Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

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 Wikipedia? 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: 3 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about January 6 United States Capitol attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about January 6 United States Capitol attack at the Reference desk.

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

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

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

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:Vital article Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 articles Donald Trump C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Politics: American C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). Sociology: Social Movements C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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. Terrorism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Government / History C‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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. U.S. Congress C‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Events(s).

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

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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. A news item involving January 6 United States Capitol attack was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2021. Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org Section sizes Section size for January 6 United States Capitol attack (59 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 82,084 82,084 Background 35 81,039 Attempts to overturn the presidential election 18,710 18,710 Planning of January 6 events 18,815 32,265 Seditious conspiracy by Oath Keepers and Proud Boys 13,450 13,450 Predictions of violence 17,433 17,433 Law enforcement and National Guard preparations 12,596 12,596 Trump supporters gather in D.C. 14,940 50,013 January 5 meetings 3,724 3,724 Bombs placed 5,338 5,338 January 6 Trump rally 12,676 26,011 Trump's speech 13,335 13,335 Attack on the Capitol 3,545 82,425 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 13,383 13,383 Attackers on west terrace breach Senate Wing hallway 16,511 16,511 Evacuation of leadership amid Capitol lockdown 27,182 27,182 Oath Keepers arrive and breach Rotunda 2,280 2,280 Ashli Babbitt killed by police while attempting to breach Speaker's Lobby 7,550 7,550 Attack on the Tunnel 5,873 5,873 Police clear the Capitol and Congress reconvenes 1,868 1,868 Federal officials' conduct 32 50,876 Trump's conduct 12,087 30,763 Inflammatory speech while knowing of weapons 2,934 2,934 Allegation that he assaulted a Secret Service driver 4,654 4,654 Endangering Mike Pence 8,159 8,159 Failure to end the attack 2,929 2,929 Capitol Police leadership's failure to prepare 2,698 2,698 Department of Defense leadership's refusal to send Guard 12,076 12,076 Congressional conduct 2,885 2,885 Deletion of Secret Service and Homeland Security text messages 2,422 2,422 Participants, groups, and criminal charges 6,750 62,645 Proud Boys 4,043 4,043 Oath Keepers 6,247 6,247 QAnon 8,780 8,780 White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates 12,285 12,285 Others 8,261 8,261 Police and military connections 6,183 6,183 Analysis 10,096 10,096 Results 13 26,221 Casualties and suicides 14,091 14,091 Damage 8,242 8,242 Laptop theft and cybersecurity concerns 3,875 3,875 Aftermath 17 11,400 Political, legal, and social repercussions 4,600 4,600 Domestic reactions 2,571 2,571 International reactions 131 131 14th Amendment disqualification 3,094 3,094 Sarbanes-Oxley Act prosecutions ruling and impact 987 987 Analysis and terminology 1,754 12,561 Historians' perspectives 10,807 10,807 See also 1,258 1,258 Notes 31 31 References 14,397 14,397 External links 964 10,577 Federal government 3,127 3,127 Video 2,113 2,113 Timeline 4,373 4,373 Total 485,527 485,527

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Alex Pasternack (2021-01-14). "As a mob attacked the Capitol, Wikipedia 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). "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia Went to Work". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2021-02-04. As protestors at the Capitol turned violent, one major debate among Wikipedia editors was how to describe the event in the page's title. Was it a protest? A riot? An insurrection? A coup attempt?

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)

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 Wikipedia? 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: 3 days

• insurrection: 28 events
• storming: 3 events
• riot: 3 events
• chaos: 3 events
• siege: 3 events
• attack: 2 events
• assault: 1 event
• sedition 1 event

• Note: goal of this part of research is not so much to include all references to the event, but to find references in diverse social spheres, that may be seen as relevant (please comment in the discussion below) — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• note: this section heading was added post-factum to easier navigate this section — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riot and insurrection are leading, and I'd consider both common names. Except for attack, other words don't seem all that competitive in terms of forming a common name. "Storming" has fallen behind. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All of that can still be true, and yet miss the main point: Word choice is not a matter of verifiability, it is a matter of tone. Choosing from among a set of near synonyms for a description of an event, Wikipedia has different concerns in tone than do many sources, even news sources. It's why we use words like "die" instead of euphemisms for it, even if more sources use "passed away" or something like that. WP:LABEL recommends using language which avoids emotional-laden words. Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement, regardless of which similar words other sources are using. --Jayron32 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in theory, what you say is excellent, but "Storming" fails the common name criterion big time. Also these words aren't synonyms. "Attack" is indeed vague, but "riot" is not vague, and it's not synonymous to "storming". Insurrection is also neither a euphemism for "storming", nor it's synonym. You've just promulgated a thesis that "storming" is the real name (like "die" as opposed to "pass away"), and when media use other terms they are doing so as a euphemism for storming. But this just isn't true. The media don't use storming because they just don't. It's a clunky gerund that isn't in common usage. I made this resource to enable people to quickly access a list of headlines and assess how and in which context (and in which "tonal register") each word is being used. The analysis is not meant to answer the naming question by itself. What inspired are misguided attempts to claim that something is a WP:COMMONNAME based on rudimentary google searches, such as presented here (attack is used 193,000 times, Riot used 67,700 times – one would believe that attack is used three times more than riot, when riot is used significantly more than attack). There needs to be something reliable to fall back on, when the question of what the reliable sources are using arises. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I maybe didn't express myself well. When I said "Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement..." what I actually meant by that was " Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement." I hope that clears things up for you. I'm not married to the current title, but a simple statistical list of words is insufficient in making the editorial decisions we face. Words like "riot" and "insurrection" carry emotional weight; it's why news sources choose them to get people to read their articles, because that emotional connection with their audiences creates a connection with them that encourages those audiences to keep reading that source's articles, among many other reasons for choosing those words. As an encyclopedia recording an event dispassionately, Wikipedia has a different purpose than "eyeballs on articles to feed ad revenue", and as such, we have a responsibility per WP:TONE to choose words that, as feasible as possible, do not carry the same sort of emotional weight. Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal. "Riot" and "insurrection" are not them, regardless of how many sources use them. --Jayron32 13:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roget's Thesaurus[93] gives 'storming' (noun) as a synonym for 'assault' and 'attack', also for 'bravado/ boastfulness'. A print copy of The Oxford Handy Dictionary (ed. Fowler) gives 'as in "take by storm" - direct assault on (and capture of) defended place by troops etc.'[94] Whether or not 'storming' was chosen initially with that in mind, it is good reason for it to be retained. See also Storming the City, U.S. Military Performance in Urban Warfare from World War II to Vietnam (2016).[95] Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32. It doesn't clear it up for me. It looks like you're fishing for the most extraordinarily contrived arguments to defend the current name (which you are identifying as "storm" which is a vastly more common word than "storming" used as a noun; this can make it look more common than it is). I'd rather trust the ~25 reputable news organizations, than a person's individual sense of what carries emotional weight (or their exotic theory on how reputable media organizations are so opportunistic and clickbaity... why are they considered reliable sources then?). It must be that because "insurrection" is such emotional language that this opportunistic media organization called the event "insurrection" on the second day: American Political Science Association (APSA) – Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol. No, the event is being called what it's called, because those words best fit it. And finally, now we're at it, this has never been my main argument, but the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, now that we know well all the implications surrounding the term. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, but please explain. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch Emis: Sorry again for being unclear. When I said "I'm not married to the current title", what I meant by that was "I'm not married to the current title". Also, when I said "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal" (goal meaning "Of choosing a title that is neutral and does not carry unnecessary emotional weight), what I meant was actually "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal". Is there anything else I can clear up for you? Feel free to propose a better title. If it isn't "riot" or "insurrection" or other similarly weighted words, it will probably be even better than what is there now. --Jayron32 19:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis. But one more suggestion. If you are going to do it this way, search in text to make sure you are pulling all the articles about the even. Then limit the intitle search with only the verb. In other words, just search for the in title for the word riot or attack.Casprings (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm trying that now as well. I think it produces fewer overall results than searching just the titles (probably because referring to the event by it's full name is done less frequently in the body), so I'm still figuring out if it has any added value. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While we rely mostly on print media for referencing, there should be some nod to how the event is described in other media. For example, I've noticed that on-air, NPR almost solely calls it "insurrection" in editorial voice, when describing the event proper (i.e., "the January insurrection..."). They will use the informal "attack" in passing (i.e., "the attack on the Capitol was.."). This is similar to the apparent style of the BBC World Service as well, except that I've also heard them use "storming" and "stormed". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I don't think that all of the precise statistical counting is helpful. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't dictate that we must use whatever naming has the precise by-the-numbers most use in news articles in a vacuum. When multiple possible terms are all being used in widespread contexts, with no one absolutely predominating, then we can consider there to be multiple common names (or no definitive name). As such it makes most sense to fit the one that best attests to the nature of the event, Wikipedia's policies, and broad consensus of accuracy. I'm still on team "attack", but that kind of goes without saying. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, really good. I am going to change my vote about to being neutral concerning riot or attack. You almost have me. That said, in my mind, what you want to do is combine an intitle search that is exclusive with an intext search that is expansive. In other words, search for riot intitle. But in text, combine alot of terms together (Capitol and riot or attack or insurrection or ect). That said, really good.Casprings (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already with the above searches, any of the words can appear in the text of any of the articles, because the text is completely ignored. So if you click on one of the results for e.g. "riots", you'll see that in the article "attack" is used. To get new information one should do the opposite of what you're saying: include all the titles that may refer to the event by including all the words alternatively (intitle:siege | intitle:breach | intitle:attack etc...), and look for the specific phrase in the text, but then it's not even needed to constrain the results by title as the text containing the said phrase would certainly be dealing with the topic. Doing that set of searches (just text, regardless of the title) is certainly possible for me but the word choices in the text carry less weight because journalistic writers tend to vary their word choices to avoid too much repetition for purely stylistic reasons, so those choices are pretty voluntary and non-committal, and don't necessarily express a real person's (editor's for example) real "call" on what to name the event. Hope these thoughts make sense to you. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so far the method to try to understand what WP:COMMONNAME might have been mainly by counting. While this is a good indicator, we should also take into account of what media outlets at the organization level call the event as. Some of the outlets have been explicit about what the standard wording they use. If we have evidence that they in fact standardize on using particular words, those words should be given more careful attention than just the method of overall counting alone. Also most recent evidence should be used as the words they decided to use may evolve over time. I have compiled an initial list on the table here which we can expand if we find more explicit evidence:

Note: per discussion below, Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility— Alalch Emis (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be another indicator aside from raw counting. Z22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea, we were doing some of that earlier but it's archived now. I added Politico. If you'd like to we can move this table to the top of the section so that both analyses are seen as a greater whole. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with how we typically use tables in a discussion thread, but if that is what we should do to make it easier to discuss, then I'm good with that. Z22 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Business Insider is reliable enough or not. I just added an entry in the table. If there are some disputes that Business Insider should not be included, then discuss to remove it. Z22 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus on BI status as a reliable source. Right now their senior editor for politics is someone for whom I cannot find evidence that he is a veteran political journalist. I'd say not, in this context. I remember seeing more categories and sections in various outlets, I'll keep looking to find them. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that no COMMONNAME has been adopted, unlike the many other civil disorders. If one did, it would not matter if the tone was partial or the wording incorrect. I would avoid riot, insurrection or coup, since those terms have connotations that may be inaccurate. I don't see anything wrong with the current title. TFD (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a leap of logic to look at the results, see that there are 3 fairly prominent names and a plethora of less prominent name, and conclude that this article should use one of the less prominent words because none of the three prominent ones are a common name. It's not how it works. EDIT: looking again at your post, I understand that you didn't actually refer to the top 3 words, but mentioned two of them and coup (yeah, coup isn't really discussed anymore). — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no COMMONNAME, then COMMONNAME does not apply and we are not required to choose among the three most prominent titles, or the hundred most. Instead, we have to use recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency and avoid judgmental wording, per Wikipedia:Article titles. So that rules out terms such as riot, insurrection and coup that provide interpretations of the events. TFD (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no common name it doesn't mean that the name should not be supported by reliable sources. Riot and insurrection are not interpretations of the event. These names are very well supported by reliable sources and storming is comparably poorly supported. Insurrection is thus mandated by WP:NCE because insurrection is a generally accepted word under the included definition: A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public. Insurrection is a neutral word, and storming is a problematic word with complicated connotations. Storming doesn't include incredibly important elements of the event such as the bombing attempt and the methods and goals covered in the infobox. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'insurrection' is far from neutral. Given that the Democratic Party leadership has deliberately used it to frame the politically motivated impeachment article that the House has delivered to the Senate, it is perhaps the most controversial word of all, and intended to be so - in common parlance the word has been 'weaponized' (as in this article from Aug 2016[96] and this from April 2020[97]) If 'insurrection' is used in the name it should be in quote marks, and the lead should begin by referencing the said impeachment. The article could then mention that before the impeachment, the word was already being used in public statements, both the commercially published and official, and this could be supported by citing a variety of frequency word counts identifying the criteria for each of those counts. If within the current period, say from 6 Jan to 6 Feb, notable Republican party leaders or supporters have used it, that, too should be mentioned. A better alternative would be to use the generic "protest" in the title, then at the start of the article say that it was variously described at the time as.... etc. That would probably be the better way for an encyclopedia. Redirects can be used for other words, just as the index of a print encyclopedia such as Britannica has redirects. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qexigator: The article name will reflect reliable sources; it does not matter that one political party has used the word to describe what happened. Quotes around the word insurrection would not follow policy. There is no support for using the word protest in the article, which should be clear from the move discussion that resulted in the current title. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. It is clear and demonstrates the problem we are having here. Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is supported by reliable sources. The argument that insurrection is a generally accepted word is incorrect, because NCE defines it as "a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event." I doubt there is any dispute that the Capitol was stormed.

Insurrection is problematic because it is defined as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." (Merriam-Webster)[98] Whether or not the actions amounted to that is something that is yet to be proved. Bear in mind that per People accused of crime, we cannot accuse living or recently deceased people of serious crimes until they are convicted.

The closest event I could find was the Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal (1849). Conservative demonstrators protesting new legislation threw stones at the governor-general, shot at the prime minister, broke into the main building and set it on fire with the legislators inside. The violence continued for days with attacks on other political targets. Yet the Canadian Encyclopedia refers to it as the "Montreal riots."

TFD (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think another indicator that can give us an insight as to how people understand the Jan 6 event as is to look at public discussion events that discuss about the Jan 6. Those public event names should be one of clearer indicators of COMMONNAME. I came up with a way to search those events. I planned to search for the top 3 words that many have talked about: "attack", "riot", and "insurrection". Then, I included "storming" as the 4th word for searching given that this page title is still that. The word that I chose to combine to form a search key in order to identify as many as public events possible are "event" and "panelists". So, it came to a total of 8 searches: "capitol" "attack" "event", "capitol" "attack" "panelists", "capitol" "riot" "event", "capitol" "riot" "panelists", "capitol" "insurrection" "event", "capitol" "insurrection" "panelists", "capitol" "storming" "event", and "capitol" "storming" "panelists". In each of those 8 searches, I inspected the first 100 results. In each of the results, I looked something that mentions a public discussion event that has an event name. If there is an article that talks about a discussion about Jan 6 but there is no way for me to find the event name / discussion title, then I don't count that in. I came across a few events that were not organized by notable entities, so, I did not include those few. Also, one event that was run by an organization that promotes a particular political party, I don't include that one. In all of those qualified events, here are the break down of the words used in the event names:

• insurrection: 28 events
• storming: 3 events
• riot: 3 events
• chaos: 3 events
• siege: 3 events
• attack: 2 events
• assault: 1 event
• sedition 1 event

Below is the list of the events. I have the table collapsed as it is a long list.

Note: per commment below Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that it is better to move this table to the top for visibility, please feel free to do so. Maybe we can expand the list, but make sure to use a search methodology that is fair to all 4 words in question. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the list of event names in the above not only establishes a common name that has been used to communicate to the public on upcoming events that are about the Jan 6 event, it also indicates generally accepted word per WP:NCE as it shows consensus among scholars (many of these listed events have scholars as panelists, and organized by academic departments) in the real world. Z22 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work, I hope many people see it — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'event' in the list above is not well chosen. It tends to confuse the question under discussion, as the course of the discussion is showing, and the methodology is at least dubious.

The topic of the article is itself the event, and the purpose of this RM is to decide whether 'riot' would be a better choice than 'storming' in respect of that single event, with a view of improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please say specifically where the questionable use of 'event' is located, so I could take a look at it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every news article I've checked today about the Bidens paying their respects uses the phrase "Capitol riot" in the first paragraph. nbc, cbs, foxnews, cnn, usatoday. Other names are used in the articles, but "U.S. Capitol riot" has emerged as the event identifier used first. JaredHWood💬 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the results for the past 24 or 48 hrs using the first table, by replacing the date in the link (at the end; you can automate it in a text editor), and report them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The numbers in #Exhibit A are mostly useless. There's a note saying "the actual count is on the last page of search results", but that's wrong.

• Details: It's not easy to get useful search result numbers from Google. Maybe the number on the first result page isn't quite correct, but the number on the last page is useless – Google simply seems to deliver at most 300-350 results for these searches. Even when new pages are added to the search index, the number on the last page doesn't increase much beyond 300-350. I guess that's due to certain optimizations in the distributed algorithm that produces the result pages (see e.g. MapReduce), but only someone at Google would really know.
  
• Evidence: Currently (February 11) the number on the last page for the "riot" search from Exhibit A is ca. 370. On January 30, it was 350. Of course, a lot more than 20 pages with a "Capitol riot" title have been published since then. How many? Let's change the after parameter from 2021-01-06 to 2021-01-30 and look at the last result page again, and we currently find a number around 220 - a lot more than 20. More evidence: Let's check how many results we get for the interval from 2021-01-06 to 2021-01-30 by using after:2021-01-06 and before:2021-01-30 parameters. The the last result page for that interval currently says 309. Of course, the count for the interval from January 6 until now should be the sum of the counts for January 6–30 plus January 30 until now. That sum would be 309 + 220 = 529. (Instead, as mentioned above, we got 370.) The discrepancy becomes even more apparent when we use shorter intervals, such that the count for each interval is below the 300-350 cutoff. For example, for the two days from January 10 to 12, the last result page says 250. For two days! If we run these searches for many small, disjunct intervals from January 6 until now and add the numbers, we get a total in the thousands.
  
• In conclusion: The numbers in Exhibit A are useless. They are based on a flawed idea about how to get proper search result numbers from Google. After running multiple similar searches, I'd say the number that Google shows on the first result page is more meaningful than the number on the last page, but I'm not sure. Google search numbers in general are tricky beasts. Sorry!

— Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you to those that that have contributed to this. I think these Exhibits are helpful to ground a further discussion. Exhibit A is helpful. That said, I am not sure we should be relying on American only WP:RS (plus BBC and Al Jazeera). While this article is written in American English, I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME should ignore WP:RS from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland etc. RS like CBC News, The Australian, The New Zealand Herald, Irish Independent, ABC News (Australia), The Globe and Mail, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, TVNZ etc. are also relevant if we are looking at headlines. Of course, we have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't think we should ignore differences with how the event is being described outside of the USA.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'rioter(s)' is used 64 times in the article itself. 'Protester(s)' is used 14 times, and 'insurrectionist(s)' is used only once, and inside a quote. If the title were changed to 'insurrection', should instances of 'rioter(s)' also be changed to 'insurrectionist(s)'? To me that seems overly presumptive of the motivations of the individual participants, not very neutral, and would read terribly. Ar85ar (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the word 'List' should replace 'Analysis' in the Table headings.

The leading promoter of the Tables A-D has been moving others' contributions about on this page, but is not disinterested. He has asserted a very personal opinion that 'the tone of "storming" is catastrophic' (17:53, 29 January).

Given that Analysis is a 'process of breaking a complex topic... into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it', the questions remain

• whether it is a Qualitative Analysis that 'is concerned with which components are in a given sample' or a Quantitative Analysis that is 'to determine the quantity of individual component present in a given sample'?
• what is its purpose?
• wheher it is fit for that purpose?
• whether that purpose can be at most a minor aid to deciding the question currently in issue, viz,, whether the word 'storming' is less suited than 'riot' to the article's name.

From the point of view of decision-making for editing, distinct from personal opinion, and allowing for guidance about secondary sources etc., it can be argued[99] (but not in this comment) that the Memorandum in Support of the impeachment,[100] which is intentionally framing the charge as Incitement of Insurrection, is the best evidence we have in support of retaining 'storming' though that word appears only once in the text, in section 'E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol' (p.23) and in two references: 1. Associated Press, Trump Doesn’t Ask Backers to Disperse after Storming Capitol, PBS (Jan. 6, 2021) (p.21) and 2. Raphael Satter, Laptop Stolen from Pelosi’s Office during Storming of U.S. Capitol, Says Aide, Reuters (Jan. 8, 2021).(p.40).

(For 'Answer to Article 1 Incitement of insurrection' addresed to the members of the Senate see[101])

The Tables on this page offered as analysis are in fact no more than lists of number counts, unaccompanied by a critical appraisal of the external sources, in respect of criteria for click bait, headline grabbing, editorial policy and control, imitative, repetitive, inciting or following a twitterstorm[102]. -Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, when I said it was catastrophic, it was a bit of unfortunate hyperbole. I think the tone is really bad for reasons widely discussed on this talk page, and it's the most problematic of all descriptors, but not "catastrophic". I am disinterested. I am not a promotor of anything. I didn't read the rest of your post. What is offered is an analysis and not a list. Update: voila, I minimized the usage of "analysis" so we don't have to talk about that hopefully. Update #2: the most comprehensive of the tables, that took the most effort by far, was not even done by me, so I shouldn't be made to look more important here than I am — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, to better clarify: it's an ongoing analysis, the analysis isn't complete, it's a team effort. We break the naming trends down and come to a conclusion, over some time, no? We are looking if there's a common name, or what names are significantly supported by reliable sources and what aren't ("Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."), and/or what is the generally accepted word. If you have a superior methodology you are entitled just as I am to proffer one. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been restored due to a few events that led it to be archived when it should not have. When the RM was closed, the section after it was closed as well despite not being a sub-section at the time. Then, a different editor made it a sub-section while moving an unrelated discussion. It was then pointed out that there seemed to be an error when closed and that they were different sections. Separately, a user made a modification to raise the auto-archive from one to three days. The closing of the RM was modified to un-close this section. This should have been enough to now restore this section to a normal section, but Lowercase sigmabot III archived it as it only looks at User:MiszaBot/config and not a combination of it and Template:auto archiving notice. (Which should be considered a bug, but alas.) That was adjusted and this section restored from the archive after a brief discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to ensure that users know it has been restored I am pinging the following editors for making at least one signed comment in the above discussion: Z22, Alalch Emis, Jayron32, Qexigator, Casprings, Symmachus Auxiliarus, BlackholeWA, The Four Deuces, Jared.h.wood --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V: Thanks. We've been working on the same thing apparently. I've created a subpage with the same purpose as this restored section cca 2 hrs ago. Please tell me what you think is the best way to proceed. Ongoing analysis of naming trends — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale for the restoration is extremely valid, but ProcrastinatingReader's rationale not to restore, but to create a subpage (or copy the content into a new section) is also very valid. Basically it's a just a matter of what creates the most utility, not what is the most appropriate. At this point I don't know what creates the most utility, and I'd like to leave that decision to you. If you tell me to delete the subpage I'll do it immediately. If you think a subpage is better, you can replace all of the content in the subpage with the content in this section. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I don't have any pings from you in my notices, so I wonder how I didn't get this message. If the subpage is a better location, then that is fine, though this would need to be re-archived as it would otherwise be lost. The subpage might be better as it would mean that it would not be archived automatically, though it might not see as much discussion. Then again, the only comments here are about this section being restored. (Also, I think ProcrastinatingReader believe there was only one section based on their reply to Z22.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the subpage would be less noticed, if only pointed to by a small bit of link text. I didn't actually get my ping for some reason, and certainly would not have noticed the subpage; I only saw this message because I saw it had been restored as I checked through this talk. Personally I don't think there's much need to separate this discussion out somewhere where it will get less discussion, and considering that it might not have much longevity beyond the ongoing naming dispute (which would bring the rationale for its special treatment into question). BlackholeWA (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReliverMattWiki (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During recent impeachment trial proceedings, the impeachment prosecutors are taking about seven deaths.

Which I believe is fair. There are indisputably five victims who died on the insurrection day.

However, sadly, two more capitol police officers took their lives shortly after the riot. I believe the mental trauma suffered during the violent day is significant factor Jakeblake0713 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a source of the claim: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/second-officer-suicide-following-capitol-riot-463123 Jakeblake0713 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar requests have already been discussed here, here, here and here, and a related discussion is here. tl;dr: Unless there are WP:RS that directly connect the suicides to the riot on January 6, we probably shouldn't add them to the five deaths. Thanks for providing a source! But I think it supports the current statement in the article that five people "died from" the event. Quote: "Five people died as a result of the riots, and two officers later died by suicide." — Chrisahn (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the impeachment managers are not a reliable source for this - their job is to attempt to make it look as bad as possible while not technically lying. Thus, they aren't an independent source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe recent reporting by The Washington Post makes this link: "That two police officers had died by suicide after confronting rioters thrust the most private of acts into the national spotlight and made clear that the pain of Jan. 6 continued long after the day’s events had concluded, its impact reverberating through the lives removed from the Capitol grounds. Now, families of both Smith and Liebengood — who were buried in private ceremonies lacking the pageantry that accompanied Sicknick’s memorial service in the Capitol Rotunda — want the deaths of their loved ones recognized as "line of duty" deaths." Note specifically the description of the suicides as an "impact reverberating" from the riot. Further testimony in the article expresses this belief here as well, but I think this is enough to say that WaPo says it outright for themselves. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not. The language in that article is very carefully crafted to not ascribe blame for the suicides to the rioting, and instead just connects them superficially in time by saying things like “reverberating”. Regardless, until multiple high-quality reliable sources clearly and confidently make such an assertion, no further linkage should be inserted into this article, and even then it may not be due. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there's a clear link (which there probably is), I'm not sure it's reasonable to include these in the tally. It's fundamentally different from dying at the event or as a result of injuries. Ar85ar (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Within the articles first paragraph strongly implies and in some cases directly states that trump called for the riot at the Capitol. This is factually false as there were numerous points within his speech which showed intent for a peaceful demonstration.

Examples include: - “I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” This statement explicitly states his wishes for the demonstration to be peaceful, the complete opposite of what they became.

- “If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are." This statement also shows clear intent to peacefulness as instead of calling for the protester to force politicians to follow their wishes but instead to wait until the primaries to democratically vote out politicians whom they don’t want.

- Finally, he called to “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

He at no point encouraged violence or rioting. By purposely omitting those points and through the language used, implying that he encouraged a riot when he did not is disingenuous and is false information. Tfost73 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint does not reflect the current consensus. Please read the notice at the top of this talk page.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He used the word "peacefully" once. He used the word "fight" 20 times. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this wiki article is factually misleading at best and the epitome of fake news naratives being spread by the MSM and this wiki platform... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.76.63 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP: You are welcome to suggest contributions based on secondary information from reliable sources, although given your current contributions to date, I'm not holding my breath.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what someone said yesterday at Trump's impeachment trial:

January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he’d lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. [...] There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the President’s intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ‘trial by combat.’ It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President. [...] The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. [...] This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.

Is this "disingenuous"? "False information"? "Factually misleading"? "Fake news narratives spread by the MSM"? You decide. You can read the full statement by Mitch McConnell, the U.S. Senate Republican Leader, here. I guess we should quote it somewhere in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive rhetoric, but ultimately still a nay-sayer. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to be reminded of McConnell's statement. Anyone could pick and splice bits or portions of it to suit any POV and NPOV. Read as a whole, and knowing that it was composed with the skill of an experienced longtime senate majority leader in a difficult party postion -- and with an eye to the future, which took him and his party and the government and people of his country to the acquittal of citizen Trump after a hearing of the best the House Managers could do in support of the impeachment and the well presented defence -- now many may be left feeling passionately that justice has been denied, but others that justice has been done, while congressional business will carry on as before in the name of 'one Nation under God'. Ongoing reviisions of the 'storming' article and others linked in the main body will maintain npov with that in mind. This may result in further discussion on this page. Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No soapboxing please, Chrisahn! Do not clutter the talk page with 200 words of Mitch McConnell's oratory. I disagree that it needs to be quoted here. A better place would be the impeachment article, if anywhere.--FeralOink (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FeralOink: You're right, I got a bit carried away here, trying to defend the article against these rather unfounded accusations. Sorry about the wall of text... (By the way, I actually found the quote in the impeachment trial article. A small part of it now occurs in this article as well. I think it's a very useful addition. But I also think longer excerpts would be unnecessary here. All is well.) — Chrisahn (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisahn: Thank you for acknowledging graciously. I'm glad that the quote is reproduced in the impeachment trial article, which is a fitting place for it. Sorry if I was BITEY.--FeralOink (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of you actually watch the live stream of the "breach/riot". BI did. Based on what I saw, it was basically a giant tour of the Capitol in the very beginning, and the only violence I noticed was when the police shot one of the protesters. I don't mean to be rude, but this is actually what I saw. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 15:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? So you did not see the break-and-enter, wilful damage and looting? Yeah, just a "giant tour" ... WWGB (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break and enter may have happened, but seriuosly, looting and willful damage, that part I don't believe. Supposedly, the guard let the protesters take over the Capitol, saying it is all theirs. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 20:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might try reading 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Damage, theft, and impact. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairie Astronomer: Yes, I watched the live stream of the "breach/riot". You are not being rude. To me, the salient point is that no firearms were discharged by any of the protestors or riot participants. I believe it is accurate to describe the event as transitioning from a protest to a riot. We've had a lot of those since May 2020.--FeralOink (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This televised news interview features a fascism expert, who examines the the short video played at the "March to Save America" rally. Our article covers what the former president said in his speech, but this video is fascinating and disturbing for its persuasive fascist imagery. I wonder how the substance of this arguably influential video could be summarized (maybe it's discussed in print journalism elsewhere). Just throwing this out there. Mcfnord (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that fasci-nating video made as the trial entered its third day. Given that there is no reason to doubt Jason Stanley's interpretation of events as being offered by him in good faith from his POV, is he to be regarded as an oracle and RS for the 'storming' article? Maybe he has bees in his bonnet? Maybe, unlike Senator McConnell, he represents a certain naivety? Qexigator (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That video should not be included anywhere in Wikipedia. Jason Stanley has been complaining about Trump for years, see here. I am Jewish, and I am offended by the video, as Stanley starts going through who is Jewish in the Senate and who isn't. Furthermore, if we are going to include THAT then we should include this treif article featured in the latest issue of Time magazine: Written by acclaimed journalist Molly Ball ("Yale graduate and TIME's National Political Correspondent. Previously, she covered U.S. politics for The Atlantic and Politico, and worked for newspapers in Nevada and Cambodia. She is the author of Pelosi, a bestselling biography") her news report of 4 February 2021, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, she explicitly states (rather than doing an interpretive work like Jason did on youtube):

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster....That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

I do not consider that appropriate content for this article.--FeralOink (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have been "complaining about Trump". Complaints have been coming since 1927. Since Fred Trump. Since that Trump was arrested wearing Ku-Klux-Klan-robe in 1927! He is a second generation fascist. In New York, where he is known, he could not have been elected to anything. "I am Jewish" is an argument for what? Arthur Finkelstein and George Birnbaum - are also Jews themselves - but those right-leaning American political consultants helped create the world's largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory! Could they have anticipated the deadly scale of their supposedly "ingenious" invention "Der böse Jude"? Yes, they could.

Ball may be typically diligent reporter, and there are things in her article worth knowing and exploring, but she really should have been much more careful about throwing around terms like “conspiracy” and “cabal” and asked harder questions about what her sources. Jason Stanley's seeks to explain ‘how propaganda works’ and ‘how Fascism works’ at a academic and and scientific level. A much welcomed and needed work! --217.234.66.101 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT correct that "Fred Trump was arrested wearing Ku-Klux-Klan-robe in 1927! Multiple WP:RS and WP:NPOV sources including Reuters confirmed that pictures of Fred Trump wearing KKK robes were photoshopped. The circumstances of Fred Trump's arrest in 1927 are provided in his Wikipedia BLP. Your statement is defamatory about the 45th US president: he is not a "second generation fascist". There isn't any "world's largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory" under discussion in this article. One of the Jewish men you listed is deceased, and the other lives in Jerusalem and was chief of staff for Netanyahu.--FeralOink (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m. on January 6 2021 — only 11 minutes after live television coverage showed Pence being hustled from the Senate floor because rioters were streaming into the building one floor below. The Senate then abruptly went into recess. The text of Trump's 2.24 tweet was:

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" Cogan79 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's tweet about Pence is notable; the article currently states: "Trump tweeted that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done" at 2:24 p.m." Because he was escorted from the Senate floor about 10 minutes earlier, does not mean that Pence and several of his family members lives were not in danger. You may want to read this article: [[103]] IP75 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While rioters engulfed the Capitol on Jan. 6, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy phoned President Donald Trump. A worried McCarthy called on Trump to urge him to get his supporters under control. But Trump didn’t seem interested at first saying that it was antifa, and not his supporters who were responsible for the riot, according to Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a GOP lawmaker from Washington. When McCarthy pushed back against that interpretation, Trump got angry. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump reportedly said. Cogan79 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cogan79, thanks for the suggestion. It's best if you provide multiple sources and propose text to be added, instead of just a general idea. This is because the reliable sources which can be found are what will ultimately determine what the text says. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1. THE SLATEST Trump Reportedly Sided With Capitol Insurrectionists in Angry Call With McCarthy BY DANIEL POLITI FEB 13, 20218:55 AM Source 2. The Independent Feb 12 2021 McCarthy snapped at Trump when he refused to help during riot, report says: ‘Who the f*** do you think you’re talking to?’ House GOP leader and ex-president were embroiled in shouting match as riot raged

Graeme Massie Los Angeles @graemekmassie Source 3. CNN New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters By Jamie Gangel, Kevin Liptak, Michael Warren and Marshall Cohen, CNN Updated 10:29 PM EST, Fri February 12, 2021 Cogan79 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you linked the sources, and you haven't provided any proposed text here User:Cogan79. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cogan79, McCarthy's conversation with Trump is already in the article. It is in this section: [[104]]

Best, IP75 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this article: the time Ashli Babbitt was shot. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already in there. VQuakr (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think of this picture as one of the infobox pictures Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I've changed it to display the picture directly here, hopefully you don't mind. That being said, I don't think this is a better picture - to me at least it gives the inaccurate appearance that the building was on fire. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the help I don't know how to do that User. I don't particularly mind either way, I was just hoping for consensus. I was surprised that the picture wasn't on the Wikimedia Commons page, since I remember seeing that pic all over the news. Do you think it portrays it inaccurately? The picture doesn't give an appearance of fire. I added a description and you can access the source. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do personally, as to me, the first thing I saw was the big, bright, yellow/orange region which has smoke coming off of it. The word "fire" is what came into my mind at first. I realize that that's not possible (as there wasn't a fire), but this picture could give such an impression. Others may disagree - and I'm fine with that - just was offering my opinion (and fixing it so it displays so more people can more easily comment). I agree that the current pictures could use revisiting, but I don't feel this one in particular would be an improvement. BTW, see Help:Images for inserting images into a page as a thumbnail - in this case, I used [[File:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol.webp|thumb|right]] to make it display on the right as a thumbnail. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see your point. I found the picture from the actual page which had a caption, so I didn't initially assume it to be the case. But if you think it will give an inaccurate portrayal then others might see that too. Should we get a consensus for this? Thanks for the image tip Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are much better pictures to choose from. The wall is saturated bright and it makes detail of the crowd and building hard to see. I don't think we need it in the article let alone the infobox. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it has been deleted now as it is owned by Reuters. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DemonDays64 as you are correct: The photo is the property of Reuters and the Reuters photojournalist who took it. It is not acceptable for use under any of the licenses allowed by en:Wikipedia nor Commons. In response to Phillip Samuel and User, I was curious about the image when I first saw it two weeks ago, as it appears that the US Capitol was in flames, and I knew that there weren't any fires reported.--FeralOink (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Brian Sicknick in casualties is misleading and factually wrong. NY Times and the Time updated their stories claiming Officer Sicknick was killed by protestors using a "fire extinguisher." There is no medical/official finding or report concluding that he died from injuries sustained in the riot. The only sources that have been used in this article are media outlets dated just after the storming. In the second impeachment trial, no additional evidence was presented too. What we exactly know is he was "well" after the incident as his family said.

So, in the article, it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.125.196 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the cop died from anything related to the protest. His mention should be removed unless reliable sources show his death was related. Innican Soufou (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of you have reliable sources to support your claims? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like me to provide sources that prove that something didn't happen? Isn't that proving a negative? I think it's on people making the claim that protestors killed him to provide citation. Innican Soufou (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innican Soufou, and they have. There are multiple citations that he died as a result of an injury that occurred while he was defending against the riot. Whether that was a "fire extinguisher" by rioters, or whether he suffered a stroke and medical care was delayed due to the riot, he is still a casualty of this event unless you can provide sources to suggest otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

those reports have been established as lies and debunked conspiracies. I'm not the only one who thinks it should be removed until reliable sources can provide evidence that protestors were the ones responsible for his death. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you provide any reliable sources to verify your claim? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linked immediately below:"...both the police and rioters used spray in the siege. It is difficult to prove who sprayed irritant on Officer Sicknick." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you'd actually read the NYT piece updating it (linked here for convenience) you would note that even if it wasn't a "fire extinguisher" (which they haven't formally retracted, just said it is "in question") they still say that he was injured by "chemical irritants" at the riot. At this time, there is no hard evidence to point to his death being unrelated to the riot, and reliable sources are virtually unanimous in saying it was related to the riot, even if they may disagree with the methods. I've clarified the circumstances of his injury by making a minor edit for now until more information comes out - but he definitely was a casualty of this event as were the other three medical emergencies that resulted in deaths outside the Capitol building. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The story, citing a "law enforcement official" again, actually only says investigators "increasingly suspect" or are "focused on whether" any "nonlethal deterrents" were a "factor". Nothing like "injured by". Read closer. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The endless churn of RMs is distracting at best. I propose a ~9 month moratorium on move proposals (through the end of 2021). VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm pretty sure I have commented on or supported a similar proposal previously, all of this continual move nonsense is detracting from the discussions regarding improving the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC) - EDIT: Per later comments, I agree 6 months should be plenty... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 months - 6 months will put us into August, which hopefully being virtually between major election years (halfway from 2020 to 2022) will be at the most "peaceful" and people can actually argue policy instead of feelings like has happened in every single RM so far by a decent number (not necessarily a majority, but the large minority of people making such arguments taints the RM and makes finding a consensus difficult if not impossible). Oppose anything shorter than 3 months or longer than until 1 November 2021 - anything in between is okay to me and 6 months is just a round number. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — there's no need for a year disambiguation in the title and it would be ridiculous to keep it there for months because some editors don't want to consider improving it. Jonathunder (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gershonmk (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose everyday there is increasing recognition that this was an insurrection. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/15/ron-johnson/yes-jan-6-capitol-assault-was-armed-insurrection/ Caffoti (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this failed RM. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's near universal consensus that it can be called a 'riot' or a 'storming'. Perhaps it was an insurrection, but is there a rule that says you have to use the strongest possible term in the article's title even if there's considerable public debate over it? Ar85ar (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I guess few Wikipedia pages have seen so many failed move requests in such a short time. These continued RMs are wasting everyone's time that could be spent more productively. But maybe nine months is a bit long? I think there's a chance that in six months or so, a common name for the event will have emerged. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Agreed we would be better engaged on something else than another RM, whether about words or year in or year out. How long for a moratorium? 6 months minimum. By then maybe it will be clearer how things are beginning to firm up for mid-term congressional election, and what will then be the ongoing narrative of public discourse that may need adjustment to the article's name. Who knows? But I'm thinking whether McConnell's post-acquittal statement will be gathering support or otherwise, and what will become of Pelosi's proposed inquiry, not to mention the other issues keeping the situation churning. How, as they say, Will it play in Peoria? Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC) ed. 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral (comment) - I don't like the idea of not having the year and I am kind of sick of RMs also, but I also think that the current title still probably isn't ideal and so I won't vote to close all suggestions just yet. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with an exception allowed if a clear common name develops in the media and through public usage before then. Without doing a lot of research, my memory is that the term 9/11 didn't arise in universal usage until a few months at most after the event, after which there were few people if any, at least in the USA, who didn't call it that. I would hate to have a mandatory 9-month moratorium that couldn't be budged to accomadate a linguistic development like that. But otherwise, yes. We certainly don't need to keep revisiting a new RM every week or two. Moncrief (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an exception to a moratorium with a subjective standard like that is workable. There is either a moratorium on RMs for a specific period of time or there isn't one. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 6 months. There is clearly no consensus on changing the descriptive term in the title (i.e. protest, attack, terrorist attack, riot, insurrection, etc.) based on the dozen RMs over the past 6 weeks. However, I think a discussion on whether or not the year disambiguator in the title is necessary is fine to have. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 months the current title is fine and we're going to get nowhere discussing this. After 6 months, hopefully, we can get a clearer view from RS on what this should be called. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - Blocking a title change until the end of the year is just going to cement the current title as the accepted one, even though it's one of the least-used terms as per the ongoing analysis of naming trends section above. A month after the event, there's more than enough data to show that reliable sources are coalescing around "Riot," "Attack," and "Insurrection" to describe the event. There's no reason to block name changes on this, especially until nearly a year after the event occurred. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As multiple lists of search results and numbers presented during previous discussions have shown, "riot" and "attack" have been the most common terms since right after January 6, and "insurrection" has always been among the top five or so. We've had move requests for all of these terms, and all three have failed. It's true that reliable sources have been coalescing around these terms, but that's nothing new. I think it's unlikely that much will change in this regard in the next couple of months, and starting a new RM for any of these three is likely to have the same result as before. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There might be requests like the above that aren't ready for primetime. That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a discussion about the year. That said, the move discussion has come to a natural end. Why put an artificial moratorium on that natural end?Casprings (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Jonathunder is correct. There is zero need for a year in the title and it would be ridiculous to keep it there for months because some editors don't want to follow the clear instuctions at WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that") but are not willing to try to change that policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness one of the five major characteristics in that policy. Reasonable editors can disagree on how best to balance them when deciding an article title. But the strength or weakness of the rationale for any particular name isn't the reason I proposed a pause in new move discussions. It is because endless back-to-back RMs are distracting regardless of their merit. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 30 day pause would be more than enough to accomplish that goal, and might have garnered more support. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for at least 90 days and no fewer than 30 days. This article cannot be in perpetual RM status, which it has been since it was created. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - If there is no reachable consensus, the rule in Wikipedia was and should be no change. I understand the frustration of who does not like the current title, but sometimes it is better to wait, because insisting will only harden each position. Citing from WP:CON:

Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

It addresses both positions, but clearly the filibustering is more on the side of repeating RMs. Wikipedia is not a social media, and not a democracy, vote counting and aggressive pursuit are damaging. Sometimes, it is important to realize that Wikipedia can wait. I warmly recommend to read (if not already done) WP:WAIT. --Robertiki (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, probably until New Year's Day 2022. Oh god, there is too much RM's regarding this article. Per nom, basically. But I would extend it as far as the next year. MarioJump83! 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sure I would go so far as to say do a blanket moratorium, per WP:CCC. But at the very least, the RMs should be discussed prior to carrying them out.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A non-administrative blanket moratorium may always be discussed. What is proposed is little more than get a consensus not to do RMs for a while. Let us put this way: if a moratorium is reached, RMs may be opened inspite, but little or no partecipation, as per moratorium, would give them little value. --Robertiki (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That means there's even less point to the moratorium, especially since given the above discussion, there doesn't seem to be much of a firm consensus to put one into place anyway.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose there were several commonly-proposed alternate names, and it looks like all of those debates (except the current debate on including the year) have happened. I think we're fine; people shouldn't be proposing the same move after a month in any case. If somebody comes up with a new name, we might as well discuss it now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The current title was never intended to be the final name. When we moved to the current title, it was noted that "storming" was preferable to "protest" (the old title) but there was never any consensus for "storming" as a permanent title. In the move requests since there seems to have been plurality support for "riot" or "attack" (but not majority support). When either is proposed as a title those supporting the other seem to unite with those supporting the current title or another (ie "insurrection", "protest", etc). That way the alternative is defeated, despite no title archiving majority support (nevermind consensus). I think the work at the top of this page is helpful. We should continue to discuss and try to build consensus for a better name. There is no consensus for the current name, so we shouldn't freeze it in place for an extended period. If there is a moratorium, it should be a brief one, while we consider headlines and how other WP:RS are referring to the event.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and suggest moratorium for two years or more instead in order for article stability. I believe that there are many users that request the article to be moved and in turn threatens the stability of the article. I don't like it to be moved at least until US politics was cool down. I'm for Indonesia despite i know about US politics situation, but i doesn't have fluent English. 36.65.38.154 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we don't normally !vote on whether to impose a moratorium, it's up to the closer of the RM whether they think one is justified or not. Voting is a bit pointless because it ends up being a rehash of the RM, with those who like the current name supporting a moratorium. Personally I think there should be one, but it seems nobody has decided to impose it yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Closers of RMs can unilaterally impose moratoriums? I thought it was either imposed by admins, usually as a discretionary sanction, or by community consensus? On that note, it does seem the consensus for a moratorium is not apparent here, or at least it's not very strong. I think the most likely route to a moratorium is to ask an uninvolved admin or post a Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement request. I do personally think further RMs are unlikely to be productive for a period of time and there is obvious RM fatigue on this talk page. A moratorium of 6 months would likely be good. When an RM does happen, if there remains no clear consensus between multiple titles at that time, then imo the most likely route to a consensus on some kind of move is likely a multiple-choice RM (ranked/preference vote, or some such). On a given RM the opposes can be a mix of 'the current title is best' and 'a different title is better'. It would be much more apparent if there's even consensus for the current title in a ranked vote (eg top 3 preferred titles, in order, including the current title as an option). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, generally it would be an admin who performed a close that would also instate the moratorium. And I don't think it has anything to do with arbitration enforcement, it's just a tool available at the time of closing. See for example Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_8#Requested_move_22_November_2019. The decision could always be challenged by talking to the closer or raising a request at WP:AN of course. But having the decision rest on a further discussion like the one here seems counterproductive, for the reasons I've given above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Us insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Us insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the quote "violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die...[I]t is our duty as Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights." Violent is not part of the quote and the quotation marks should be moved to the right of the first period. Muddycarpenter (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Spain Yes it is: One of the comments cited in the FBI memo declared Trump supporters should go to Washington and get “violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die.” [107] GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the recent series of changes here, here, and here. This seems like something that should be discussed here on the talk page first. Shearonink (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I made some changes to clarify that the police officer may not have died due to injuries from rioters, reliable sources still list him as part of the death toll which they virtually unanimously put at 5. Seven is used sometimes if they're including the two police officers who committed suicide, but they don't directly connect them to the event, so we shouldn't do that here. For now, I say we leave it at 5 until if/when more consensus of reliable sources supports decreasing/increasing it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion above about removing the officer Sicknick death due to his passing having to do with unrelated health issues and not the protestors.Innican Soufou (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When medical care for an "unrelated health issue" is delayed due to the location, or events happening around the person with the health issue, that becomes a "related" health issue. That is why the other three people who died from medical emergencies during the events are included as well. His death is not getting removed from the toll if/until reliable sources in large part stop considering his death a part of the event. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's one creative interpretation of it. We'll see. Innican Soufou (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innican Soufou we do what reliable sources do and reliable sources overwhelmingly include his death. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most abundantly also make clear the time and location of his collapse, subsequent to telling his brother he was fine following the riot and shortly before his nearby hospitalization. Most note the lack of evidence of any injury by any person during the event, despite all the footage. Some blame a common stroke. Some specify how pepper spray has never killed an officer in the line of duty before (nor a bear). What we do is selectively omit certain things that make the mob look less murderous. No opinion on whether we should relay more. But we don't and hypothetically could. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought you were doing a lot of WP:OR here, but then I looked up some sources and got the impression that your claims seem to be based on this piece of crap high-quality journalism by "Revolver News" (the very name sounds like a neutral and reliable source, doesn't it), which was later mentioned by Tucker Carlson (also known and trusted as a WP:RS). Or maybe you got your information from this piece (written in a much more rational style than "Revolver" or Carlson) by Andrew C. McCarthy in the National Review? All of these basically just quote "Revolver". Anyway. If you find some information regarding the the time and location of Sicknick's collapse in WP:RS, let us know. This article by ProPublica quotes his brother: "Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR." That seems to be the only source for the "collapse" claim. It's not even clear if it happened during the riot, later that day, or the day after. As others have said: We stick to what WP:RS say. So far, most sources say Sicknick's death was directly related to (and probably caused by) the attack by the rioters. So we'll stick with that for the time being. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I learned it from Snopes (different article from one below, published today), Fox News (Lanum, not Carlson), The New York Times and LawOfficer.com, among a few others (the January 7 Capitol Hill Police press release teaches us he collapsed in "his division office"), but won't get into it further; stick with whatever you want, just read and write with caution and care. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources say five, so we say five. See Did 5 People Die During Jan. 6 Capitol Riot? -- Snopes --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree for now, but just going to point out that their last update to that was on January 11. If new information is coming to light about one of the deaths, newer sources would need consulting. Personally I doubt that reliable sources would consider his death separate even if his medical emergencies happened completely after and outside the event... but it is technically possible they may start doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most "reliable sources" have latched onto the debunked conspiracy theory that he was beaten to death by a protestor with a fire extinguisher, so obviously that needs to be accounted for. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innican Soufou, it's hardly debunked. You've shown one source that has said that - "debunked" would require virtually all reliable sources that made that claim to correct/retract the claim. We don't go based on what we think are "debunked conspiracy theories" - we go based on reliable sources, and only one so far has been presented that's changed that claim. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory has definitely been debunked. I'm sure once the initial activist editing dies down on this page, the facts will be added and the conspiracies removed. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. See Did U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Die After Hit With a Fire Extinguisher? --Snopes

Key quote: "There isn’t enough information from official sources available at this time to state either way what the cause and manner of Sicknick’s death was, or what mechanisms contributed to it. We will update this story with further information when it becomes available." In other words, not confirmed, not debunked.

Innican Soufou, If I see you casting WP:ASPERSIONS again as you did above, I am going to ask that you be blocked from editing this talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is CNN casting aspersions when it says, per some official, that the very investigators reviewing the very footage of Sicknick's engagement with the protestors can't see a single moment of injury after over a month of reviewing? If so, block me and depreciate CNN. But leave that newb alone! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be blocked for this?Innican Soufou (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing things like "I'm sure once the initial activist editing dies down on this page, the facts will be added and the conspiracies removed" is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. If you wish to avoid being blocked, I suggest that you only talk about article content, never about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit over the top. Obviously once the conspiracies are removed from the article, the facts will remain. To panic and threaten to block anyone who notices activism in the article is a little juvenile. I think it's a good idea to remove the debunked conspiracy theories from the article. Do you agree? Innican Soufou (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you insist on calling other editors "activists" who post "conspiracy theories" ( that by an amazing coincidence are supported by citations to reliable sources)? Well, you were warned. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read that link you mentioned and it doesn't apply to anything going on here. It's also not a rule or guideline. I'm not accusing anyone of misconduct or anything. Maybe you should focus on editing and not so much on trying to bully other editors. Innican Soufou (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed the edit to reduce the number of deaths from five to four in the opening sentences of this section because there are no reliable sources that Benjamin Phillips' stroke was in any way associated with the storming of the Capitol building. Reliable sources indicate he was in D.C. for the rally, but so were thousands who never participated in the storming of the Capitol building. Dying while in the general region is not the same as dying as part of the storming. Presuming that all rally attendees are connected to the storming is factually incorrect and requires an irresponsible leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion. Early reports of injuries and deaths may have counted all 5 deaths that appeared to be possibly connected, but when no evidence has emerged over a month later to confirm that Phillips' stroke was caused in any way by participation in the storming, it is appropriate to characterize his death as coincidental with, not caused by it. In addition to the article already cited in my edit, here is another that characterizes his death as lacking evidence that it is more than coincidental: [108]. StephenCMorgan (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources say five, so we say five. See Did 5 People Die During Jan. 6 Capitol Riot? -- Snopes --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pease add:

5.4 Federal Lawsuit Accusing Trump and Giuliani of Inciting Capitol Riot

On 16 February 2021, Trump was sued by the nation's oldest civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on behalf of the House Homeland Security chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi for conspiring to incite the violent assault at the Capitol.^[1] Included in the federal lawsuit as defendants are Trump's former personal lawyer Giuliani, and the two neo-fascist, far-right organizations Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. The lawsuit alleges that, by preventing - "by the use of force, intimidation, and threat" - the Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties, Trump, Giuliani and the hate groups directly violated the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. The law was first passed following the Civil War to combat the Ku Klux Klan violence and allow African Americans to take action against hate groups who use “force, intimidation, or threat” to prevent leaders from doing the duties of their office.^[2][3][4] --217.234.67.241 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]