substantial evidence of serious election fraud. That is hardly "insurrection."

If you want to read some of the evidence of serious election fraud, here are some links that document it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-882/164938/20201229165341814_No.%2020-__PetitionForAWritOfCertiorari.pdf

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/peter-navarro-the-immaculate-deception-report-news-conference-transcript

https://bannonswarroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf

https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical-evidence-the-election-is-being-stolen/

https://spectator.us/topic/evidence-actually-rudy-giuliani-voter-fraud/

https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/2020-11-09-complaint-as-filed.pdf

https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/1.-11-10-20-trump-v.-benson-w.d.-mich.-complaint-final.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegriffith1 (talk • contribs)

Most of these are not RS. All are opinions, only. The courts (do we have to really say this again) have rejected the claims, the SC has not supported the claims, the government body that oversees elections has said there was no fraud. So a few voices on the web are not going to change our minds, when the courts have said there is no evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As to Babbit, it does not matter what she thought, all insurectit9inst think they are right, but I agree it was not an insurrection, it was a riot.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It was totally an insurrection. They were attempting to override a democratic election and illegally put the guy they liked back in power because he told them to. 16:58 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Technically, one of those was a petition for a writ of certiorari, two were complaints and one was a transcript of the next one's press conference, not somebody's professionally published opinion. Unreliable for being primary sources, though. Anyway, Mike's not proposing we use any of this to source an edit, just stuff about evidence he said anyone who wants to read about should. Misplaced Pages is not a forum or directory. That's the main problem here. FYI, Mike, this article doesn't call Babbitt an insurrectionist, that's just here on the Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

what are you asking? What edit do you want to suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

All your sources are from just after the election. While the arguments may have been plausible, the problem is that Trump's side failed to provide evidence to prove them. State secretaries of state, election officials and judges have all rejected them. No academic papers have been published supporting Trump's side. So we have to follow reliable sources that say there was no serious voter fraud. TFD (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Support There is no evidence to back up Trump's claims. 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you supporting, I am unsure what edit has been suggested.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Showing agreement with TFD's statement. 03:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

These two claims can both be true:

1. The claims of serious election fraud are false.

2. Ashli Babbitt was protesting what she believed was a stolen election.

Terjen (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

More so, it is perfectly congruent that one should protest, or rather, revolt upon what one believes to be a stolen election and be an insurrectionist. This is the nature of subversion. The impulse to protect the constitutional order was subverted through agitation, which was programmed on lies, the cult of personality (believing that the leader must be right), and factional hatred (believing that the other side can't be right). — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And we still need RS saying what an editor wants us to say. And we need a clear indication of what changes they wish to make.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Many clearly expressed a belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory,

This statement is incorrect base on the reference - read the WSJ referenced article and AQnon isn't mentioned. If digging into the WSJ article references it does state that one, just one, individual wrote about QAnon - clean this up or find evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7B90:C1D0:74A6:BE86:DC5A:BE85 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean apart from this "More than a dozen were clear supporters of the conspiracy theory QAnon"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Or this "At least 13 voiced QAnon beliefs" (not my emphasis).Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, source 522 is not the WSJ, its the NYT, maybe that is where your mistake lies, you are looking at the wrong source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source. 13 out of 8,000 isn't many. Do we know the degree of support of QAnon among the demonstrators? TFD (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is out of those arrested, I have made that clear now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That is clearer. I wonder if we should express it as a percentage, since we've done that elsewhere in the paragraph. I'd like to know what percentage actually believed in QAnon, but guess we'll have to wait. TFD (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Move review

Please be aware of the move review at Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2021_June#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol. Please participate there if you are so inclined. Moncrief (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Related page moves

Given recent page move, should Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol and Template:2021 US Capitol attack also be moved to reflect the title of the parent article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for the #Move review. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. People already went ahead and moved a ton of other pages. What a mess. Fucking garbage. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Y2kcrazyjoker4 as the editor that moved {{2021 US Capitol attack}}. Not sure if you'd like to comment here or explain the rationale for moving it while the move review was still in progress or not. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: meh, that's just how move reviews go. Everything can be moved back if necessary - it's not a huge deal. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea any move review was underway. I merely saw the recent move discussion was closed and the article had been moved. I figured that was the end of it for now. I was wrong. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical context

Organized mob uprisings specifically related to (leading up to, during, or following) an election is not new in American History. Documented examples right here in Misplaced Pages include:

- 1868, St. Bernard Parish, LA

- 1873, Colfax, LA massacre

- 1874, Eufaula, AL

- 1874, Vicksburg, MS

- 1875, Clinton, MS

- 1898, Wilmington Insurrection

- 1920, Ocoee, FL

This history is academically relevant to the ideologies of the people who were instrumental in its fomentation and execution. There ought to be a section that sets this event within the known historical context.

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• 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 articles that use American English
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages at move review