Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

"Insurrection" 2

I think I have DS alerted everyone with a ds alert topic code "ap"(american politics). If I missed an involved ed, please template that ed,or let me know and I will. Any ed may cite this comment as evidence that I myself am "aware" that DS applies to this topic. The text in dispute in the edit war that led to this talk subsection reads as follows

Trump called the use of the word "insurrection" by Liz Cheney "the insurrection hoax" adding "Look at the so-called word insurrection, January 6 – what a lot of crap."

TBH, that looks just fine to me and appears to be well-refenced with an RS. Unless someone soon makes an RS-based argument for opposing this text, I think it should be added to the article. Anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like good content to me. It should be restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, with all due respect, your approach strikes me as turning WP:VNOT precisely on its head. Hope everyone is enjoying the weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy and Valjean: Can you share your thoughts on Dumuzid's proposed wording (see above)? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts:, although Dumuzid's suggestion "Trump has referred to the use of the word 'insurrection' to refer to the events of January 6, 2021 as 'a lot of crap.'" would be factual and RS based, readers should be made aware of the full quote because the full quote conveys more context than the mere "load of crap". Without the full quote, one might reasonably think Trump just dismissed the whole thing without a second thought and uttered "load of crap" in passing and without breaking his stride. The article should convey how he actuallyreacted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point. He is doing what he often does, trying to reframe unfavorable facts as conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and nonsense, and his supporters, because they live in a bubble where all mainstream reliable sources are "fake news", believe him. He has done that with the Steele dossier, Russia investigation, and Russian interference itself, calling it all "fake", "hoax", and "Russiagate". In his world, it didn't happen and all criticism is a hoax. So context is very important. As with all other false information we document (and that is part of our job), we must always accompany it with how RS treat it, IOW label it and describe how it is false. Never document a lie without doing that. It must be treated as we do all other fringe information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This case is exactly why WP:MANDY and WP:FALSEBALANCE exist. It's easy to fall into a habit of knee-jerk both-sidesing, but reiterative proforma denials do not help the reader to understand this topic. Feoffer (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

My only objection is the placement in the "Analysis and terminology" section. This is part of Trump's disinformation and belongs with such content. The best place I have noticed (others may well find a better place) is in the "Domestic reactions" section, immediately at the end of the first paragraph after "he criticized law enforcement for "persecuting" the rioters." It makes more sense there. Such disinformation should be documented here, and the context should make it very clear that it is false, misleading denials, and disinformation, but not necessarily with that exact wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Good eye, concur NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

IF we don't include it here, then it should still be mentioned in the "Conspiracy theories" section of the main sub-article Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. The sub-article should have a section with summary in this article, but I don't see it. Per my totally unbiased and super good advice here (How to create and manage a good lead section), "If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight." The corollary is that a main article (like this one) should contain summaries of all sub-articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Domestic reactions article is supposed to cover reactions in the immediate aftermath of the event, while the Aftermath article is supposed to cover events months or years later. I'm not sure if this has actually been discussed though, so I could be wrong, but if the former article's supposed to cover events after spring 2021 it's currently doing a very bad job of it. More generally, it feels like we're not getting any closer to a consensus here, so an RfC seems like probably the best option – I'd be interested to know what others think and if anyone has thoughts on how the statement should be framed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that Smallbones has now restored the quote in its previous form "per talk." I'd just like to note that I don't see a consensus for that--and I still oppose the sort of personalization to Liz Cheney, simply because (and this may simply be a matter of diction), it's unclear how much he was directly responding and how much reacting in the abstract. I continue to think a more general, and perhaps slightly more succinct mention is apt. Cheers, all, and have a nice week. Dumuzid (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I too am still in doubt about the placement and possibly wording. I do think the content in some form should be used. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just trying to find the typo (a stray "d") which upset the formatting, not avoiding the talk page. It's clear a super-majority would like something like the original edit in the article. 5-2 by my count with Dumuzid|t going back and forth. We of course can discuss what else to add or subtract or where to place it, but, to me these are just fine points. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones--I did not mean to accuse you of anything, just thought it needed to be mentioned here. I can understand why you think I am "going back and forth," but it does not feel that way to me. I do not support the quote as it currently exists, though I do think a briefer and more general mention is called for. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also far from convinced there's a consensus. Consensus, after all, involves not just head-counting but also weighing-up of arguments. I'm biased of course, but I think arguments based on a serious attempt to determine coherent criteria for inclusion in this article are stronger than arguments that amount, as far as I can tell, to "it's important because it's important". As such, more discussion seems worthwhile, and restoring the content in the absence of consensus is unlikely to do much more than diminish trust in other editors' capacity to engage constructively and collegially. If Smallbones is certain that a consensus exists and wants to convince other editors of that, their best hope might be to engage with my query above about the terms of a possible RfC. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Why are you trying to strong arm this? You've given no substantive objections to the two line quote. You've given about 4 procedural hoops to jump thru before you will allow the quote to stay in the article, but they don't seem to be related to policy at all (if you dispute that - just link the policy and quote chapter and verse).

my reason for inclusion is very straightforward:

• this is the first time that Trump has actually denied that there was an insurrection
• there are essentially no sentences in the article showing what the Trump side of the story is after the insurrection, and no quotes from Trump from this time. Simple NPOV would allow something - otherwise it just looks like we are biased.

@Feoffer: please note your mistake of fact above. There are no "reiterative proforma denials" denials by Trump of there being an insurrection. This is the first time, which is why it was covered so much in RS. And it certainly wasn't proforma. I think you should self-revert. When you're in the minority and don't have a factual or policy based argument you shouldn't go around reverting folks.

A & H - you can formulate your own RfC if you'd like without my help - it's you who wants to remove factual documented material without any policy supporting you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

you should self-revert. When you're in the minority and don't have a factual or policy based argument Bish protected because of edit-warring, and we know the material is controversial. It was re-added "per talk" but talk demonstrates it's still controversial in its present form. There's no deadline, there's plenty of time to form a consensus on verbiage to include. Feoffer (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Trump called the insurrection a "hoax" and "a load of crap" is *not controversial* in the least. There's a wide variety of RSs who report it using the same quote, there's video. The statement is not controversial at all in that sense. I suppose some people might consider the topic of the quote controversial - i.e. how could Tromp say something so contradictory to the apparent facts? But he did say it, no controversy about that, and we should never shy away from reporting well documented facts like that. So what else is "controversial" here that we need to address here? Arms & Hearts refusal to address the substance of the edit? No, that's nothing to worry about - after so many times asking about his substantive objection and getting nothing, we can just assume now that he has none. (A&H - last chance - state an objection on the substance now or forever hold your peace) The same for his procedural objections - what is the basis in policy for his proposed procedures? No answer again?) So what are we waiting for? Delay for delay's sake? IMHO that's just a cheap editing tactic when you've got nothing to say.

So let's try this once again. Why should the quote be included. Trump, the person at the center of the event described in this article, says that the event did not occur, that it's a hoax. It's good to know what all the main people involved think of the event, especially Trump. The readers should be allowed to judge for themselves. Who is more believable or who is just making it up as they go along. You are denying our readers the chance of doing that by suppressing Trump's comment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I recall hearing somewhere that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. And, do tell me, Smallbones, exactly who are you to make demands of Arms & Hearts or any other editor, for that matter? The WP:ONUS is squarely on you, and even if you wish to go on misstating my position, I don't see a consensus. But by all means, revert again "per talk." That is mighty persuasive. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Smallbones, suffice it to say I think you could be more collegial, and so could I in this moment of pique. Apologies. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I'm impressed. I just wanted to say that the flavor of "discussion" among... strong personalities seen on this talk page is exactly why I left this godforsaken website for about two years or so. If more users came to the table with a bit of self-reflection as you've done here, maybe the website could start attracting and retaining a more representative swathe of society which could produce a better product in the end. After all, looking at this whole "discussion", what kind of person would willingly sign up for this? Who would want to spend time in this dungeon instead of going for a nice bike ride or spending time with a friend? What kind of distortions and bias would result from that kind of self-screening process, from the people who look at this collection of toxic pixels and say "yeah, that's what I want to do, I want to spend my time here"? BirdValiant (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, BirdValiant, without going into too much detail, my offline life is high-conflict by nature as well, so escape is not so easy for me! Usually I am pretty good at taking things in stride, but I am indeed human and have my weaknesses and shortcomings, many of which are known to me, some of which are not. I simply try to maintain standards and call myself out when I fall short of them, as I did here. And I can say that I am glad you're around--at least to whatever tolerance level is appropriate! Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, thank you for the gracious striking of some words. We're all imperfect humans here, and even when we cross that invisible line into some sort of incivility, we aren't really trying to be incivil. It just happens so easily when tensions run high. Thanks for setting a good example. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, it feels at this point that you're having a different conversation from everyone else. Forgive me if I'm putting words in anyone's mouth, but I think Dumuzid, Feoffer, Valjean and myself have realised that we're probably not going to talk others round to our own perspectives, and that there isn't currently a consensus, and are trying to find ways to achieve one. To put it even more bluntly, we're trying to achieve a reasonable solution for the article and you're trying to win an argument. So let's try this once again: rather than telling us for the umpteenth time about the views we already know you have, tell us how you think we should get a consensus here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: "we're trying to achieve a reasonable solution for the article and you're trying to win an argument"

"We good, you bad." That's what I'm seeing here, which I find ironic. Might I suggest I-messaging instead? Perhaps something like "Now correct me if I've made a mistake or presumption, but I feel like the the approach you have taken so far is combative in nature and not in line with my desire to form a consensus. And while I can't speak for them, nor can I say with certainty how it appears from all perspectives, it seems to me at least that Dumuzid, Feoffer, and Valjean are also trying to form a consensus and are avoiding combative argumentation as well. Of course, I can only see the world from my own perspective, which could be distorted or biased and probably is, quite frankly. So I would like to hear your perspective on this matter, and ways that I could improve." BirdValiant (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

One could also find some irony, perhaps, in being told off for being too confrontational by someone whose user page proudly declares: Frankly, I don't like a lot of you people. I actually broadly agree with your sentiments here (and at your user page, until the point where you decide none of it applies to you), but your preferences aren't necessarily at all widely-held: many editors, in my experience, find that sort of overly-delicate writing to be prevarication and prefer others to get to the point. So I try to strike a balance; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and we still end up in interminable discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, Trump isn't calling the insurrection a hoax, but trying to call use of the word a hoax. He's trying to reframe the narrative of the attack on the capitol as a picnic, a legal civil demonstration, and not an "insurrection". He's objecting to the use of the word "insurrection", even though his second impeachment was for "incitement of insurrection". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sigh! This has degraded into a nasty dispute over nothing. Let's get back to civil discourse. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn about Wikipedia policies and editing practices in order to start contributing more myself (hopefully starting with less contentious pages than this one). After reading this discussion, could someone explain to me why WP:MANDY wouldn't apply here?

Thanks for the help, and thank you all for your editing contributions. Prunenoveggie (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

References

"Insurrection" 3

for efforts to develop a paragraph

This is actually worth a short paragraph, using several more RS and their commentary about Trump's attempts to deny the attack was an insurrection. Maybe that would be better than trying to just pop in one sentence. The sentence belongs somewhere but should be developed better into a paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Sounds like a good idea to me: topical, relevant, and necessary to provide a comprehensive view of the topic at hand. I think that it would be good to highlight how calling things "a hoax" is part of a pattern Trump has displayed and not a one-off thing. BirdValiant (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Trump's October 2021 statement ("The insurrection took place on November 3, Election Day. January 6 was the Protest!") might be relevant here. It's currently only mentioned at Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#After the riot. I'd suggest again, though, that adding a paragraph to either that article or Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack, then thinking about how to summarise it here, would be the right way to go about adding it to this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories of people who entered Capitol

This Wikipedia article begins by saying, “On January 6, 2021, a mob of 2,000–2,500 supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.” These numbers have been reported by many reliable sources, including by Ryan Lucas of NPR whom we cite. But let’s take a closer look at what Lucas wrote.

Lucas, Ryan. “Where the Jan. 6 insurrection investigation stands, one year later”, PBS (6 Jan 2022): “between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which means investigators still have a long way to go to hold everyone to account.”

Of course, the word “entered” is not synonymous with “attacked” so maybe our lead sentence should be a bit less sensational. The verb “entered” is used by many other reliable sources, like this one….Wiener, Rachel et al. “Desperate, angry, destructive: How Americans morphed into a mob”, Washington Post (9 Nov 2021): “In all, investigators estimate that more than 2,000 people entered the Capitol, many whipped up by President Donald Trump’s false claims that the election was rigged and that Vice President Mike Pence could halt the process and overturn the results.”

The reporting by Ryan Lucas of NPR that I mentioned above has also categorized the 2000-2500 people who entered the Capitol, and many other sources have also discussed these categories; we should too. Lucas explained:

“ In the past year, the FBI and the public have learned a lot about who the rioters were and what motivated them, and they fall into three general categories. The first are the so-called MAGA tourists. These are Trump supporters who entered the Capitol but didn't engage in violence or destroy property…. Most non-violent defendants have received probation. Of those accused of violence, a half-dozen or so have pleaded guilty and been sentenced to jail time so far…. The third group of defendants is the smallest but also perhaps the most concerning. These are people accused of having ties to extremist groups such as the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys. ”

I think this is interesting stuff. Let’s use it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I like it! This level of detail is definitely due in the body, but maybe not for the lead, yet some change may still be good ("illegally entered"). Currently, we have this:

On January 6, 2021, a mob of 2,000–2,500 supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

We are trying to use the word "attacked" in the first sentence, and that makes sense, but we can do it in a different way that will address your suggestion. Right after that sentence is this ref {{efn|The attack is commonly referred to as the '''Capitol riot''', '''Capitol insurrection''', '''January 6''', or '''1/6'''.}} Using that, we should reword the first sentence like this:

On January 6, 2021, a mob of 2,000–2,500 supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump illegally entered the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. in what is commonly referred to as the Capitol attack, Capitol riot, Capitol insurrection, January 6, or 1/6.

Will that work in the lead? Then place your longer quote from Ryan in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good plan, except that we should probably deal with the word “insurrection” separately. It’s a legal term with a lot of legal implications, and I’m not aware that any of the 2,000 to 2,500 people have been convicted of “insurrection” much less hundreds or thousands of them. It may turn out that we put “insurrection” into the lead sentence, but we ought to deal with that separately from this talk page section, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not proposing that we "deal with the word 'insurrection'" other than just including it as we usually do with redirects. We already have it as a ref/footnote. The article mentions insurrection many times, and Trump was impeached for "incitement of insurrection", so the law and judgment clearly says those people were part of an insurrection incited by Trump. I don't see the inclusion of the word (without "dealing with" it) as a problem. This inclusion in the first sentence of redirects/alternate titles is standard practice. To be clear, we are not actually "accusing" the people of being insurrectionists. The wording is clearly about some common descriptions of the event. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Technically, Trump was acquitted on that charge. The policy “WP:INNOCENT” may also be relevant here. In any event, maybe there’s a way to put it in the lead but phrase it more carefully, like “alleged insurrection” or something like that. Has anyone been convicted under the Insurrection Act for January 6? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You may have missed part of my comment above which was added later. "To be clear, we are not actually "accusing" the people of being insurrectionists. The wording is clearly about some common descriptions of the event." This is not an issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted by User:SPECIFICO who apparently has license to revert edits they don’t like without explaining, without reading edit summaries, without looking at the talk page, and without glancing at reliable sources. SPECIFICO, please be better. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The content he reverted to was a arrived at by consensus over a long period, and is long-standing content. Thus he was perfectly within his right to restore it (though I would have liked a better edit summery). Nor is your edit summary a justification for the change, just because you have decided to launch a talk page thread does not mean you get to decide what the article says. It is clear most RS say it was attacked, that is what we relct. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Entered" or "illegally entered," Anythingyouwant? Dumuzid (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep the status quo version until we have a consensus here, and we're getting closer. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I note that (as far as I can tell) no one has agreed to Anythingyouwant's change of wording, so yes, until we agree on a new text the status quo version stands, consensus is required to change it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course the Capitol was attacked, but not by 2,000 people. Our cited source says 2,000 people “entered”, and NPR also says that many of the 2,000 were “MAGA tourists” who were nonviolent and didn’t damage any property. Many of them got probation for trespassing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That's why "illegally entered" is better, followed by the various descriptions for the event, which includes the title of this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion keeps "attacked" in the first sentence, but just moves it later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Oops! It doesn't, but it should. Capitol attack is a redirect, so we can include it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Many of the 2,000 to 2,500 who entered did so illegally, but there have not been 2,000 to 2,500 convictions so it seems problematic for us to say that people who have not been convicted were behaving illegally. See WP:INNOCENT. It would be even worse if we named them, but still. We could say “many of whom have been convicted of illegal behavior.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. It is clear that the entry in general was illegal, the reliable sources back this, and the vast number of prosecutions further evidence it. While I agree it would be problematic to say "Person X illegally entered the capitol," saying it in the aggregate is obviously appropriate, at least to me. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, after all prosecution requires evidence, so whilst we can (for example) say a crime occurred, we cannot directly accuse anyone of it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Every person (except for on duty officers) who passed the barricades and then entered the Capitol building did so illegally. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

PBS yesterday: “In the other misdemeanor case, McFadden found Matthew Martin of New Mexico not guilty of charges that he illegally entered the Capitol and engaged in disorderly conduct, saying it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter through the Rotunda doors.”[1] Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

One can break a law or engage in other illegal conduct without committing a crime, thanks to mens rea requirements, affirmative defenses, and other issues. The lone acquittal you cite does not strike me as particularly persuasive, no offense intended. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

One can be wrongly acquitted, for sure. But I don’t think we can say people are being wrongly acquitted, or wrongly given mere probation, or wrongly being found innocent of violence or destruction of property, unless we have a lot of RS’s that say so. Anyway, since NPR and WaPo say 2,000-2,500 “entered” than I don’t see the problem with saying that instead of “attacked.” Some people attacked, but not 2,000 to 2,500. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not talking about wrongful acquittal. I am saying that courts dictate criminal liability, not reality, and that illegal conduct and criminal liability are not coequal. If I trespass but present a successful defense of necessity, for instance, then I have engaged in illegal conduct for which I am not criminally liable. The fact that someone was acquitted is not the same as saying that the underlying conduct was not illegal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC) ETA: apologies for the continued legal deflection, but it is kind of what I do. I'll stop now.

Per Occam's razor, the simplest way to quell what seems to be a straw man deflection into legalisms would be to remove the number from the opening sentence. Otherwise, leave the current wording. It reflects the WEIGHT of RS and past editor talk consensus. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing the number would be fine. Calling it a straw man deflection into legalisms, not so much. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's already been pointed out above that anyone passing illegally through barriers, windows, or past police was, yes, attacking the Capitol. That's what the sources say. Moreover it's consistent with WP practice in scores of other articles. E.G. Iraq war says the US invaded Iraq, notwithstanding that most of the US merely watched on TV. It would be helpful in the future if you'd confine your comments to the issue under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Lets just remove the numbers. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the focus of the article is the attack, both outside and inside, so "entering" is only part of the topic.

This discussion has gotten us focused on certain trees (a legitimate concern) but the article is about the forest (all the trees). The lead sentence should deal with the forest and the body analyze the trees. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done [2] by Anythingyouwant. Does this fix the issue for now? If there are other issues, maybe start a new section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

There was no insurrection on the capitol. That means there was no attack on the capital. Not only that it wasn't just Trump supporters. There was a few antifa people that have been arrested for starting the busting of the windows. A lot of this article is misleading, I can provide evidence if needed from reprobo news sources. Brokedad20 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your request is not in the form “please change X to Y” so we cannot accept your request. If you try again, please be aware that your request will be more likely to succeed if you are very specific and provide proof in the form of links to news articles, books, or other reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You should only use a change request when it is obvious it should be made and there are no editors who follow the page who could make it. For example, if the Republican Party was misspelled and no editors followed the page, your request would alert editors who do not follow this page to make the change.

If you want to discuss content, then just set up a normal discussion thread. But you must provide reliable sources that back up your claims.

TFD (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Including redirects in first sentence per standard practice

Current first sentence:

On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

I would still like to make the first ref/note visible:

The attack is commonly referred to as the Capitol riot, Capitol insurrection, January 6, or 1/6.

Using that, the first sentence would become:

On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. in what is commonly referred to as the Capitol attack, Capitol riot, Capitol insurrection, January 6, or 1/6.

As I wrote above, this inclusion of redirects/alternate titles in the first sentence is standard practice. This practice has the benefit of making the article, and not the redirect, the link of choice in Google searches, and that is ideal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I support this. It introduces the word “insurrection” without saying in wikivoice that that crime was committed. It preserves a lot of the current language which has been the result of tedious consensus-building. It provides the date. This seems much better than anything suggested in the previous talk page section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done[3] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary lead opening

Per Valjean's comment immediately above about the forest: The first sentence would more accurately summarize the event by stating "The 2021 US Capitol attack was an armed insurrection fomented by Pres. Donald Trump and his advisers. 2000-2500 Trump supporters stormed the Capitol grounds, hundreds of them entering the building in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 US election." That's what the sources and the article text tell us. Comments? SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the immediately-preceding subsection, everyone has agreed with your suggestion to remove the numbers, so I will do so. I currently do not see the need to split the lead sentence into two sentences of that proposed length. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion really relates to the first sentence, which is a more direct summary of the event as reported by mainstream RS. What say you? SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Are your two proposed sentences supposed to replace the existing first sentence, or the existing first and second sentences? It might be good to explain what precisely it is about the current first and second sentence you think is missing and needs to be included. If it’s the 2000-2500 number, I think a more significant number is the number of people so far convicted and sentenced to prison time (not just probation). I don’t think readers (or reliable sources) care that much about people who just wandered in and milled around. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The "wandered in" through barricades, broken windows and doors bit has already been rejected. Let's just focus on the first sentence of what I wrote. Then we can get to the second sentence. Please don't bring up the convicted of a crime bit again. That is a straw man irrelevancy that was rejected above. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Where was there consensus that the number of people sentenced to prison time is not more significant than the overall number of people who entered the Capitol that day? It seems obvious that the first number is vastly more significant. Anyway, you propose this opening sentence: “The 2021 US Capitol attack was an armed insurrection fomented by Pres. Donald Trump and his advisers.” The current first sentence is this: “On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.” I don’t see the problem with the latter, which includes a full date. As for the word “insurrection”, I may support that in the future, but for now no one has been convicted of insurrection AFAIK. So I support sticking with the current lead sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, if we were proposing saying something about sentences for insurrection, or even possibly guilt of identifiable individuals, your objection would be quite right, but again, courts and criminal procedure do not determine reality. I apologize for my grisly example, but I think it gets the point across: imagine coming across a deceased person obviously killed by a number of bullet wounds. Someone shouts, "oh my god, there has been a murder!" Would your reaction be "Hey, wait, we don't have a conviction"? Now, I am not sure about the wording of the sentence, offhand, but I do know that your objection seems inapt to me. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That argument might have worked well in the immediate aftermath of an apparent murder or an apparent insurrection. But if a year and a half goes by, and people are charged and sent to prison, but not for murder or for insurrection, then that argument doesn’t work as well. But maybe someone will be charged with insurrection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, assuming for a moment we let courts determine our reality, would you be okay with this opening sentence?

The 2021 US Capitol attack was fomented by Pres. Donald Trump and his advisers and involved a group of his supporters conspiring to overthrow the government by force and levy war against it in a failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 US election, which Trump had lost to Joe Biden.

That language is taken straight from statute, but seems a good deal clunkier to me. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it is somewhat clunky, and also repeats stuff in the existing second sentence. And I’m not aware of many reliable sources that described 1/6 as a conspiracy to fight a war. I think you might be mixing up insurrection with seditious conspiracy. Seditious conspiracy is covered by 18 U.S.C. §2384 and that’s the statute about levying war: “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not mixing anything up; I am saying people have been charged with seditious conspiracy, and thus, I take it that in your view, we should track the statute's wording. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning seditious conspiracy in the lead is much more appropriate than discussing insurrection in the lead, because after a year and a half the former has been charged by DOJ but the latter hasn’t. So I strongly support whoever already put seditious conspiracy into the last paragraph of the lead. It’s obviously an extremely serious charge, and I don’t object to the way it’s presented in the last paragraph of the lead (by using a wikilink instead of regurgitating the statute). So then the question becomes whether inclusion in the last paragraph of the lead is sufficient, and I think it is for now, because only fifteen people were charged with that, no conviction yet, and the word “attack” in the lead sentence is broad enough to include not just what those defendants allegedly did, but also what many other people did (and of course the word “attack” is a nice simple word suitable for the lead sentence). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Anything, I just said immediately above your repeat about the number that you should disregard that and consider the first sentence I proposed. That first sentence gives a clearer and more specific statement of what happened. So for the avoidance of doubt, here is a revised version of my proposal for the first sentence only.

The 2021 US Capitol attack was an armed insurrection fomented by Pres. Donald Trump and his advisers in a failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 US election, which Trump had lost to Joe Biden.

SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not support that for several reasons. First, it omits “January 6.” Second, much of that is already in the second sentence of this article: “They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.” Third, while characterization as an “insurrection” might have been the most accurate in the immediate wake of January 6, it’s now been a year and a half and no one has been charged with that crime by Attorney General Garland as far as I know. The word “attack” seems adequate for now, and the word “attack” does not minimize what we all know happened. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Um?]. I said, we'll go sentence by sentence so don't talk about the subsequent sentences we will adjust after the first is fixed. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Seditious conspiracy is a different crime from insurrection. I strongly support whoever already put seditious conspiracy into the last paragraph of the lead. It’s obviously an extremely serious charge, and I don’t object to the way it’s presented in the last paragraph of the lead (by using a wikilink instead of regurgitating the statute). So then the question becomes whether inclusion in the last paragraph of the lead is sufficient, and I think it is for now, because only fifteen people were charged with that, no conviction yet, and the word “attack” in the lead sentence is broad enough to include not just what those defendants allegedly did, but also what many other people did (and of course the word “attack” is a nice simple word suitable for the lead sentence). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't need anyone's WP:OR and this is not a court or a matter of law. We're trying to represent the best sources. It's clear that the weight of RS reporting and of expert tertiary analysis calls it an insurrection. even with no qualifiers, Google finds insurrection associated almost exclusively with Jan 6 -- not even the other way around. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

While I sympathize with the desire to create a new lead sentence which more accurately describes the article's content, this proposal is doomed to failure, not because it is wrong or anything like that, but simply because it is too great a change to make in one edit. It has too many elements and is too complex. SPECIFICO, try again, but keep in mind that every new element and word needs to find approval, so try one small change at a time. Try again with a much simpler sentence or break it up and seek consensus on each element, rather than the whole sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Current lead:

On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

SPECIFICO's proposal:

"The 2021 US Capitol attack was an armed insurrection fomented by Pres. Donald Trump and his advisers. 2000-2500 Trump supporters stormed the Capitol grounds, hundreds of them entering the building in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 US election."

I see these new elements: armed, insurrection, fomented, entering. Which ones can we justify? I don't think "armed" is appropriate, as it was only a few who were armed, so leave that for the body of the article. I like the "insurrection", "fomented", and "entering". The date is missing, and it should be included. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I dropped the second sentence when Anything didn't like it. We'll get to that later. It's just the first sentence for now, per above:

The 2021 US Capitol attack was an armed insurrection fomented by Pres. Donald Trump and his advisers in a failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 US election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden

SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the mob is described as "armed" -- see 82 million hits on Jan 6 armed SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep lead sentence as is - I've gotten to the point where I don't like seeing these long complicated sentences that try and hit every point of the subject in one breath. The first sentence right now is a broad description of the event, and is good enough as the first sentence. Further details about the motivations and specific actions of the rioters are better relayed later in the lead, as they are now. I really don't see this proposal being successful because such major changes should happen in baby steps and this just adds too many new elements at once. However, I'll try to go through each one. Firstly, the proposal has the title (2021 United States Capitol attack) within the first sentence. "2021 United States Capitol attack" is not the common name of this event, it's really just the best option we have. MOS:BOLDLEAD only encourages the title to be introduced in the first sentence if it can be done naturally, and the way it's being introduced in the proposal seems clunky and could come off weird since this event really isn't known as the "2021 United States Capitol attack" for most readers. I agree with Valjeans assessment of why "armed" is not appropriate, and I think it even further proves why some of these elements are better explained later than packed in the first sentence. "Fomented" is also not appropriate because it's too close to the word "urge," which we already established an editorial consensus against in this discussion. I don't have a comment on the use of insurrection at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The word "insurrection" better fits your standard than the word "attack" We don't aim for a broad description. We aim for specificity. Breadth is the opposite of what an encyclopedia is designed to convey. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers that the current lead sentence is okay for now. If the word “insurrection” is going to be introduced into the opening sentence (which I’m not sure about), probably the best way would be not as a statement in wikivoice that that crime was committed, but rather as one of several names for the event. User:Valjean is making such a proposal in the next talk page section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Short version of first sentence

In response to the concern that my proposal is too long a sentence, I note that roughly half of our WP articles have similar compound sentences. However, acknowledging that concern here is a short version of the first sentence. After agreement on this, we would then proceed to the remainder of the key information to be included in subsequent short or longer sentences.

The 2021 US Capitol attack was an armed insurrection fomented by President Donald Trump in an attempt to reverse his loss in the 2020 US election.

SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve instead supported the version proposed in the next talk page section for reasons explained there. Incidentally, it’s clear Trump “fomented” the march to the Capitol. That’s a different issue from whether he “fomented” a subsequent armed insurrection inside the Capitol. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a distinction that is made only in Republcian talking points, not by mainstream RS secondary and tertiary discussion of events. It's therefore not a suitable basis for this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your description of January 6 may well turn out to be correct, given that investigations are continuing. But the distinction I made is not a “Republican” distinction. Do you think Vox.com is run by Republicans? Per Vox.com: “Trump called on his supporters to come to Washington on January 6 (he tweeted “Be there, will be wild!” in December), and when he spoke at the rally he encouraged them to march to the Capitol and suggested he’d join them (but ultimately didn’t). He clearly wanted his supporters to make a big disruption, and he and Giuliani were pitching various procedural gambits his congressional allies could use to delay the vote count. But did he envision that the mob would physically break into the building, before it happened? There’s no real evidence of that so far.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing in your quote from Vox (now long outdated, with recent revelations, btw) that invalidates my proposed text or its representation of article body and RS mainstream descriptions. Googling a 3 month old quote out of millions of search results and even then, misrepresenting it? What's the argument you are attempting to present? SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that the Vox piece actually supports the proposed wording; nothing in the sentence as constructed demands that anyone anticipate the breaching of the Capitol. "Causing a big disruption" in order to interrupt the vote count would, for me at least, fit under the dictionary definition of an 'insurrection.' Whether it occurred inside or outside seems immaterial. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, the attack was when the mob physically broke into the building. Vox says there’s no evidence Trump envisioned that would happen. If Vox is correct about that, it would seem kind of misleading to say Trump fomented that attack, and “inspired” would be more accurate. Even better, we could just say that the people who attacked were Trump supporters, which is what the opening sentence says right now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It strikes me that what happened to police officers outside the Capitol could reasonably be deemed an "attack." That seems to me like a perfectly foreseeable consequence of "causing a big disruption." But reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Vox bit is a cherrypicked, out of date, straw man. Please do not repeat it. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to provide reliable sources saying that Trump envisioned that the mob would physically break into the building, before it happened. Maybe he did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think this is now fencing over a point that is not really even at issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems pertinent to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

So, arguendo, if we accept the word 'insurrection' for the moment, it would not have been an insurrection had the Capitol not been entered? Dumuzid (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I never suggested that; I suppose hypothetically they could have attacked the Prntagon instead of the capitol. Also, I’ve already accepted the word “insurrection” in the opening sentence, per the next section of this talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

So then I fail to see how foreknowledge of entering changes anything? We both (I believe) accept that Trump egged the crowd on to march to the Capitol, which was subsequently attacked by the marching crowd. I must be missing something. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Encouraging people to go protest in a lawful and peaceful way is very very different from encouraging people to go protest in an unlawful and violent way. Maybe Trump did the latter, but I’d like to see reliable sources saying so before we put it into our lead sentence. I think the main gripe about Trump’s behavior that day is that he didn’t do enough to stop it once it started, and was too passive. If that’s true then Trump has lots of company. According to Reuters, “security officials had not wanted to see the same militarized presence around the Capitol that was stationed about the White House during summer anti-racism protests.”[4] Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it strikes me that you're making a bunch of analytical leaps. Let me try it this way: would you agree that Trump urged those listening to his speech to march to the Capitol, and that at least some number did so at his urging? Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess you're reading a direct intentional element into "foment"? But I would respectfully disagree with that. Even if (again, arguendo) President Trump did not intend the ultimate violence that occurred, he certainly set the stage for it. And that's all that's really needed for "fomenting," as it can be done, for instance, by non-human subjects. "Intensity of demand" can foment. The pandemic can help foment. The overturning of Roe v. Wade can foment. I apologize for belaboring this point--but I think because Trump created the necessary preconditions for the insurrection, "foment" is precisely the correct word. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the word “foment” implies intent. But even if it’s ambiguous about intent, there are plenty of words that don’t imply intent, such as “inspire”, and such as the way the opening sentence is phrased right now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stick to what the bulk of mainstream sources say. They tell us he fomented it. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's another straw woman. You may have noticed that nobody has agreed with just about anything you've said or done in the past couple of weeks. Soon editors will completely ignore any talk page posts that are deflections, straw women, and cherrypicked misrepresentations. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

When did you ever agree with me, or think my comments were useful? 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh mercy mercy. I didn't say that I don't agree with you I said nobody agrees with you. Oh my. Please be careful with your indents. I fixed the above. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"Fomented" more or less equals "inspired" and "incited". Trump's allies helped plan and promote the "March to Save America" rally at the Ellipse that led to the Capitol attack. After the violence caused them to look bad, they distanced themselves from it. All denials were classic Mandy Rice Davies denials.

Attorney General Karl Racine said his office will investigate those who incited Wednesday's violence, including President Trump.
"Clearly, the Capitol was ground central in the mob's behavior. Donald Trump Jr, Rudy Giuliani, even the president were calling on supporters and hate groups to go to the Capitol, and in Rudy's words, 'exercise combat justice,'" said Racine. "We're going to investigate not only the mob, but those who incited the violence."

Trump told them to "fight like hell" and "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength." He was not "encouraging people to go protest in a lawful and peaceful way." He was "encouraging people to go protest in an unlawful and violent way." He did not have to foresee the exact nature of their reaction to his order to have been responsible for "fomenting", "inspiring", and "inciting" every part of their attack. They had been prepped by many sources for a long time and he just lit the fuse.

That fuse had been prepared by the actions of his base, who include the most primitive, extreme, and ignorant elements of American society: violent far-right extremist leaders, GOP politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, planning groups at the Jan. 5 meetings at Trump International Hotel (the "command center"), Willard Hotel, and White House, and finally his speech. He was also secretly involved in some of this planning, so there was good reason for what was said by many in the days before the attack. They said things that clearly showed they expected something like this to happen, even if they may not have envisioned the exact details. When it happened, most participants and Trump were not fully surprised. I remember as it happened that footage from the WH showed Trump standing in front of a TV with a big smile as he fist pumped. He loved watching his supporters battling with police. His delay to stop them has been called "six hours of paralysis".[5] Trump's biographers say he has no sense of humor, and he only finds pleasure when he sees violence and people being hurt. He loves that. He is a bully. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Trump's hanging comments, again

@SPECIFICO: I've seen many strange and unlikely things described as edit warring, but if removing content once with a careful explanation in the edit summary, beginning a discussion at the talk page after being reverted without an explanation, waiting two weeks for a response, and then removing the content again when no response is given constitutes edit warring then we're really in bizarro world. How much longer do you think I should have waited? And why do you think this content belongs in the article? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If that material is kept in this article, and Trump denied it, then that denial should be mentioned. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No, per WP:MANDY, because the mainstream does not take his denial seriously. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The NYT reported that, “A lawyer for Mr. Meadows said he has ‘every reason to believe’ that the account of what Mr. Meadows said ‘is untrue.’” The NYT also wrote “It is not clear what tone Mr. Trump was said to have used.” The NYT took all of that ambiguity seriously enough to hedge about whether it happened, their headline being “Trump Said to Have Reacted Approvingly to Jan. 6 Chants About Hanging Pence.” I’m not seeing any denial by Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Please post back if you actually do see the denial you wish to include in the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I consider myself something of a connoisseur of overworked lawyer language, and that one is worthy of a chef's kiss. Suffice it to say I do not think that denial belongs in the piece, but if there's something more direct, perhaps. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that denial by Meadows’ lawyer is not firm. As for a denial by Trump, if it exists it should be included. Regardless of whether it exists, assuming the hanging stuff remains in this article, we should include some language like the NYT’s acknowledgment that they don’t know if Trump was supposedly using a serious tone or a humorous tone, and/or the NYT’s equivocality (Trump “said to have” reacted). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing equivocal there. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, whether "Trump was supposedly using a serious tone or a humorous tone" is rather irrelevant when one considers his habitual manner of speaking, something trained into him by his lawyer, Mafia lawyer Roy Cohn.[6] Listening to Trump has been described as listening to a Mob boss.[7] Trump developed a method of speaking while he was still young, a method that always gives him plausible deniability. He rarely gives actual orders; instead he expresses wishes or airs thoughts. His underlings know him well enough to know that these are requests or demands, and that, if they succeed in fulfilling them, he will reward them, but if caught, they, not Trump, will be held responsible. He will drop them like a hot potato if they're dumb enough to get caught. As president, he pardoned them, which is evidence they were guilty and he knew it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that this claim's now been repeated by Cheney in the select committee, I think it's worth including in a modified form. An answer to my first question from SPECIFICO would still be appreciated, though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Answer: Abundant RS covevrage of an event they describe as highly significant. Passes WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 12:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

My first question was "How much longer do you think I should have waited?" Third time lucky? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ans: Until you get consensus on the talk page. And you won't be likley to get that if you stud your appearance here with "bizarro world" etc. Nobody want's to join you in that. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in to say Happy Friday to everyone, and I tend to agree that we now do need to incorporate the "hanging stuff" into the article. How do we best do that? Do we start from the previous material, or does someone want to do a new draft? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think my version, or something close to it, is preferable to SPECIFICO's version, because (1) it's based on the most recent news coverage, rather than coverage from two weeks ago; (2) it contains claims clearly attributable to a named person, rather than anonymous "on background" comments; and (3) it makes clear that these comments gain their importance from being highlighted by the select committee. (And (4), it avoids the exceedingly clunky formulation "and then stated something suggesting that Pence should be hanged".) If I understood how greater clarity and accuracy "waters down the content" I'd be willing to consider an alternative somewhere between the two versions, but at present I don't, and I'm not sure I have the patience to have to find out how many times I'll have to ask before I get an answer. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is required in order to include content, and the absence of consensus to include content (as indicated, for example, by two weeks passing with no explanation of why the content belongs) is sufficient ground to remove it. If you're going to talk about consensus (or edit warring, for that matter), it's useful to understand what those concepts mean and how they're commonly used. If you don't show that understanding, I'm afraid it's likely that people will sometimes point that out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Article text does not belong to any named edtor who restored established text. There is a single editor who has now 3 times removed the text in question. It stood in the article with no other page watcher challenging it. It is the baseline from which any further content or sources can be added. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Former US President Donald Trump accused of 'attempted coup' - BBC News

Former US President Donald Trump accused of 'attempted coup' - BBC News

• British documentary film-maker Nick Quested, "who was embedded with the Proud Boys after the 2020 election": "I documented the crowd turn from protestors to rioters to insurrectionists."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Insurrection 4

"Insurrection" is much more descriptive and appears to be less controversial than "coup attempt". SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In fact the term insurrection is controversial because its meaning is undefined or rather can be defined at the discretion of the president. As noted above, the president determined the assault was not an insurrection. TFD (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We're supposed to write in as neutral a manner as possible, which is why "attack" seems to be the best word. It's factual, undebatable, and avoids MOS:LABEL. YoPienso (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The president at the time had a huge COI and should not be an authority or trusted source on the subject of what actually happened. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Insurrection is an English word with a clear style definition, and it is used by RS at least as much as "coup" to describe the plot and the attack. SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The word “insurrection” is already in our lead sentence, in a satisfactory manner, and I don’t think that (or the article title) should be changed at this point. The word “coup” is a relatively uncommon way of describing what happened on January 6, 2021 either in conjunction with the word “attempt” or not. Moreover, we need to await further clarity from both investigators and from reliable sources. Not every alleged attempted coup is an actual attempted coup. Additionally, it remains unclear whether this particular episode was allegedly a self-coup attempt or not. There is no urgency to attach labels to this event or modify labels, as the event can be described without labels. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See Hawa Allen, Insurrection (Norton, 2022.) "Unlike contemporary legislation, the 1807 law is fairly spare and markedly devoid of the definitions, articulated exceptions, and other technicalities that characterize more recent statutes. So, an "insurrection" (or "domestic violence" or an "unlawful combination," etc.) is effectively undefined, left to be envisioned in the eye of the beholder-whether that of the state governor who might request that the president dispatch federal troops pursuant to the Act, or of the president who can unilaterally deploy such troops under his authority." It's basically a term written by the British for to control Ireland and the colonies. My favorite definition is in the former Canadian War Measures Act: "The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that...insurrection, real or apprehended, exists." I appreciate that there is a dictionary definition, but it is so broad as to include dissing a police officer.

Sure, Donald Trump had a huge COI. But the law allowed him to decide what constituted an insurrection. He incidentally said he thought the BLM protests constituted an insurrection and mused about invoking the Act. Presumably, wiser heads prevailed. But as the Guardian's Steven Poole, who writes about the abuse of language, points out, the term implies "moral evaluation,'[8] which would make it come under Contentious labels.

I have searched legal texts for a legal definition but, unlike such terms as treason or murder, there isn't one, other than what Allen wrote. i would be appreciative if you could find one. I think too that WP:JARGON applies. If we use a specialized term, we should explain in text what it means. The same applies for "coup," except when used to describe a military takeover of all branches of government. In that sense, that is what the demonstrators tried to provoke.

TFD (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

neutrality

(doing this so next time my edit won't be reverted)

I think this article is definitely leaning on the side of, as much as i wish there were better words, the government.

I feel like the article is demonising the participants of the riot, key word, riot. this was not an organised attack as only a rally had been organised for the day.

This could be my own political biases kicking in but i genuinely do think this article isn't neutral

Great Mercian (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless you quote some article text and explain why its deficient using WP:RS and/or WP:P&G your feelings would fall under WP:SOAP, which is not a reason for having the tag on the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read the RS coverage of the Jan 6 Committee presentation last week. You will see that it was not spontaneious. Please do some deep reading of the past 2 years coverage of the election and its aftermath in secondary and tertiary (several good books out) sources. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Coup attempt"

On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.[a][28][29] They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election[30] by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes that would formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.[3][31] That is how this article currently opens. It's basically describing a coup attempt as its written. Many reliable sources referred to it as a coup attempt even in January 2021 (documented here in the archive). It was called a coup attempt last night by Bennie Thompson, chair of the January 6 committee, and the sources have noticed.

January 6 hearing: Trump accused of attempted coup | BBC

January 6 hearing: Trump was at heart of plot that led to ‘attempted coup’ | The Guardian

Capitol riot panel blames Trump for 1/6 ‘attempted coup’ | AP News

Bennie Thompson says Jan. 6 was the 'culmination of an attempted coup' | NPR

I'd like to revisit whether or not we should be calling it a coup. I almost made this a requested move, but decided to seek informal feedback first. I say yes, it's clear from the evidence already that the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers attempted to keep Trump in power by storming the Capitol. That is independent the support they got from Trumpworld in the process, and independent of the fake elector slates. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

So you would move to Trump 2021 coup attempt or what name do you have in mind? While you're here, could you comment on the short version alternative to the current first sentence above?. I think "insurrection" is more descriptive than coup. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking 2021 United States coup attempt or something like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling it a coup because it appears to you to meet the criteria is synthesis. We would need a source that says the description has consensus support among experts. TFD (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Not SYNTH in the sense you mean. I think you mean WP:OR? But how is this different than any other statement we make based on editors' subjective determination of WP:WEIGHT? SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead is good as it stands.

There's a line further down that covers the alleged coup aspect: "Some have characterized these attempts to overturn the election as an attempted coup d'état,[84] and an implementation of the "big lie".[9] On October 31, 2021, a comprehensive and detailed account of the events before, during, and after the attack was published by The Washington Post."

While it's true that on numerous occasions politicians have characterized the assault as a "coup," it doesn't fit the definition of a coup because the rioters weren't trying to overturn an existing government, but were trying to overturn election results unfavorable to the existing administration. Therefore, it would be wrong to use the word coup in Wikipedia's own voice. YoPienso (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They were literally trying to stop the Biden administration from taking over from the Trump administration. They were overturning the will of the people, the peaceful transfer of power, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. That's not called a coup, though. It was failure to relinquish power as constitutionally required. YoPienso (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Violating the Constitution to do so, which would be an overthrow of the government. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As Muboshgu and the overwhelming narratives in RS sources explain, the US form of government -- the one in which the winner of an election takes office thereafter, the one in which the results of the election are certified and implemented -- would have ended had Trump's insurrection succeeded. The US Government would have ended. It would have been overthrown, as in "good night US Government." SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's the weirdness of Trumpism: They say they're upholding the Constitution. They say they're making America great again. The US as we know it wouldn't have ended. What would have happened was that a precedent would have been set that a cult figure strongman could override the Constitution at his whim. Like Putin in Russia. YoPienso (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The US as we know it wouldn't have ended -- yes that is right. Only the US Government would have ended. Starbucks and plastic bags would have survived. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been thinking way too hard about this (my fault, no one else's), so forgive me while I nerd out for a moment. I think the difference we're dancing around is whether the Presidency is the seat of Hobbesian sovereingty. If it is, then as YoPienso says -- it can't be a coup. The sovereign is, by definition, incapable of rebelling against itself. Were Queen Elizabeth II to order some group of people to arrest parliament and establish martial law, that would not be a coup. In fact, the coup would be if parliament resisted. But sovereignty in the United States does not rest in the president (which would be much to Hobbes' chagrin [see also: Ernst Kantorowicz]). Whether we say it is distributed throughout government or resides more poetically with "the people," it still means that the president is not it. Thus, I think it is fair to say that a president who tries by force to usurp government functions not his own can certainly be capable of a coup. Nerdy excursion over, and I hope everyone has a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In the USA, the improper attempt to obtain or RETAIN power is a coup attempt, and in this case what is often called a "soft coup", as the military was not involved. Does that make sense? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I went way too deep above. Had to get those thoughts out. And I am not bothered by calling it a soft coup, though given that there was paramilitary forces involved, I am not entirely sure of the adjective! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"Synthesis" to call this a coup attempt when Bennie Thompson called it a coup attempt on national television? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

See Coup d'état. Dictionaries, of course, give varying definitions, some of which could apply to the US Capitol attack. Still, it seems to me to be the wrong term, since Trump wanted to extend his adminstration, not wrest it from an existing one. Nuances matter. YoPienso (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We're delving deeply into WP:OR here, but just to offer the per contra, the very specific thing that was attempted was to prevent the functioning of the senate and vice president. Imagine if a sitting president called on the military to disband congress and the judiciary; despite technically being 'in power,' I think it would be accurate to call that a coup. Just so here. I think coup is appropriate in general parlance, though I am not sure we've crossed the "say it in wikivoice" line as of yet. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The impression I'm getting from this so far is that we likely haven't crossed that Rubicon yet, though perhaps we will when the hearings are concluded. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC")

YoPienso, Trump was, and still is, trying to "wrest power" from the proper owner, who is the elected President. Nuances matter. He acts as if he could use democracy to get into power, and thereafter discard it to stay in power. He acts more and more like Putin, his hero and controller. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Although both are unlawful, there's a difference between refusing to relinquish power and seizing power. Seizing power is a coup. Yes? No? A sitting President can't wrest the power of office from a President-elect because the latter still doesn't have presidential power. Trump wanted to prevent Biden from being sworn in, but isn't presently trying to unseat him. Once Biden took the oath of office, Trump began looking ahead to winning back the presidency in 2024. (Did you notice I mentioned Putin? He's an example of successfully refusing to relinquish power, which he had enough of to be able to change the law and make his dictatorship appear legitimate.) YoPienso (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for repeatedly bringing this up, but your formulation assumes that the Presidency is the only branch of government in the United States with any authority. While you might be right that analytically it would be wrong to say it was a "coup against President Biden," it was rather a coup aimed at seizing (or perhaps preventing) authority rightfully held by the Senate and Vice President: the counting of electoral ballots. The government is more than just the President, and therefore a sitting President can, in fact, attempt a coup. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a plot to seize power from the sovereign, i.e. the people, the electorate. He was not exercising any lawful power of the presidency. SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

one of these. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - A Consensus Discussion about adding the phrase "attempted coup" to relevant articles has been started, and is at the following => "Talk:List of coups and coup attempts#Concerns about "attempted coup"" - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Video deleted?

Hi, I had uploaded this video that was recorded by a US Federal employee during the course of their official duties, and it appears to have been deleted? https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10157480675071857 Victor Grigas (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Deaths

This is extremely unethical to put that there were 5 deaths in this RIOT. None of these deaths is attributed to the riot at all. Especially if you count 3 by natural causes. I can't believe you people are this disingenuous. 24.70.68.219 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We go by what sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, Babbitt is the only person who was in fact killed (the police officer being unaware at the time that she was in fact unarmed). But a death does not only refer to, well, a violent one. Reliable sources do indicate that the other deaths were related to the storming. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:4439:C068:2EE3:127B (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Per others we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We do not include this type of information in info-boxes for any other conflict. 100,000 U.S. War in Iraq veterans for example have died by suicide, but the info-box for that war only mentions deaths in battle. TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"Hang Mike Pence"

This phrase is currently a redirect to this article page. I think the phrase iis now notable in and of itself, such that it qualifies for its own WP article page. Any disagreement? SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure... Please start drafting in your sandbox and share a link here so we can look at it together. I'm certainly open minded about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

PS I'll defer to third partie, if any, who already know enough to have a basis to agree with you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in with my totally non-expert opinion: I don't really see what an independent article would add? The phrase is so inextricably bound to these events (as far as I know) that I don't see the need--but as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Happy Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Well we now have 68K of "readable prose", see WP:SIZESPLIT. Folks have been using templates to transclude or excerpt key sections from sub articles, which I think is brilliant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't need an article for that phrase. Best leave it, as a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Well we have plenty of phrases with their own pages, e.g. Let's Go Brandon Defund the police Make America Great Again. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Make those into re-directs, as well. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. This is not on the level of notability of those three phrases you listed above. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I would rank them MAGA, Hang Mike Pence, Defund the Police, Let's go Brandon. But the point is that many recent phrases that have dominated news coverage do have their own pages because there is content significant to the phrases that is otherwise scattered or less significant in other articles. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully submit that the other phrases there transcend a single event such that there are multiple times/places when they become relevant. Not so with "hang Mike Pence." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

So you're suggesting Just Say No? SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's more that I am seeking substantiation; I am asking where's the beef? Dumuzid (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Analysis and Terminology section - big picture

You may have heard the saying "Small crumbs are easier to sweep under the rug than the whole loaf of bread all at once". I just wanted to observe that we should take great care to tell our readers the Jan 6 committee says the attack was just step 7 of Trumps 7 part plan, and we should take a laser scalpel to text discussing terminology, in order to maintain great clarity about the scope of the terms being discussed.... are we at any given moment discussing JUST the attack part of the plan? Or as a component of the whole thing? Alas, in the chaotic aftermath early RSs authors likely had not yet thought about these points. But later writers, having had time to process, certainly have. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Side bar over label "terrorism"

I believe the article is guilty of an inconsistency. The article is within category "Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021", which implies that the event it is about is terrorism. Yet the event is not described as terrorism in the lead. So, which is it? Is the event terrorism or is it not terrorism? If it is terrorism, then it should clearly be described as terrorism in the lead. If it is not terrorism, then the article should not be within a category identifying it as terrorism. Zarenon (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(A) I'm deep into researching RSs that discuss the event in context of the word coup, and just informally I'll represent that many that do call it a coup or self coup attempt also use variants of the labels "terrorism/terrorists". I don't have time to follow up with compiling RSs as I'm working on something else, so if you want to just dismiss my VAGUEWAVE I understand

(B) Unless you can show me a WP:Policy and guidelines that I don't know about, there is no requirement that categorizable characteristics appear in the lead in order for an article to be so categorized, as long as sufficient info is in the body of the article.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What the article does is inconsistent from the point of view of common sense, irrespective of what guidelines and policies do or do not state. Zarenon (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Correcting the "Ordinary People" Argument

The current discussion of the perpetrators perpetuates the view that extremist groups were incidental or peripheral players in the insurrection, and that most participants were 'ordinary people'. As the January 6th hearings go on, we keep getting new information and have to ensure the Wikipedia entries remain up to date with new findings. New findings by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism show that the “ordinary people” argument is incorrect as more than 1/3 of the participants were linked to extremist or conspiratorial groups. The edit I am making acknowledges that about 2/3 of the participants were ‘ordinary people’ but that about 1/3 were not, basically changing the perspective from ordinary people being the primary drivers of the event to emphasizing the role of extremist ideology and groups as a gateway to the violence that ensued.

This edit breaks the paragraph, starting with “Over 30 members…” into two, where the first is largely the same as the existing paragraph but then the next paragraph addresses the composition of the group and whether they were ‘ordinary’ or not. After the edit, the reader can see both the argument that those involved were largely ordinary (2/3) versus the counterposing argument that an extraordinarily high proportion (1/3) were extremist, which would indeed be amazing in any group we would like to consider largely 'ordinary people'.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

civil war addition to the lead

I just reverted text Fazerdazer (talk · contribs) added to the lead, and copied it below. I'll explain my reasons below too.

Several commentators viewed the attack on the Capitol Building as an indicator of increased political destabilization in the country that could lead to a spike of political violence in future elections, ranging from domestic terrorism to a Second American Civil War.

References

The reasons I moved this from the lead to here for discussions are -

1. For starters, the WP:LEAD should be a summary of the body of the article. Some of this might find a home in a section on reactions in this or a related article
2. "Several commentators" is dicey... sure there are a bunch of refs here but in light of the enormous amount of commentary this seems to be skirting the line of WP:WEASELWORDS
3. By taking the range of views to synthesize that range and then say that "several" are talking about that entire synthesized range, well, that's WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH
4. At first blush this material looks like it would be best presented with inline WP:ATTRIBUTION (According to Bob, the grass is dry.) (Bob said the grass is dry.) (Bob wrote that the cloudless sky may be an indication the grass will be dry.) Etc.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's precisely because the lead "should be a summary of the body of the article" that a good case could be made for describing the event in the lead as terrorism, or for, at the very least, mentioning the fact that numerous people, as well as the FBI, described it that way. Now, I have not followed the development of the article, but I can guess what probably happened here. There would have been a disagreement between editors who want the event described as terrorism and editors who do not want the event described as terrorism. The current situation, in which the article is placed within the "Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021" category yet the event is not described as terrorism in the lead, looks like a compromise designed to keep both sides as happy as they can be under the circumstances. I appreciate that this compromise may be wonderful for people who want Wikipedia editors to get along with each other. That doesn't mean that it is defensible at all in terms of helping inform the article's actual readers - shouldn't we have some concern for them? Zarenon (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Trump's hanging comments, #3

@SPECIFICO: I appreciate your very speedy response on this. It's a shame you didn't manage to respond to my comment at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 20#Trump's hanging comments, again (timestamp 13:26, 10 June 2022) before that section was archived. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of offering a compelling argument in defence of your version, so I'm puzzled as to why you don't want to do so. Comments from others are of course also very welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments are not compelling and nobody is obligated to reply every time you repeat them. Please don't keep changing the article text without consensus here, per my latest edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're obliged to explain your edits when asked to, rather than reverting without explanation, as am I, as is everyone. You're obliged to work towards a consensus, because consensus is the basis on which Wikipedia operates. More generally – and I don't want to sound patronising here – why not have a little more confidence in yourself? Rather than repeating bad procedural arguments, why not tell us why you think your version's good and mine's bad? I'm sure you could come up with good reasons if you tried. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read Arms&Heart's arguments in the previous discussion, but I looked at the edit in question, and I agree that we have no business including vague seconhand accounts in this article. It's hearsay. It's also unnecessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of this well-sourced material. The accusation that Trump responded positively to the prospect of a hanging is highly notable and well-cited. If there are concerns about balance or pov, the text could be tweaked or amended, but the existing text is well-sourced and relevant. It can't just be deleted out of existence. Feoffer (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, I am troubled by your revert simply because verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and consensus should really be established on the talk page first. "Well sourced and relevant" might make for a compelling argument, but it doesn't mean you get to bypass onus issues. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the emperor of Wikipedia or anyone special -- but I'm not seeing any tenable argument against inclusion. We follow the RSes, and this accusation (true or false) has been discussed in just about every RS on Earth. NYT WaPo CNN ABC CBS NBC Reuters Guardian, the list goes on far longer. Feoffer (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you -- but my objection (such as it is) is procedural. I think you have a compelling argument (though form might be quibbled with by some), but that doesn't mean you get to bypass forming consensus. It can affect particular sources used, wording, or framing. No matter how many sources you have, it's theoretically possible consensus may for some reason go against inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that just because something gets a mention in multiple sources that it's worth including if it's clearly just vague hearsay. It's trivia, violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even reliable sources resort to sensationalist writing at times, and this seems like a perfect example. On the other hand, I don't really have a strong view against including it, I just think our own policies tip the balance against it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's trivia Your entitled to your assessment, but clearly it's not shared by RSes world-wide who covered the accusation in-depth. Feoffer (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

First hand accounts by multiple independent witnesses is not what is meant by "hearsay". As to ONUS, this has not been determined UNDUE through multiple prior discusssions. There is consensus for this established material, certainly for the content even if the wording can be improved. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I would leave it out unless and until we have the context in which the remarks were made, an informed opinion on the veracity of the account and whether Trump meant it seriously. Otherwise we're just writing partisan spin, sort of a liberal version of Fox News Channel. TFD (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This has been independently confirmed by multiple sources and media outlets. Both the comment and the context and exact timing. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple news sources confirming that witness said something is not "independent confirmation" of the truth of those statements. Also, context means "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning." (Merriam Webster)[9] In other words, we would want to know what was discussed before and after the comments were made and the degree of gravity or levity of the conversation. Or was everyone standing there silent when Trump made the comments. These are the types of things that investigators, jurors, judges biographers and historians consider when they try to interpret the remarks.

This differs from the approach of "Well if it makes Trump look bad, put it in. Who cares what the context was?" That's why policy requires us to use secondary sources that provide "interpretation of primary source material" Unfortunately, that often means having to wait for these sources to become available.

TFD (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Poll on related page

Interested editors can express their views on whether our WP "Conservatism" template should appear on the Oath Keepers article. See this section and related discussion above it SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place to advertise your RfC, per WP:CANVASS. TFD (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Are you saying this article hosts people of a certain skewed POV? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixing the double RNC

when talking about the bombs the page states "the pipe bomb at the RNC was neutralized at 3:33 p.m. and the pipe bomb at the RNC was neutralized at 4:36 p.m., according to a Capitol Police timeline" the second one should be DNC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4080:74D0:4169:541B:1D47:72E7 (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Details regarding controversy should be added since the facts have not all come out yet and there only has been a one sided hearing which includes mostly hearsay and a lack of cross examination.

It sounds like there were several federal agents involved and this should be included. There is question over if this was contrived by individuals connected with Ray Epps.

There is also plenty of video evidence that the police did nothing to stop rioters, and Ashley Babbit, a former military police officer, was shot as she pleaded with police to do something about windows being smashed in.

Now five law enforcement officials have died suddenly before they could testify before the January 6th committee which seems suspicious and a further investigation is required before we can say these deaths dos not include foul play.

The facts as currently stated are misleading as there are far more details and nuance that have yet to be discussed. This article sounds just like it was a transcript from TV. 2600:100E:B0CA:F54:8136:B4F8:AC88:CFEF (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We need wp:rs supporting these claims, do oy have any? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Babbit was shot as she climbed through a smashed window in the door that served as the "last line of defense" between rioters and members of congress; the press release accompanying the announcement that it was a "clean shoot" praised the officer for potentially saving multiple lives. The OP is pushing WP:FRINGE views and outright nonsense. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Trump at end of speech and in SUV

Article might benefit from developing that Trump knew crowd had weapons, sent them to capitol anyway, and allegedly berated security detail for refusing to take him to capitol. One interesting exchange I ran across is this....

CNN's Jim Acosta: it's almost like they were protecting the office of the president of the united states from the president of the united states. Former Secret Service Agent Jonathan Wakro: That's exactly it... [10]...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Input requested at move debate

Editors working on this article and those related to the Jan 6 hearings may already be interested in commenting on a article title dispute at Talk:Timeline of violent and dangerous incidents at the United States Capitol#Requested move July 4 2022 I'm trying to recruit other perspectives, instead of continuing a two person round of ping pong. Please stop by if you have time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for: “International Reactions and Responses”

This is my reasoning for proposing the creation of a sub-article discussing in-brief the International Reactions and Responses from the leaders of nations both allied to the U.S. and those which are not.

While the events of January 6th as they unfolded were in many ways, a uniquely American event, the repercussions and consequences of that day to the International community would’ve been undeniably drastic should it have gone differently, especially amongst U.S. allies. The impact it has already had on other democracies was rapid, potent and one of unknowing stability, (as can be cited by several official sources as well as media outlets) as stated by several top-level government officials of allied nations. Reactions from officials and governments of the US’s closest Allies as well as adversaries provides not only an expanded context for readers within a concise subarticle, but allows for the important fact that such events were felt globally to be recorded in a more public record of history as a major component of the events that happened that day.

Note major condemnations and reactions from some of the US’s closest allies; including but not limited to the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and New Zealand; as well as the more mixed-to-mild rebukes from U.S.-allies such as Australia and Japan.

Anymore ideas or suggestions are appreciated! CanAerospace99 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this different than International_reactions_to_the_2021_United_States_Capitol_attack? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Fix the year

Article currently reads: "On January 6, 20201" Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A recent change. I have now just rest the page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Karl..... I rereverted the reset but fixed the year. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for changing name back to 2021 Capitol Riot

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

---

I am not certain why this event is called the "2021 Capitol Attack" when jurisprudence on Wikipedia dictates that this should be called the "2021 Capitol Riot." My reasoning:

It is clear to objective viewers that the vast majority of those involved were rioters rather than concerted mercenaries of former President Trump, as many like to claim.

Furthermore, similar events are called "riot" and even "protest" on Wikipedia. Take, for example, the 2022 Sri Lankan Protests page. Three days ago, the protestors stormed the Presidential Palace, resulting in many deaths and violently overthrowing a national government, and yet for some reason the page continues to be called "protest" rather than "riot" or, more appropriately, "revolution."

So why is it that the 2021 Capitol Riots, which were not nearly as deadly or impactful as the 2022 Sri Lankan Revolution, are called an "Attack" by Wikipedia?

This is assigning undue intent to the event that did not actually occur. In no other example of public storming of a government building on Wikipedia is the event called an "attack." It is almost always "riot" or "revolution."

I urge editors to reconsider the name of this article to reflect its true nature, rather than expose themselves needlessly to accusations of political bias. 73.154.128.58 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• oppose, the name should be determined based on WP:COMMONNAME. I think attack or insurrection are both commonly used, riot less so. None of those names imply "concerted mercenaries" whatsoever. The question is simply which names and descriptors are most prevalent in WP:RS. Also, Sri Lanka is now in a 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis followed by Fleeing of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and 2022 Sri Lankan presidential election, so it's not a revolution, if you have sources you can discuss on those articles' pages. Andrevan@ 05:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This article should actually be called "2021 United States Capitol Insurrection". As described in great detail in many reliable sources, this was the final insurrectionist element of a broad conspiracy by Donald Trump and his willing puppets as part of his Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Cullen328. Andrevan@ 06:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit Request

Can something be put in the article, to explain that if the electoral votes hadn't been certified before Noon EST, January 20, 2021. The Speaker of the House would've assumed presidential powers & duties as 'acting president' & would've continued as such, until the EV were certified, thus immediately beginning Biden & Harris' tenure. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Eh? No, that should not be added. Andrevan@ 02:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No per WP:CRYSTALBALL NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Should phrase be wikilinked?

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

---

This revert undid a simple wikilink. I object to the revert. It should be unnecessary to say this, but according to Manual of Style, instances of overlinking are frowned upon, but this isn’t one of them. Here is the sentence in question: “It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814.” The first of these two wikilinks is what was deleted. Historical context is important, and we should not want to give readers the false impression that the U.S. Capitol was a place of undiluted tranquility from 1813 until 2020. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Anythingyouwant. The wikilink is appropriate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

opposed In the nav sections at the footer (see also, categories, and templates) it does belong down there. But not in the prose and expecially in the lead.... It is an NPOV problem, in that it suggests - falsely - that Capitol attacks like Jan 6 happen all the time but Jan 6 was just on the big end of the spectrum. See WP:UNDUE and its subsections. To see what I mean, just go to the timeline list and randomly select six examples of capitol violence. Then read this sentence six times, substituting in each of the your randomly chosen events... -

It was a worse attack than (whatever), in fact, it was the worst attack since the 1814 Burning of Washington.

That was just for demonstration purposes of course. There is no compelling reason to get the reader off the subject of Jan 6 by encouraging them to explore all these other events or comparing them, or inserting ambiguity about how rare Jan 6 really was. As a navigation wikilink, its very appropriate for the See Also, Categories, and Templates. So as a navigation aid in the footer sections YES, but creating false balance and offtopic distraction in the lead, even unintentionally? Nope.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question is “It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814.” The first (removed) wikilink does not introduce any ambiguity or false balance whatsoever. It just gives readers a chance to find out about attacks on the Capitol, both big and small, from 1813 to 2020. The sentence already says there were such attacks, and concealing details about that fact by omitting a wikilink is just very unwise and contrary to the pertinent Wikipedia guideline. Also, I have not objected to saying this was the worst violence at a Capitol attack since 1812, though I could have objected that many more people died or almost died in some of the previous attacks, but the wikilink would remove that objection. Give people access to the relevant information in the usual Wikipedia way. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A list is not context. That link is just deflection to distract the reader from the magnitude and significance of the Jan 6 insurrection. These POV tilts are transparent, and are wasting a lot of editor time in needless discussion. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s absurd. The list certainly is context, and the sentence in question explicitly says this was the worst since 1812. The wikilink obviously does not contradict the sentence in which it appeared. Anythingyouwant (talk)

"That's absurd" is not a convincing argument. "Obviously" is not a convincing argument.

"Your honor the charges against my client are obviously absurd" ...

"Case dismissed, next". SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn that I elaborated after saying the word “absurd” by explaining why it’s absurd. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Does not contradict" is not a rationale for inclusion. If you really wish to press this, please present reasoned arguments that respond to the concerns other editors have explained above. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the very first sentence in this thread is untrue. I reverted both a new wikilink and related text changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The change in text was trivial. You changed “the most violent of the attacks” to “the most violent attack”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Just say no to hints of false balance and obfuscation, because, after all, the solution to pollution is NOT dilution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. The sentence that I’ve kindly agreed to (up until now, see below) about the War of 1812 unequivocally says that was the only attack more violent. Adding the wikilink to the list of Capitol violence does not even slightly contradict or dilute or weaken the statement we make that the 1812 incident was the only one that was more violent. Perhaps your real reason for preventing readers of this sentence from accessing the list is because you’re afraid they might find something that makes them doubt that our sentence is true, given that several incidents caused more death and/or potentially almost caused more death. But I kindly agreed to compromise about this sentence even though some incidents did cause more death; I hereby withdraw my agreement if this innocuous factual wikilink is deemed too dangerous for inclusion or is otherwise rejected. I think it’s petty, it violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, and it’s just as unreasonable as demanding that a 17 year old editor change 95 instances of “U.S.” in this article to “US” if he wants uniformity (I realize you had the good grace to reject that demand). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping Part 2

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) has now opened their third thread on the same underlying dispute.

• #Deletion of historical sentence in lead (first one)
• #Should phrase be wikilinked? (number two, this one)
• #Should the last sentence in the 2d paragraph be reinserted with only one wikilink (Burning of Washington) (as of now, the most recent thread)

If AYW and I had a better relationship, I'd hat the first two and gather all three as sub sub sections under heading "historical context" per the TPG, so that the consensus process is not hampered by chaos. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Deletion of historical sentence in lead

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

---

The following sentence was deleted today:

“ On January 6, 2021, following then-President Donald Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election, a mob of his supporters attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. It was one of the most serious and dangerous attacks on Congress in history. They sought to keep Trump in power by preventing a joint session of Congress from counting the electoral college votes to formalize the victory of President-elect Joe Biden. According to the House select committee investigating the incident, the attack was the culmination of a 7-part plan by President Trump to overturn the election.[25][26] ”

The deleted sentence is shown above with strikethrough. Here is the edit summary from USER:SPECIFICO: “Actually, its redundant and weakens the sentence that follows.” I disagree, because it’s obviously not redundant, diesn’t weaken anything, and provides valuable historical context. It should go in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Obviously" is not a persuasive defense. It is redundant to the following paragraph, that tells readers about the violence. At first I tried to copyedit the new sentence. Then I realized its only effect was to weaken the much more important statement as to the purpse of the attack, namely, to overthrow the US Government. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

With so blessed many sources making reference to the War of 1812, I agree with Anythingyouwant for the idea of adding something about it in the lead, however, I'm not interested in shoe horning a low impact navigation aide (to a list article of which AYW is a primary curator). Instead, we should say what the plethora of RSs say, and they're not pointing at timelines with every spitball or knife waving. All of the the ones I researched -- all of them -- referenced the Burning of Washington. So I added a sentence to the end of paragraph 2, and included it inside the transclusion codes. ITs like this

It was the most violent attack on the US Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that your edit to the following paragraph was made after SPECIFICO already made his preposterous redundancy argument. Moreover, the opening paragraph should provide an overview, and the proposed sentence clearly says that 1/6 was not comparable to some knife-waving episodes, by pointing out that this was among the most serious and dangerous of all the prior incidents. So I still support inclusion of the deleted sentence. As far as me being a “primary curator” of the linked list, that is preposterous as well; I have made a total of 9 non-minor edits to that list, compared to your seven, amidst hundreds and hundreds of other edits by other editors. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'd personally move it to the end of the first paragraph, because the current placement makes the text sound a little odd, but yeah, this should be in the lead. It was a breach of an immense magnitude and it should be made known straightaway, at the earliest place possible. The end of paragraph 1 is IMHO appropriate for that. Also, the lead is too long. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I can live with relocating it there, sure. Thanks for chiming in. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC) UPDATED SEE LATER COMMENT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I too can live with relocating it there. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO made the right call to remove the sentence in it's current form and placement. However, I think a similar one has a place somewhere in the lead. AnythingyouwantNewsAndEventsGuycorrection added by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC) provided sourcing saying the attack was the worst since 1812, this is a fact also supported by the article text; see the Historians perspective section. IMO a sentence saying The attack was the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. should be introduced at the beginning of the 4th paragraph of the lead. I think that's a fair compromise here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

After SPECIFICO’s deletion, another editor inserted a sentence like that at the end of the second paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks good to me too, and I also still support the sentence being put back into the lead paragraph, but at the end of that paragraph as another editor has proposed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

edit conflict
- multiple edit conflicts -

The problem with adding it to the 4th paragraph is that it will fall outside of the transclusion tags <onlyinclude>..</onlyinclude>, and therefore will not be included when the transcluded text is re-used in other articles, and in my view this text should be included with the first two paragraphs that are intended for reuse elsewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor who suggested putting the War of 1812 at the end of the 4th paragraph has already said he’s okay with putting it at the end of the second paragraph instead, so why keep trying to move it from the fourth. Additionally, I still support putting the deleted sentence back into the opening paragraph, but moved to the end of the opening paragraph as another editor has suggested. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You're advocating for a sentence one of the worst...etc, I'm opposed to that sentence anywhere in the article, because "One of the worst" is weak writing (peacockery) see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Avoid_peacock_and_weasel_terms l. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You’re mistaken, peacock terms are for puffery, see the examples at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery. Even puffery-like language is allowed when accompanied by specifics, e.g. “ An estimated 500 million people worldwide watched this event, the largest television audience for a live broadcast at that time.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest restudying the link I provided, and keep reading including the stuff under the heading "examples" 3-5 paragraphs down NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Those examples are puffery. “The Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history” is puffery. “William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? – May 8, 1691) is widely considered to be one of the most important men to carry that title” is puffery. “Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history” is the opposite of puffery and does not use peacock terms. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Now I think the text and sources I provided above should

• Be in the first two paragraphs between the transclusion codes
• Does not belong anywhere in paragraph 1, which should be BIG-PICTURE WHAT and WHY
• Belongs in paragraph 2; the sentence is a summary comparison of the summary of action taken compared to in 1814 so the comparison belongs with the summary of the actions taken. I don't care if it open paragraph 2 or closes it, but seems to fit best in that paragraph.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It already is in paragraph 2. Are you suggesting a change, or saying you like things as they are? I think things are okay as they are, except that the proposed sentence should be at the end of the first paragraph. I’ve explained why your change of mind about it is not compelled by the peacock issue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• After what's essentially a waste of editor time and electricity, N&EG has summarised the resolution. We should not be wasting any more time on this and editors should be careful not to introduce non-NPOV language with little tweaks and falsely-innocuous additions, deletions, copyedits, etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion has resulted in useful edits to the lead. If further editors would like to make intelligent comments about further edits along these lines, they should feel free. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) has now opened their third thread on the same underlying dispute.

• #Deletion of historical sentence in lead (this one)
• #Should phrase be wikilinked? (thread two)
• #Should the last sentence in the 2d paragraph be reinserted with only one wikilink (Burning of Washington) (as of now, the most recent thread)

If AYW and I had a better relationship, I'd hat the first two and gather all three as sub sub sections under heading "historical context" per the TPG, so that the consensus process is not hampered by chaos. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

References

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

US or U.S.?

SPECIFICO reverted my change of "US" to "U.S." MOS:USA says either are fine, but they should be used consistently throughout the article. Since, "U.S." is used 96 times in the article, it's fair to say "U.S." is the abbreviation that has been adopted for this article. I think my edit should be reinstated. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The MOS seems clear on this point. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We use US in most of the politics articles, so if you care about it, you could change the other 95. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true. I took some random political articles -- Donald Trump, United States Capitol, and Impeachment process against Richard Nixon --- and found they all seem to use "U.S." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Cooperation at Wikipedia is valuable. Everything gets unpleasant otherwise. Per WP:Civility, “Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It's way too hot to sweat such small stuff. FWIW, the MOS asks us to apply the "consistency rule" (my name for it) on a per article basis, rather than a per topic one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the editor of the Britannica Dictionary, "there seems to be a slight preference among native speakers and editors for the abbreviation with periods (U.S.), as shown below, so I recommend using that style."[11] Although there is no tag on this article about which version of English is following, I assume it is American and hence we should use the preferred American spelling. TFD (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(A) I could not care less which is used

(B) I could not care less if our article is internally consistent.... you've heard of "bigger fish to fry? IMO this is about the size of phytoplankton

(C) As a matter of procedure, I oppose using outside authorities rather than the current MOS without vetting at the MOS talk page or Village Pump, especially when the outside authority can only report a "slight" preference one way or the other. If such a discussion does get started for the wider community, I probably won't show up because....(goto A above) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

This issue speaks volumes about the mindset at this talk page and article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If you now regret starting this thread, simply close it by withdrawing your complaint. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, I didn’t start this thread. And if I had, I wouldn’t close it to make your diktat into a fait accompli. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says, "Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently." (MOS:CONSISTENT) We are allowed to use "outside authorities" to determine which usage is the convention and the Manual of Style is concerned with "if our article is internally consistent." TFD (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Change it to "U.S.", if you want. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal; it should be more so on a case per case basis. Just make sure it's using the same one consistently. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the last sentence in the 2d paragraph be reinserted with only one wikilink (Burning of Washington)

The last sentence of the second paragraph is new; it was inserted at 20:01 on 24 July with only one wlink, to Burning of Washington.[12] A couple hours later, I inserted a second wikilink,[13] so it would read like this: "It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814." Then a half hour later that wlink was removed, leaving only the wlink to Burning of Washington.[14] I will remove the sentence now, because I don't think it should be included without the additional wikilink. Please do not reinsert the sentence until we have consensus here in this section.

I didn't initially object to the new sentence that mentions the burning of Washington, but I do object to it now because of the deliberate omission of the pertinent wlink that I inserted, which fully complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and is totally appropriate. In this connection, it's worth noting that while many reliable sources say 1/6 was the most violent Capitol attack since the War of 1812, a minority says there were other incidents that were more deadly and also more famous than what happened in the War of 1812:

“ Schwartz, Jerry. "Capitol has seen violence over 220 years, but not like this", Associated Press via ABC News (6 Jan 2021): "But this was far from the first time the Capitol has been scarred by violence. In 1814, just 14 years after the building opened, British forces in the War of 1812 tried to burn it down. There have been shootings. One legislator almost killed another. The most famous episode occurred in 1954, when four Puerto Rican nationalists unfurled the island’s flag and, shouting “Freedom for Puerto Rico," unleashed a barrage of about 30 shots from the visitor’s gallery of the House. Five congressmen were injured, one of them seriously....The most deadly attack on the Capitol occurred in 1998, when a mentally ill man fired at a checkpoint and killed two Capitol Police officers." ”

Even if there were unanimity that the War of 1812 was the only Capitol incident that was more violent and deadly, still the usual practice is to wlink relevant terms and phrases if we have a Wikipedia article about them, like this: "It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814." I believe the real reason for omitting the first wikilink is because it might potentially spoil the narrative; readers might get access to pertinent information such as the information relied upon in the blockquote above, and that might cause them to doubt whether the War of 1812 is the only comparable precedent. Maybe they would have doubts, but that's not the main reason for including the wikilink to the list; the main reason is that it's a plain old standard relevant wikilink. In any event, I am still willing to compromise by having the sentence at the end of the 2d paragraph that focuses exclusively on the War of 1812 without mentioning any other incidents, but only if the pertinent wikilink to the list is included, not because the list contradicts the sentence, but because the list provides useful and relevant information just like 99% of other Wikilinks at Wikipedia.

Again, please do not reinsert the sentence that was inserted less than 12 hours ago, until we have consensus here in this section. This is the first challenge to it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the wikilink should be there, but I still think the sentence was usable. There was nothing improper or inaccurate about it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a note over at the NPOV noticeboard about it. My feeling is that exclusion of the wikilink makes the sentence non-neutral. And others seem to believe that inclusion of the wikilink makes the sentence non-neutral. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Consider an analogous situation. You want to say "Jackie Gleason was morbidly obese". Then you link to a list of 100 other fat people. That deflects attention from the point of the sentence which is "morbidly". Many of your edits entail this sort of obfuscation and deflection. That's why you find yourself forum shopping and generating endless talk page threads. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of "obfuscation and deflection", I would never want to say "Jackie Gleason was morbidly obese", and even if I did I would not link to a list of 100 other fat people. I might conceivably re-write your sentence to say "Jackie Gleason was one of the most obese actors in Hollywood" and then wikilink our hypothetical List of most obese actors but we do not have such a list AFAIK, and even if we do I probably wouldn't include such a sentence in the Gleason BDP because I doubt readers would be much interested in comparing his girth to that of others, and it would be insulting to his memory to place such emphasis on his size by wikilinking it. If he were on our List of heaviest people then maybe I would write "Jackie Gleason was one of the most obese people in Hollywood" but he isn't on that list, is he? Our article on Gleason says he was "100 pounds overweight", not 700 pounds overweight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Although it's not clear you intend it, you have just endorsed the concern of me and the other editors who see Anything's second link as a deflection, obfuscation, changing the subject, false equivalence, straw man, and not at all NPOV for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Would you object if I ask people at the NPOV Noticeboard to comment over there if they wish, rather than just asking them to come over here? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Why fragment the discussion. More forum shopping. Sometimes you there just is not support for whatever, and we need to move on. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement implies that there have been other violent incidents at the Capitol before, but this is the worst since 1814. If it wasn't the case, the sentence would say the last violent incident at the Capitol was 1814. It's ok to let the readers access all the other incidents since 1814 that were less violent than this one. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And what about all the political violence that was worse than this? Shall we link that too? What about the French Revolution. What about Pearl Harbor? Oklahoma City Bombing? World Trade Center? SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If we had a sentence mentioning political violence as a whole sure, but that's no what this discussion is about. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The point is the same. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think the 1812/1814 thing should be left out. It's kind of a non sequitur. The Jan 6 insurrection is unique in modern history. Nevermind what may have happened before the Civil War, it's really not germane. It feels like kind of trivial-fact-stacking and sportscasting. "Ruth is batting .300 against lefthanders, the last time he faced one he struck out." Who cares, that was a different time. Andrevan@ 18:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It's false equivocarion, deflection, distraction to dilute the RS narratives as to the significance of the insurrection. With the recent 1/6 hearings and the abortion decision at the Supreme Court, Republicans are under increasing pressure to minimize the taint of their recent allegiance to Trump. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, are you talking about the sentence as a whole or just the wikilink? I think Andrevan meant they believe the whole sentence should be left out. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I would cut the whole bit and the mention of the burning of Washington in 1814. I think we should instead say something like, "it was the most significant and violent attack on the Capitol in modern history," if we can find a source that says something along those lines. Or just say that it was the most significant since after the Civil War, or something like that. Andrevan@ 19:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Whole thing. Yes, compare it to the civil war, which was the only prior bunch of similarly constituted American insurrectionists. I'm sure you've read the sources on that. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Saying “it was the most significant and violent attack on the Capitol in modern history” would be fine with me. I would not support hiding pertinent info from readers by departing from usual wikilinking practice and policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That conveys no useful information. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don’t want readers to compare to (or think about) prior attacks then say something like, “it was a very significant and violent attack.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think we all need to acknowledge that there is not going to be a consensus to do anything here. So just drop this and move on. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure whether you are missing the point or purposely trying out a new and different deflection, but no. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As Charlie Sheen once said, “Uncertainty is a sign of humility, and humility is just the ability or the willingness to learn.” 😊 (Jackie Gleason and Charlie Sheen, who’s next?) Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe get yourself a better role model than Charlie Sheen? SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sheen was correct on that point though, just look at all the hits it gets on Google, I rest my case. Jackie Gleason was a much better actor though, and had some pithy quotes too, e.g. “The second day of a diet is always easier than the first. By the second day you're off it.” Of course, if that were article text then I would have wlinked both Sheen and Gleason. But you would probably consider wider ramifications, e.g. “Sheen is a lousy role model, we’d better not wikilink him.” Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be an effort to prevent a reader from educating themselves and drawing their own conclusions. That's not a goal that should be entertained. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump said “fight” 23 times

This edit claimed that Trump said the word “fight” 23 times on January 6, but said the word “peaceful” only once, therefore it’s undue weight to quote him in the lead about peacefulness. But neither of the currently cited sources mentions this “23” number, nor mentions the number of times he said any particular word. In contrast, all three sources that were cited for his statement to “fight” also fully quote his statement about being peaceful. Wikipedia policy requires us to “fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources….” It does not require us to personally examine speeches and decide for ourselves which parts were emphasized most by the speaker, contrary to reliable secondary sources. This should be obvious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please survey the most recent tertiary sources and see how they describe his messaging. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to cite or mention sources you think are pertinent, please do. Do any mention “23”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, the “23” number used to edit this article and promote your own POV is ridiculous. It includes chants from the crowd (3), statements by Trump that Rudy fights (2), a statement that Jim Jordan and his colleagues fight in the House (2), a statement that GOP candidates should fight or get primaried (3), a statement by Trump that he and others were fighting during his speech (1), statements about he and the “fake news” used to fight back and forth but now they give him the silent treatment (6), and a statement about fighting against big donors, big media, big tech (1). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Frivolously, you raise a technically good point.... per WP:CALC the actual number of TRUMP utterances of "fight", and grammatical derivations thereof, is 22...... rather than 23. I wonder if my mistake saying "23" instead of "22" twiddled the needles on the seismometers at the US Geological Survey? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it’s proper to use Wikipedia leads for your original research. You know it’s POV-pushing whether you use 23 or 22, for the reasons I’ve explained above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

calling this OR is itself classic POV... see WP:CALC; I agree that the transcript I used (from NPR [15]) attributes one of the 23 utterances of a variation of "fight" to a chant among the crowd. That leaves 22 utterances by trump of some grammatical variation of the word "fight". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

PS I am aware that DS Applies to US politics, if you wanna cast aspersions over this at me again, do so at WP:AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You’ve blatantly inserted your POV into this lead without consensus based on original research. That’s the way it is. If me saying so hurts your feelings, that surely was not my intent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I admit that WP:CALC requires a consensus that the calculation is accurate. As you know, consensus on Wikipedia depends on the substance of reasoning, rather than the opinions-that-are-not-votes. Do you have a valid reason to contest the count based on the agreed transcript is 22? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CALC says, “Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.” What you’ve done is not routine, no one’s ever done it AFAIK, except some Democratic congresspersons such as Madeline Dean. You admit lack of consensus. And it’s not a meaningful reflection of the sources, given that no secondary or tertiary sources mention it, and the primary source shows that the vast majority of your 22 or 23 instances were not with reference to anything the audience should do. I’m not going to bring this to AE because the many readers of this article and talk page could easily help fix this problem if and when they want to, and if they don’t want to then I have no reason to believe AE would want to either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Drive-by added PBS story to assuage OR concerns -- not weighing in on rest of discussion Feoffer (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  A report about a statement by a congressperson. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on my review of your block-log, and prior history as user:Ferrylodge, and partial outting to the NYT as being a lawyer, I only care about your talk page comments that are evidence-based and void of logical fallacies. I will read them and respond as I deem appropriate, but at the end of the day what matters is article content. I would say more, but the rest is sort of besides the point. You have not tried to revert, nor have you offered evidence-based critical thinking reasons to oppose my change in the article content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on my review of the comment you’ve just written, you are misusing this talk page (in your first sentence) and being untruthful in your last sentence; I have indeed tried to revert you, and you jammed this new original research of yours right back into the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:DISRUPTSIGNS... if you have problems with my article edit, please change it or complain at WP:AE. I mean, I've been asking you to show your cards and you keep accusing me of thins like being "untruthful". I have quite had it up to here with such accusations. I'm asking.... show us and convince us. Will you give a direct answer to this challenge? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s bad enough to put partisan talking points of a congressperson in the lead of this article, based on a single source, but even worse to erase in-text attribution. I get that many people hate Trump, but that doesn’t entitle anyone to go overboard here trying to implement that sentiment. Moreover, the use of dummy edits to hypocritically accuse me of what you’ve been doing nonstop is quite revealing. Please stop using dummy article edits merely to try criticizing me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia editor counting how many times he said fight and then adding the number to lead of this article is WP:OR. Having a Democratic congresswoman count them for you and then adding the number to the lead is a WP:NPOV concern. The specific number of times is not something that's mentioned in RS at all from what I can see; therefore, the specific number should not be in this article much less the lead section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, based just on the sourcing I've seen so far, that specific point in lede would be UNDUE. Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Resting the argument on WP:CALC was a bit of a stretch, but the addition of the pbs.org citation IMO solidifies the case for inclusion. Rep. Dean is not just "some Democratic congressperson" expressing "partisan talking points", she was speaking in the context of her role as a House impeachment manager. Zaathras (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Her role doesn't make her speech nonpartisan. We never quote actual politicians as a RS, much less to establish weight in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We're not quoting a politician directly, we're quoting a reliable source that deems the politician's words noteworthy. Zaathras (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there really an argument over 22 times or 23 times? Perhaps we can compromise, with 22.5 times. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm breaking my voluntary project ban [16], to appreciate this comment, for which I laughed so hard I quite literally laughed out of my chair. THANK YOU!!!!!!! Funniest thing I have read here in many days....... I even looked for a humor barnstar, but didn't find any that seemed appro. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that nit has been settled, now the inclusion or exclusion hinges on Due Weight. Zaathras (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the whole sentence because no number would be adequate. Obviously, if we were to include the sentence then there would have to be inline attribution. But I don’t see it as significant enough for the lead or even the article body, if no one can find one tiny secondary source that says in its own voice what Rep. Dean said. As I detailed at great length above, when Trump used the word “fight” in his speech almost all of those were instances where he was not suggesting the audience members should fight, and if anything those many uses of the word “fight” show that he was using the word metaphorically as politicians often do. It it turns out that Trump gave secret instructions to go lynch a bunch of officials, then definitely we should include that once reliable secondary sources report it. But until then, let’s follow what the reliable secondary sources report as true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:2021 United States Capitol attack

Resolved

Should Category:2021 United States Capitol attack be moved to Category:January 6 United States Capitol attack, per January 6 United States Capitol attack? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Feoffer (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Parent category has been moved through WP:CFDS. Have put in the requests to move the subcategories as well. – robertsky (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Categories have been moved appropriately. Marking this section as resolved and archiving. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus have developed to move the articles to January 6 United States Captiol attack. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

---

• 2021 United States Capitol attack → January 6 United States Capitol attack
• Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack → Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack
• Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack → Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack
• Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack → Domestic reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack
• International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack → International reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack
• Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack → Law enforcement response to the January 6 United States Capitol attack
• Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack → Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack

– Based on the result of this move discussion, a few months have passed. In those few months, the January 6th committee has conducted its first string of televised theories. Headlines on my news apps usually involve "A January 6th rioter pleading guilty". The Justice Department is looking into Trump's involvement in the "January 6th attack". I think enough time has passed for January 6th to become the dominant name for referring to the attack on/storming of/riot on the United States Capitol.

Let's start with the news. Sources from every angle, liberal and conservative, domestic or foreign, conspiracy or reliable, all use January 6th as the name of the insurrection. See CNN, France24, Chinese State Media, the Associated Press, Fox News, Mother Jones, the Hindustan Times, Sky News, and the Korea Herald. The blacklist prevents me from linking InfoWars, though as untrustworthy as they are, even they use the name Jan 6. There are close to no talking points that this many news sources from such a diverse picture of the international press agree on. Put another way, think of this as the CEO of ExxonMobil and the leader of Greenpeace, or Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both referring to the attack on the Capitol as 1/6.

The current title is okay, but it doesn't do the job of identifying the event as well as "January 6" or similar abbreviations. Many of my motivations for proposing this move have already been listed in the move discussion, though I do think that WP:Common Name and WP:RECOGNIZE do sway the tide in favor of using January 6 more so than 2021 US Capitol Attack. I've listed some of the arguments from the previous discussion I think would be most compelling.

• January 6 seems to have become the WP:COMMONNAME. Not too dissimilar from September 11 attacks. Not opposed to having 2021 in the title, though. Pilaz
• It has became the common name. This is how its referred to in media and scholarship about the event. I don't even understand the arguments against changing it TiddiesTiddiesTiddies
• It's been a year, and the test of time shows quite clearly that "January 6" is the common identifier used by news media, politicians and the general public for this incident, and therefore should be part of the article's title. The date is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. Beyond My Ken
• [Within the discussion], AlexEng sums things up accurately: Many of the above opposes are simply false, or they are a blunt reiteration of previous consensus with no explanation of why that consensus should not change based on the increased use of this particular terminology in sources. Oppose rationales have been weak, non-existent, or simply false. For example, it's been repeatedly claimed only one half of the US political spectrum uses the common name, but that's demonstrably false: All parties use the common Jan 6 name. Rationales not based in reality should be afforded appropriate weight. Feoffer

While the media and the news certainly provides compelling merit for moves, I think that the evidence that solidifies the move the most is how the House Select Committee investigating the attack has chosen the name "January 6" instead of "2021 Attack". The domain name for the committee is january6th.house.gov, and the homepage of the committee's subdomain prominently features not "2021" but "January 6th". The name has proven to be the more common name by far.

Additionally, event names containing years really don't occur unless common consensus supports it. This usually happens when the event was happening over an extended period of time or if there was only one extremely and overly dominant event happening in that year; examples of this phenomenon include stock market crashes and financial downturn like the 2008 Financial Crisis and the Crash of 1929 which incited the Great Depression, or laws which have their name in it like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many more events which have a date listed in the name use the day and/or month and not the year if the event does not happen over a more extended period of time. This happens all across history; take a look at the October Revolution in Russia, the St. Valentines Day Massacre from the Al Capone era, France's September Massacres, of course the attacks of September 11th, the Tiananmen Square Protests (which very often are called the June Fourth Incident or 6/4 and don't usually include the year because there was only one major recent Tiananment Square protest), the August Coup in the Soviet Union, and too many others to mention.

It has also been suggested to move this and its daughter articles to January 6, 2021 United States Capitol Attack, which I would not be opposed to as a middle ground, though I could see why people think the title of the article would be a little bit too long. If push comes to shove, January 6th has proven to become the most common name for the incident, and history books are far more likely to use the date of January 6th as the name rather than the current title of the article. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not a vote (I'll consider this more before I do, but I'm changing "Capitol Attack" to "Capitol attack" in your nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• I changed the move target for Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack to "Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack". It's unrelated to discussion to date but I think it's uncontroversial given the current state of those proceedings. If anyone disagrees please let me know and I can self-rv. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Putting day before month is more common internationally. See date format by country. So I would recommend "6 January 2021 United States Capitol attack", with no comma needed, except that our guidelines say otherwise. Whatever we do, I support keeping the year in the article title. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that the U.S. Capitol attack has strong national ties to the U.S., which uses mdy. We call it "January 6", not "6 January". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Correct. That’s why I simply request that our title retain the year. Also including day and month is fine too. If that makes the title too long then abbreviate “United States”. WP:TITLE says to “avoid ambiguous abbreviations” but “U.S.” is not ambiguous. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. I posed January 6, 2021 US Capitol Attack as a middle ground solution (originally without abbreviation). I knew that the year might have been necessary to include. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removing the year, BUT Support alt proposal of "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack" or "January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack", per reasons listed above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I'd also Support alt proposal of "United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021" to avoid the comma issue. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support alt proposal of "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack" or "January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack", per reasons listed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support January 6 United States Capitol attack. The 2021 makes it clunky. I stand by the claim that this is the COMMONNAME. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  COMMONNAME is based on recognizability: “Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.” If a proposed title begins with “January 6” then that will take care of the recognizability issue regardless of whether the title then adds year info and location info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Current title is sufficiently descriptive and supported in sources. 2601:405:4400:9420:50B5:BD47:2846:F0B (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Comment Could you provide data that shows that the current title is more-used than my proposed title? NHK (a Japanese news source) is the only one I see that does this. Everyone else uses January 6 or a variant of it. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your request is predicated on a misunderstanding of our naming policy. "More-used" is irrelevant; we care if the title is recognizable. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That also is a bad start; there were two attacks on the Capitol in 2021, which we had to add a disambiguation template to the top of the article to separate from this one. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, January 6th is by far a much more recognizable name than the current title. More used in this case more or less equates to more recognizable. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021", to include the "January 6" and avoid the missing MOS:DATECOMMA. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just below MOS:DATE the guideline says, “A comma doesn't follow the year unless otherwise required by context”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  That phrase applies to the day–month–year format. DATECOMMA applies to the month–day–year format. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. Thrakkx (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  I’ve raised the issue just now at the MOS talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You're reading that incorrectly. That's in the context of DMY dates. This is an MDY date, not a DMY date. For MDY dates, it says "A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it". And MOS:DATECOMMA says "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year", and examples are provided:

Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines you cite use the date as a noun. When it’s used as an adjective things are different.[17] Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not say that adjective usage should be treated differently, and Wikipedia has not adopted that other source as governing guidance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Examples are sometimes limiting. Surely you would never think proper a title that says Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, with a comma at the end. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that such a title should not end with a comma. Probably no one has ever argued to interpret the guidelines as saying that it should. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

But the fact no one (including me) has ever argued for it does not prove that your reading of the guideline does not require it. I think your reading does require it, because you decline to consider the guideline’s examples as limiting. Gotta go now, thanks, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Surely you would never think proper a title that says Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, This is a bad faith, literalist interpretation of the guideline. Obviously all titles on Wikipedia do not have ending punctuation. Thrakkx (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support January 6 United States Capitol attack. Strongly oppose January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack as it is way too clunky and is missing a comma after "2021".Thrakkx (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly I agree. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support per Thrakkx. Only "January 6" meets COMMON, and adding the year fails WP:CONCISE. Feoffer (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support "January 6" has become synonymous with the attempted Capitol insurrection, just as 9/11 has with the WTC terrorist attacks. The year is not necessary to include, there are not multiple Jan 6 attacks to differentiate. Zaathras (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose my spot checks of best sources don't match the OP's claims of ubiquity. It appears "January 6" is more common when discussing the congressional investigations, but the hub for AP uses "capitol siege" and "capitol riot" for the actual attacks; Reuters uses "capitol attack"; BBC uses "capitol riots". So I'm not seeing adequate evidence that the existing title is so unrecognizable that a name change is warranted, or any indication that "January 6" will be the more common term for the attack in the future. VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not to sound like a broken record but more used, while not always equating to more recognizable, does equate to it in this case. See this google trends report; between Jan 6, Capitol Attack, Capitol Insurrection, Capitol riot, and capitol siege, Jan 6 is by far and away the most common term. The attacks of Septemnber 11th, 2001, on the WTC and the Pentagon (plus the plane in Shanksville) is an incident that went through a very similar process to this, and 9/11 very quickly became the term that referred to al-Qaeda's acts of terrorism. The date set in.

  Moreover, by changing the name of the insurrection/riots at the capitol, we do not need to disambiguate the January 6th attack away from the April 2021 attack (the present article requires a disambiguation since TWO attacks happened at the capitol in 2021). InvadingInvader (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not to sound like a broken record... don't then. Repeating yourself doesn't make you correct. Common != recognizable, and you haven't demonstrated that this term is even the more common moniker for this subject. "January 6" was more common phrase before the attack, too, so use of GHITS is invalid. This is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Capitol attack" so the disambiguation concern isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  "January 6" was more common phrase before the attack, too, so use of GHITS is invalid. This actually doesn't follow, because we have data going to 2004. It showing a consistent blip of interest each January. Those annual blips are dwarfed by the post 2021 numbers, which are more than quadruple the highest pre-2021 peak. Feoffer (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  It appears "January 6" is more common when discussing the congressional investigations Though you don't mean to, you actually make a good case that adding Jan 6 to the title would support recognizability and consistency. Feoffer (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because the term is used for a different related subject? Riiiight... VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that "Jan 6" being common wrt the committee somehow WEAKENS the case for using it to describe the event under scrutiny? Isn't that like arguing we shouldn't call it the Watergate Scandal because we also have an article on Watergate Committee? Feoffer (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, but by all means keep setting up straw men. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." Everyone of that generation remembered where they were when they heard the news. Similarly, the next generation remembered where they were when John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22nd, 1963, and most people today remember where they were when they heard about the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. This doesn't fall into the same category. Kids who were six years old on January 6, 2000, will not remember where they were when they first heard the news in fifty years time. TFD (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately it's unhelpful to compare/contrast with Dec 7 or Nov 22. Jan 6 as moniker is most common, concise, and recognizable. My support for the proposal is in no way conditioned on any comparisons to America's involuntary entry into a World War. No one could compare the March 15 incident to Pearl Harbor, it's just another case of COMMON. Feoffer (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMON. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support some move. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on what the exact title should be, but it definitely needs to include January 6 in some way given how ubiquitous the term has become in describing the failed insurrection. I would also that including the date and the year seems unnecessary and makes the title clunky (and brings up the whole useless coma debate brought on by the MOS-types). -- Vaulter 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: added Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack and Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 14:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. January 6 seems to be more common and have more currency. On the other hand it is still recent. I don't see a big problem with the current name but I can see the argument to rename as well. Andrevan@ 20:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support Sufficiant evidence from both sides that using the date as a descrption is common. Sometimes it's just called by some media sources as January 6.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I myself searched for "January 6 Capitol riots" or "January 6 Capitol attack" whenever I wanted to learn about this incident. I support all proposals. 103.240.204.158 (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support as this does appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME — Czello 08:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Additional point: See WP:CRYSTALBALL; there is no source that definitively says that this incident will forever be called the 2021 Capitol Attack. Use the most common and recognizable name for the incident today, and that name will somehow include January 6. The debate on whether to call it a riot, insurrection, attack, or protest will continue for a very long time, but all sides agree that it’s called January 6 in some way. To reiterate from my original post, everybody from scholars to infowars calls it January 6th. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any change that removes the year (2021), as this is an important point of reference. Support including Jan. 6 in the titles of the proposed articles, in whatever manner seems most appropriate to most folks. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Use United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, per BarrelProof. We cannot remove the year from this. Every year has a Jan. 6.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Use United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021. Including the year is advisable. So long as "January 6" is somewhere in the title, the title will be very recognizable, and the year helps those people who don't recognize the reference to "January 6". Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Use United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, oppose any move without the year -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment on including the year: I'm personally neutral on including the year; there are arguments in favor of both. The year is important, and especially if a similar attack happens in the near or far future. However, many editors seem to point at including the year as a very clunky title which tries to merge too many terms together into a single name, and there is a large amount of data which supports excluding the year from the scholarly community. However, scholars are not unanimous.

  It's also important to remember the input of the scholarly community, and academic sources I think would resolve the dispute about including the year. So far, Britannica does not even include the day "January 6" in the title of its article on the storming of the Capitol, and per Google Scholar, 41.2K results are found using "2021 Capitol", with a further 25K results coming in for "January 6 2021 Capitol". However, 131K Google Scholar results come in for "January 6" without even including the Capitol in the search box, and that is even limiting only entries published since 2021. I think the academic community has settled on J6 the same way we refer to the attacks including the destruction of the Twin Towers as 9/11, but given it's still relatively recent compared to 9/11, some would argue it would be better if Wikipedians gave scholars more time before assuming consensus.

  This itself has a counterargument though: 2 years and 4 months after the 9/11 attacks, consensus has seemed to develop on popular reference to the attacks as 9/11 and not September 11th. Google Trends sadly doesn't publish data prior to January 2004, but the earliest possible tick mark viewable on Google Trends in this data set shows 9/11 having a score of 9 while September 11th has a score of 6. We're currently about 1 year and 8 months since J6, so to get a better idea of if September 11 or 9/11 was the more common name for the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, I used Google Scholar and put both terms in quotes, looking only for sources published between 1999 and 2003. The data I found for September 11 showed 54K results, while data for "9/11" dwarves the previous set with about 1.45 Million results.

  If push came to shove and I had decide the fate of the article, I would personally use January 6 United States Capitol Attack or a similar title, and wait 7-ish months to see if another major "attack", or series of violent incidents directed at the Capitol or Congress occurs. I'd also give the scholar community more time to write about this, and see if the year becomes more used in titles or references to the event. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposed per WP:CONCISE. There is no reason to put the year, because there are no other January 6th attacks on the capitol that we would be needed to distinguish this topic from. The proposed title is more common and the year should not be included because it is completely superfluous. Red Slash 00:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support: reliable sources by and large use "January 6" to refer to the attack.  Mysterymanblue  00:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Tally so far: Nine editors support as proposed without the year, Six editors propose to add the year in the title but still include Jan 6, two editors oppose any move, and three support including Jan 6 but are neutral or undeterminable in their opinion with regard to the year. I know consensus is not a vote, though I thought it would be helpful for future contributors to the discussion understand where we are right now.

• Most arguments against a year in the title say something along the lines of the title being too clunky with the year and J6's naming is comparable to 9/11 in how we only refer to it as a date and not a year.
• Most arguments in favor of a year in the title say something along the lines of the year being inseparable from the event and confusion with the date January 6 itself and not the event.
• The two arguments against propose the current title is good enough, and that J6 was a common phrase before the storming of the Capitol.
• Regardless of the year, 18 out of 20 participating editors agree on at least including January 6th in some form in the title.

Please correct my math if for some reason I screwed up (which I likely did). InvadingInvader (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. Everybody refers to this as “January 6”, nobody mentions year. We can rename it later, once/if another Capitol attack happens on January 6 another year (which I hope it won’t actually). Stansult (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  So that's the thing, the idea that "everybody" refers to this event as the "Jan. 6 riot/attack/insurrection" or whatever. It's true that US/American media are calling it such, but what about the global context? I'm not sure that an international English speaking audience is going to have much of a reference point for "what this is about" (culturally & historically) without also including the year it happened, for more clarity. Of course it's true this info is in the lede, but I don't see any harm in adding the year to the title of the articles.

  Does anyone know how to get access to stats about Google search terms across multiple countries, to see what the popular terminology is for the Jan. 6 attacks, country by country? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The topic has strong national ties to US so American nomenclature takes precedence. Feoffer (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Feoffer, but if you insist, Google Trends should help; the URL is trends.google.com. After placing your terms in the search bar, you can set the date between countries.

Make sure when you're doing this that you select "search term" and not "topics" in the autocomplete. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check out Google Trends.

Totally understand about American nomenclature taking precedence, but I also see the addition of the year as making the content more accessible to a broader audience etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, so from doing a handful of queries on Google Trends it looks like "January 6" & "Jan 6" are the popular English-language search terms globally. The only countries that had significant statistics for the keywords "US Capitol attack" were Indonesia and Japan. Unsurprisingly, the addition of "2021" in searches was negligible, as nobody is going to be searching for the year of the attack since this happened so recently. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support as proposed (January 6 United States Capitol attack). "January 6" is the common usage in all media and most recognizable among the public (WP:COMMONNAME); it should be included. The year doesn't matter as much, given that this is a very unique, and very much infamous event. If there needs to be a change sometime in the future, there can always be a distinction. I agree with Stansult. Teammm ^talk
  _email 16:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support It hurts to switch to such a long title from the beautifully concise one we have now, and redirects are cheap, but sufficient evidence has been presented in the above discussion (especially the Google Trends graph) to show that Jan 6 is the COMMONNAME. I agree that the year (2021) is a little redundant; in a previous discussion I voted on, it was pointed out that while there was more than one notable attack on the Capitol in 2021, there has only been one such event on Jan 6, making it more than unique enough to identify the subject. My only suggestion is that we abbreviate "United States" to "US" - I haven't checked the policy on this, but it would make the title a lot more concise and readable, while doing nothing to harm uniqueness or identifiability. Toadspike (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would not be opposed to abbreviating the United States down to "US" InvadingInvader (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's been about a week since I proposed the move, and most editors since my tally are preferring to move as proposed. Is it time that we close the discussion and proceed with the move? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader: it'll automatically list at WP:RME shortly. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Do not rush MOVE requests, give it a 3-week minimum. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Relist comment There is an apparent consensus so far to add January 6, but there is still no consensus on any other relevant issue in this RM, like whether to include the year or whether to put the date in the beginning or end of the title. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposed name is hanging on current on-going investigations of House Committee which happens to be dominating the current US news. Cuts too close to WP:RECENTISM. No indication this name will last, nor that it is used outside of the US. I'd rather wait and see before making such a dramatic title change on the basis of a news spike. Walrasiad (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I personally think that we have waited long enough, and the evidence myself and others have provided has shown that over time, January 6 has become the most common name. Jan 6 is also the most recognizable name as nearly every group has settled upon it. See the Google Trends reports especially (which can include Google Searches for regions outside of the United States once properly configured); January 6 and its variations like J6, 1/6, or Jan 6 are much more popular than other terms. The proposed name doesn't hang onto the House Committee and investigations if every source from the mainstream media to Google Scholar results refer to the events as Jan 6 in a more prominent manner. While I don't think it is necessary, I would not actively oppose the creation of an article outlining different names for the January 6th Attack, similar to how we have an article detailing the different names of the Islamic State, or incorporating a similar section or set of Efn's into this article.

  Until a more popular and recognizable name for the events that took place at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 becomes present, January 6 should be in the title. It doesn't take too long for a common name to be the name of an event. With regard to the attacks of September 11, see these Google Scholar results for "9/11" from 2001 to 2002, and these Google Scholar results for "September 11" in the same time period. 9/11 gained nearly 100,000 more hits than September 11 when it came to scholarly articles. The difference is even more stark with Google Scholar results for the attack on the Capitol since 2021; 10,500 Results exist when searching for the article's current title, while while 174,000 results exist for searching for January 6. Searching for "January 6 Capitol" produces 15,800 results, which is still more than "2021 United States Capitol Attack" on Google Scholar. Keep in mind all of these searches only include results published since January 1, 2021.

  This is a case where the evidence suggests that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZE would overrule WP:RECENTISM. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere close to a comparable case. 9/11 took up that name within 24-48 hours, largely because news organizations, commentators, etc. could not find another name to refer to it. It was not quite a bombing, not just on WTC, not only in New York, etc. and so opted to refer to "events of September 11" for lack of a suitable descriptive name. This has not had a comparable struggle. This was one event, in one city, involving one edifice. Everyone referred to it as the Capitol attack or insurrection in some form, next to nobody used the date. We maintained this title fine for a year. Practically nobody used or thought of using the date for name until the House Committee a year later adopted the date name for the committee. It is telling that the proposed title is NOT proposing to rename the article "January 6 event" but still contains "Capitol attack" in the title. It just reinforces that the current title is WP:PRECISE, and adding "January 6" is an extraneous and irrelevant addition. It is needlessly expanding the title and does not improve recognizability. This "January 6" name is not likely to have any more lasting power than than "November 22". Sure, the date may remain (weakly) in the political memory of Americans, but it is certainly never going to displace or substitute the actual description of the event, both over time, and certainly over place. Certainly no more than "November 22" displaced "JFK assassination" as descriptor. This proposal is just adding extra words and improving nothing. It is just trying jump on a frankly temporary news spike in the US political news cycle. Walrasiad (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

9/11 comparison/contrasts are unhelpful. No one could compare the March 15 incident to 9/11, you could never compare the March 24 strike to Pearl Harbor, and nobody would liken the March 3 affair to the Kennedy assassination. Those are all just boring, banal cases of COMMON, and so is this. Feoffer (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are awful uninformative titles and should be changed. Walrasiad (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZE link the same section in the same policy, which is about recognizability. It hasn't even been demonstrated that this proposed name is the most common, let alone that any of the proposed formulations are any more or less recognizable than the status quo title. Articles about the attack will generally include the date "January 6" whether or not they use that as the name of the attack. Your Google searches are therefore flawed. As I noted in my !vote, there are numerous news organizations that primarily use "attack" or other formulations as their main term for the attack; the examples in the nom of the inverse are just that: cherry-picked examples. More generally, you've contributed more words to this discussion thread than all other participants combined. It's probably time to sit back and quit replying to every !vote. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  No indication this name... is used outside of the US. This objection tells us you haven't read the thread; The title is used outside the US and it wouldn't matter if it wasn't. No reason to wait. Feoffer (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nearly every country has some groundbreaking political event which its popular press likes to refer to by date. That doesn't mean it is suitable for Wikipedia, which has a global audience. Just recently I was involved in an RM to prevent retitling a Romanian coup as the "23 of August coup" -- certainly well-known to Romanians by that name, but not to Wikipedia readers from other countries. Is there a reason US political dates should be assumed to be universally recognizable but Romanian political dates not? Smacks of WP:BIAS. Keep the audience in mind. We serve Wikipedia readers, not ourselves, and Wikipedia readers come from all over. Walrasiad (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason US political dates should be assumed to be... recognizable but Romanian political dates not? Other stuff exists, but you pick a strange comparison -- obviously US events are likely to be more recognizable to an English speaking audience and Romanian events are going to be more recognizable to readers over at RoWiki. Feoffer (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Not all English-speakers are Americans. Indeed, the English-speaking Wikipedia has probably a greater share of foreign readers than probably any other Wiki. It is not about the language, it is about the assumed knowledge of a global audience. Very few would recognize "January 6", but they would have heard of the attack on the US Capitol. It is an informative title. Just like "1944 Romanian coup" is more informative than "23 of August coup".

That the proposal is retaining "US Capitol attack" in the title is proof positive that this is an extraneous and unnecessary addition. It serves no useful purpose to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support for all Like the September 11 attacks article, WP:COMMONNAME refers to last year's Capitol Hill riots as the January 6 United States Capitol attack, as proposed here. 9March2019 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - as such an attack on the US Capitol, hasn't occurred in any other year. GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  User:GoodDay, there have been a lot of attacks and the like upon the Capitol per Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol. Many of them were very different from this one, but a lot of them quite similar. See the riot in 1861 for example, when the U.S. military actually did their job. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Be sure to name that other incident 1861 United States Capitol attack. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  The word “attack” is used 33 times at Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol. Anyway, have a good day! 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support owing to Wikipedia having an article on an April 2021 event at the Capitol that is also characterized an attack. Although this is the primary event of this nature, and as such is unlikely to be be confused for something else, I would say disambiguating will make it easier to locate the April article. I would suggest a disambiguation page to both articles be left under this namespace, however as opposed to making this a redirect to January 6. 23skidoo (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - January 6 is starting to become a WP:COMMONNAME for this event now. Love of Corey (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - It is abundantly clear that January 6 is a WP:COMMONNAME. Adding the year in addition to "January 6" (as mentioned above) is not only less WP:CONCISE, it isn't even needed for disambiguation (there is no other US capitol attack that occurred on Jan 6 of any other year). ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 06:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Template names

Should Template:2021 US Capitol attack be moved to Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack, per January 6 United States Capitol attack? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Just remembering we have Template:2021 United States Capitol attack as well... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have moved both templates to Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox and Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar respectively to differentiate the templates at first glance. – robertsky (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Better Picture of rioters in the chamber.

Is a better photo of the Rioters inside the Senate chamber available for use? The current one clearly shows the "copy video address" option from when your right click a twitter video. ConallC (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Deaths Correction

It is not legitimate to say that 3 deaths ruled national causes were related to the incident on Jan 6th. There is no evidence these death were related to this. It is also not legitimate to say a death that occurred pior to the incident was caused by the incident. 2603:6082:2240:25:F0B6:7CB7:3599:30A (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

What the hell are "national causes"? I assume you mean "natural causes". How do you expect to be taken seriously?

JustinTime55 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well its a simple spelling mistake, but yeah "natural causes" aren't really a death caused by the 6th attacks.

RoseWaterSkies (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The cited sources count for more than one's opinion. Zaathras (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Judge rules Insurrection

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/judge-removes-couy-griffin-from-office-for-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/ Judge rules to be an insurrection. Change name to January 6 United States Insurrection. 64.53.212.155 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No. This ruling is not definitive. This is one judge's opinion in one civil case, and it will almost certainly be appealed. We would only change the name to "insurrection" if it became a commonly used name by Reliable Source. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Insurrection is typically reserved for well planned violent uprisings, often including heavily armed militias. Nat Turner, The Bastille, Shay's Rebellion come to mind. 67.239.148.2 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Name is fine the way it is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

change

The ninth hearing was moved to October 13.

to

The ninth hearing was held on October 13. 67.185.21.25 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Sentence source is for a delay of the hearing and not the hearing being held. Due to the controversy of this topic I don't feel comfortable cutting a source in an edit request, so just gonna leave that sentence as is. As I'm reviewing this 14 days late the article now has and ended with a vote to subpoena Trump immediately following it, so it is properly communicated to the reader that the ninth hearing was held. —Sirdog (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Size of mob, police force, congressional staff

Information still lacking in article -

• Size of the mob at the Capitol
• Number of Congressional staff inside
• Size of police force

MBUSHIstory (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this is pertinent information. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, so lets see some numbers. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was saying. Being that this is pertinent info, we should see the numbers. To get to the first point--the size of the mob at the Capitol--approximately 10,000 came onto the grounds of the Capitol, but at least 2,000 of those people actually made it inside. Here is the source for that info: https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

I hope we can get around to the other two points soon, as I have stated earlier, is pertinent (and useful) info. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

We already say how many rioters there were. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What I just said went into more detail. Something else I would personally like to know is how many people were at the preceding rally so we can get an idea of how many went from the rally to the Capitol compared to how many people just left after the rally concluded. Beyond my personal thoughts, being that we got the first one down (we didn't state in the article how many rioters were on the grounds, but how many entered the building), I think we can focus on the last two, being the number of Congressional staff inside as well as the size of the police force. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Trumps insurrection?

Trump never asked for this to happen. He stated over and over not to be violent. He said to protest peacefully if they were going to protest. If you can show one instance of Trump saying "We need to forcefully change the results of the election with a riot" or anything similar to that, then ill sit down and be quiet. 97.113.112.155 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

We do not need to, we just need to show RS said it, they have. Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Funny you don't mention he also said to "fight like hell". 🤔 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

(yawns) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Important notes you missed...

1) The leader of the group that went inside the building was nancy pelosi's son in law. He was the guy wearing horns. 2) The cops opened the barricades and the doors to the building for protesters to enter, they didnt barge through barricades. 3) The fact you refuse to remove the "false" out of "Trumps false claim the election was stolen" just because you dont feel comfortable removing a source from the article says alot about the bias the moderators have here. 97.113.112.155 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In terms of point number one, I think you mean Jake Angeli, and it might be worth perusing that article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi's son in law is Michiel Vos. He was reporting from within the riot for Dutch television channel RTL 4’s talk show, according to the Associated Press. 73.162.157.101 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Lolololol. The disinformation is strong with this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

sigh... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dishonest reporting.

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

---

Your article is biased by the left leaning influence of your overlords. The PEOPLE of this country know what the truth is and be warned WE THE PEOPLE have had all we will stand for and your days are numbered. 2600:8803:A03:4700:E0D3:201:6ECB:A495 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Your post doesn't state what you want done. Please state what you wish to be changed about the article LordEnma8 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

So what are your complaints about the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Which country? This is an international project? Finton the magical salmon (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a threat? This feels like a threat. BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Requested move 14 November 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, speedy closing per WP:SNOW. No such user (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

---

January 6 United States Capitol attack → January 6th United States Capitol attack – the TH seems important to me - this is how people actually speak of it, "sixth" not "six". Previous moves I believe were:

1. 6 Jan 2021 from January 2021 United States Capitol protests to 2021 United States Capitol protests
2. 7 Jan 2021 from 2021 United States Capitol protests to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
3. 9 August 2021 from 2021 storming of the United States Capitol to 2021 United States Capitol attack
4. 12 Aug 2022 from 2021 United States Capitol attack to January 6 United States Capitol attack

In parlance a "th" is more common than a comma, and sometimes you even see both, but "-th" is phonetic and just how people speak/write. HearthHOTS (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. We don't use ordinals in dates per MOS:BADDATE. VQuakr (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:VQuakr, and possibly WP:SNOW-close. We don't use ordinals in dates per MOS:BADDATE. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - You may say "January 6th" but this article is written, and when written it's January 6, as shown by the reliable sources in the article (Example: [18][19]). How it's said has no bearing on how it's written. Reliable sources support "January 6" over the proposed "January 6th" and that's before we even get to MOS:BADDATE. - Aoidh (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's not needed, we don't need to add a "th". The article name is perfectly fine already, we do not need to change it. BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a move to that particular name. the "th" is unneeded. Additionally, out of keeping with the convention applied to September 11 attacks. SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is indeed usually pronounce "January 6th" but it is usually written "January 6". Rreagan007 (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. It isn't needed at all. I agree with the top reply. RossoSPC (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Article seems a bit biased?

dead, baseless thread Dronebogus (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgable about US politics (I'm not from the US) but some of the wording seems to me unrelated or skewed to make Trump look as bad as possible. I will refer to the beginning section: • "Called to action by Trump," (referring to the capitol attack) - The Wikipedia article cites two news articles - one from the New York Times, and one from Business Insider. Both articles refer to a tweet by Trump: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th, Be there, will be wild!". I am dumbfounded as the Wikipedia line implies that by tweeting those lines Trump directly told protestors to breach into the capitol. A politician rallying supporters up to protest is nothing new, how come that is any different? Additionally, the claim that Trump instigated the attack should be treated as an opinion, not concrete facts (since it's political analysis), and thus referred to as such: maybe something along the lines of "[Political analysts] say that Trump instigated the attack" with accompanying sources. • "...to support his false claim that the 2020 election had been "stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats" - I don't want to delve into the claims too much but calling them outright false is misleading. It has never been proven, but we don't know for sure. It would be more accurate and better to call them "unproven" or "unsubstantiated". • "and said "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.", In his hour-long speech Trump included 22 grammatical variations of the word "fight"." - This information is pretty much irrelevant and only serves to cast Trump in a bad light. The only real justification of including it is to show that Trump did incite the mob to violently breach into the capital, but the word "fight" has been used in political discourse rhetoric for ages (e.g. "Obama fought against Romney in the 2008 elections", "Fighting for Women's rights"), it doesn't exclusively mean fight in the sense of violence (e.g. "Biden fought off the Coronavirus"). It is, most frankly, a blatant skewing of Trump's words in order to make him look as if he directly instigated the attack. Incidentally, in the same speech Trump said: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (my italics) [source], this directly contradicts the previous point but its not mentioned in the paragraph. • "Trump resisted sending the National Guard to quell the mob." - This statement cites only one source and is a gross skewing of what we know happened - We know that it was Mike Pence who (allegedly) ordered the National Guard to quell the mob, not Trump. We can't exactly know from that that Trump resisted quelling the mob. And that's only from the opening paragraph. I don't say this as a Trump supporter (which I am not anyways, not that it should matter), but rather as a supporter of an unbiased Wikipedia with no political influences. It is not to say that Trump didn't do anything wrong - far from it, I simply wish that the articles would be more reliable as an independent source rather than a mouthpiece for whoever can edit the article most subtly. Thanks lads. BonkeySmoke (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC) There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Books, news reports, analysis, and Congressional testimony. The article is not biased. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC) To address one point, The claim the election was stolen has been tested in the courts, and no evidence was produced that past scrutiny. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC) True. Seems a joke to me and gives wings to attack globalism. Even nonsense logic: Pence WAS the judge in aproving the election but seems irrelevant or false to wiki. Curious. JKim (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC) If anything, the Senate in general is the "judge," and the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate) is relegated to ceremonial envelope opener, though he might have more discretion where multiple ballots are received from a given state. 3 USC §15. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Many conservatives view "stolen" as meaning the media and social media silenced voices prior to the election, to the benefit of the Democrats. I read today that CBS finally admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't, in fact, Russian disinformation (and supported in a letter by 50 US security experts). Had US voters known this before the election, Trump likely would have won. The expansion of mail-in ballots--which favors Democrats--is another example. There are many more. It's naive and misleading to keep falling back on the "conspiracy" stuff to console each other that the election wasn't "stolen" in the broader sense. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Would you agree with me that had James Comey not announced the re-opening of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation on October 28, 2016, the results of that election might have been different? Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Muboshgu, my reasoning for 1 was that telling people to fight was already said in the lead. I think it is trivial that he used 20 grammatical variations of the word "fight". My reasoning for 2 was that the article cited does not make any connection between the suicides and the Capitol attack. It loosely describes them in a sorta-kinda connected way, and it seems to suggest so, but it does not make that connection. Maybe some other article explains it better, but this one doesn't, so I deleted the whole phrase. Cessaune (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(1) Pointing out that he said a variation of "fight" 20 times is important because Trump and his defenders focus on the one line in his speech, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Analysis on his word choices is everywhere. (2) Here's an article about one of the suicides being ruled in the line of duty. Reliable sources make the connection between the suicides and their participation in defending the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Only on the matter of item (1), it seems more relevant to the body than the lead; that level of detail seems excessive for the lead, also, Wikipedia articles are not written to correct Trump defenders misconceptions. It may be a relevant analysis for the body of the article provided that reliable sources have noted the situation, but it does stand out as excessively detailed for a lead section. --Jayron32 18:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"January 6 movement" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect January 6 movement and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#January 6 movement until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Stewart Rhodes

Stub at Stewart Rhodes. He's in the news today so expect some activity / edit conflicts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Trump riots" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Trump riots and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 2#Trump riots until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bodycam video taken at US Capitol, January 6, 2021.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Please review.

This hasn't been proven as true or false yet, as it is currently being investigated by a congregational committee. To pre-publish this as fact before a judgment has been issued is an attack on every person in conflict of this obviously bias view! 66.11.105.158 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. There are plenty of people who have been convicted in relation to this attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, the congressional committee already issued its final report, which you can read.[20] Andre🚐 20:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it described as an attack?

Scholarhistorians universally describe it as a siege. It should be changed to that. 185.200.236.234 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Provide sources for this assertion? Zaathras (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about universal but here are a couple [21] [22] Enough for a redirect maybe (which there already is: capitol siege). Andre🚐 20:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Baloney... those references are NOT "scholarhistorians" [sic] but reflect the word choice of AP and NPR headline editors. We should rely far more on the words of the working stiffs who write the articles than the cheerleaders who write sensational headlines to drive click statistics.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Deaths

Why are 3 deaths from natural causes and 4 officer suicides months after the riot took place included in the death statistics, exactly? I'm not sure on the details regarding the '3 deaths from natural causes' during the riot itself, however including the suicides of several officers who happened to have been involved in policing the situation seems slightly ridiculous. No? 92.1.128.119 (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Scratch that. 2 of the officer suicides at least clearly seem to have been heavily influenced by the events of the riot. The other 2 don't seem to have much detail linking them to the riot other than the fact the officers were involved in the situation. 92.1.128.119 (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

They're all clearly because of Jan 6. Those people weren't just going to commit suicide anyway. They experienced a horrific trauma. Andre🚐 20:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as a guy who has fought his own suicidal ideation for decades.... you don't have a clue where the victims' minds were at prior to the events of Jan 6 and neither do I. Maybe their lives were ideal and then Jan 6 happened, and maybe they were already at the brink and Jan 6 was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. I doubt RSs will ever resolve this question either way. Although I support mentioning these deaths, we should take great care in how we describe them, viz-a-viz how we attribute the motivation behind their unfortunate choices. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lies

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

---

There is liberal bias in this article. It is liberal bias. Wikipedia has become the worst website on the internet. 2600:1005:B166:F09D:9C73:B931:52A9:91A2 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then why are you here? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This is why no one donates to Wikipedia. They look so pathetic when they ask for money! And then they have clowns running the edits on here. 128.253.57.28 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You're bad at your job, Dumuzid! Back to the circus 128.253.57.28 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, @128.253.57.28. I have a RIGHT to be here, Dumuzid. Fuck you and fuck Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be dead soon anyways. 2600:1005:B166:F09D:9C73:B931:52A9:91A2 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I am mediocre at my job, not bad. But Wikipedia is a hobby! And everyone has a right to be here (blocks and such aside), but if it makes you unpleasant and vulgar, it might be best to go elsewhere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for being disrespectful, Dumuzid. Please forgive me. 2600:1005:B166:F09D:9C73:B931:52A9:91A2 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I still welcome here? 2600:1005:B166:F09D:9C73:B931:52A9:91A2 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your snide, condescending attitude towards those with differing opinions makes me unpleasant. 128.253.57.28 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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

January 6th

January 6th was not a terrorist attack it was an attack by the Democrats Nancy pelosi and others to set up Donald Trump and his supporters. Emails have shown this to be fact 72.51.229.210 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I will treat this as a real question, do we say it was a terrorist attack? Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A better question would be, is "terrorist attack" the most politically neutral description of these events? 128.253.57.28 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please show us those emails that prove this was a set up by Nancy Pelosi. We'll wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lies

I have never read so many lies printed Everything about Wikipedia version of the Jan 6th event is liberal based slander with no historical value and so full of hate. Wikipedia has lost any credit and should never be taken as fact and should be viewed as opinion of the liberal left and their anti American anti freedom pro socialist pro blm pro alphabets Wow Wikipedia you are the worse 2600:1014:B1E8:C78:0:2A:9AA:1201 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please visit my user page. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Useless response, clown! 128.253.57.28 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This article has a heavy liberal slant.

Indeed. Opening with this event being labeled "terrorist attack" is not only ridiculous, but it's also untruthful. It was a riot for sure, but it wasn't a terrorist attack. Labeling it so disingenuous and completely inaccurate. It's lines like this that make Wikipedia an untrustworthy source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.201.191 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen the numerous other discussions on this topic, all Wikipedia does is say what other sources are saying. It's described as a terrorist attack in sources, so that's what we say. — Czello 21:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Antifa

Jan 6 capitol attacks by Antifa 71.115.143.173 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I am fascinated by the thought that Donald Trump wants to issue pardons and apologize to Antifa. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Liesp

Why don't you publish the real Truth that happened on Jan 6th? There's emails of Nancy Pelosi setting everything up for their staged attack. Why don't you tell the Truth? 174.240.67.3 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no emails of Nancy Pelosi setting everything up for their staged attack soibangla (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There's video of Pelosi and Schumer scared shitless trying to call the police, the national guard, the army, or ANYONE to stop the insane protestors from vandalizing the Capitol. Andre🚐 20:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Source? (For all of the above) Huntertheediter (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Huntertheediter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/18/republican-steve-scalise-capitol-attack-jan-6 EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Evergreenfir Thanks. Huntertheediter (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

The expression “boogaloo movement” should perhaps be capitalized (“Boogaloo Movement”) but should definitely be linked to its Wikipedia page explaining the meaning of this term.

At first glance I thought this was someone’s un-clever vandalism of the January 6 page, and that “boogaloo” was a mockingly edited substitution for some likely-more-serious-sounding word. 2600:387:C:6E1A:0:0:0:8 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per boogaloo movement, it seems like it's uncapitalized. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023 (2)

“The Freedom Plaza rallies were held at the northwest corner of 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, just west of the White House.“

This location described is apparently just east of the White House, not west.

) 2600:387:C:6E1A:0:0:0:8 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka I know Google Maps isn't really reliable, but 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue is indeed east of the White House. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I just went and fixed it. 14th Street runs east of the White House. --Jayron32 13:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

None of these claims are based in actual facts

Facts are what history is written from. The statements herein are not based upon any proven facts. Just because someone published a story in a syndicated newspaper doesn’t make it a fact. Thousands of people were present and do not substantiate these baseless claims. 24.237.158.238 (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What claims are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

over half the claims in most Articals that have to do with last President are false and made up, by the writer of the report are slanted only to the right's agenda Huberthhayes (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

---

January 6 United States Capitol attack → 2021 United States Capitol attack – As there was only one (major) U.S. Capitol attack in 2021, this name would line up better with 2019 South Korean Capitol attack, 2022 German coup d'état plot and 2023 storming of the Brazilian Congress [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 20:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, consistency is welcome but it's not policy. Following reliable sources is, though. Even with the example of the ongoing invasion of Brazilian federal institutions, media outlets refer to the event as "January 6" or, in the case of Euronews, "January 6, 2021 [United States] Capitol attack".

There was only one major incident with terrorists hijacking airplanes and deliberately crashing them into skyscrapers in 2001 but we don't call this event "2001 United States terrorist hijacking of airplanes" or "2001 New York City terrorist airplane attacks". For good reason, the article title is "September 11 attacks" or 9/11 for short.

Disclaimer. I made a move request to change the article title from the one proposed here to the version with "January 6". It did not pass back then, but the next move request along the same lines succeeded. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It's the common name and the US government called the committee investigating it the "January 6 Committee"

🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as per above. Silikonz (alt)💬 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, J6 is COMMON. Seems likely this will be SNOW situation. Feoffer (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: January 6 is the obvious WP:COMMONNAME for this event, not only in media, but by the government itself. This was determined in a previous move discussion and is even more obvious today. BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose "January 6" and "J6" have become highly-common shorthand for this event. SecretName101 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – While "2021" is correct, "January 6" is the common name of the event as seen in both secondary and government sources. The comparison made by Szmenderowiecki is a good example—we use "September 11" instead of "2001". DecafPotato (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "January 6" is the most common way that it's referred to, just like September 11 attacks. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - as per above Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

'Extremely strong Oppose. Very likely a SNOW close, and if not, J6 is by far and away the most common name. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Neutral

OP was indeffed EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The point of view is still far left , not Bias at all, Use more Facts not reports from Media Huberthhayes (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Most US Gov. reports are far left. find other sources, look from all sides never report anything without putting all points of view. Let the reader choose thier own meanings to what is written..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huberthhayes (talk • contribs) 05:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC) This article neutrally reflects reliable sources about the event. Present other sources that you have. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC) despite what you have copied from some report, Trump wanted to have the National Guard at the Capital but the request was removed by Nancy Pelosi as she said they were not needed Huberthhayes (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC) In Trump’s words: “I requested … I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, and [said] I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready. They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.” Huberthhayes (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC) @Huberthhayes Please provide reliable sources. The idea that Pelosi rejected National Guard is rated FALSE by PolitiFact EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC) PolitiFact EvergreenFir your company is set to far left agenda, therefore do not fix anything I say. we do not fact check fact checkers, (Personal attack removed) Huberthhayes (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+10%2C+000+national+guard. Moreover, the committee said that when he referenced so many troops, it was not because he wanted to protect the Capitol. He "floated the idea of having 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by left-wing counterprotesters," the report said. [23] soibangla (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Try this and watch this video for some truth..... https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.html Huberthhayes (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC) WP:EPOCHTIMES soibangla (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Where I come from We do not make up stories , we do not believe stories told to us, and/or read stories that are written without looking into all stories to get the big picture. Most stories coming from the US Media are leftest or politically involved Democrat. BS writers for one agenda. Huberthhayes (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Where we come from, Epoch Times is an unreliable source "that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact." Do you have something else, like, Gateway Pundit? soibangla (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC) As for that list who's opinion was it written by. for if it were my list , CBS NBC ABC MSNBC CNN would be labeled as good entertainment Huberthhayes (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Please read wp:rs and wp:rsp. If you disagree with how we define RS take it to wp:rsn. We can't make edits based on your wp:or. All arguments must be wp:policy based. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes needed.

It is not January 6th, 2022 and now January 6th, 2023. I would like there to be an accurate change from 24 months ago to 2 years ago. 2601:CF:8200:1530:8882:AAE5:4C2B:4FCC (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

24 months and 2 years are... the same thing? — Czello 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just curious, why are we writing the elapsed time anyways? Presumably, people know what day today is, and can do that math if they need to... --Jayron32 13:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Other articles do seem do something similar for singular events, such as 9/11. That said, it's probably not essential. — Czello 13:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That other articles can be found that also do the wrong thing is not a reason for this one to do the wrong thing too... --Jayron32 13:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Brazil follows US footsteps

I'm not entirely sure if this belongs here, but The Guardian, Politico and Rzeczpospolita suggest that the 2023 storming of the Brazilian Congress was compared to Jan 6. Same in Brazilian media, O Globo being the largest outlet. Should we add this somewhere? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

they are reliable sources, agreed! 98.59.80.64 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible improvement to the article's infobox

I believe the infobox would benefit from adding a "parties to the civil conflict" section. The "2022 German coup attempt" article has such a section even though no actual physical engagements occurred, while this insurrection had a whole mob storm a government building and try to overturn election results, much more than a simple protest or plot. 108.46.168.9 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. The "parties to..." section is IMHO not really useful except in cases where there is likely to be come confusion due to a complex situation. There's no confusion as to the parties of this conflict, and it likely also doesn't really add anything useful to the German coup attempt article, but that's not really appropriate to discuss here. Nothing of value gets added by using that bit here. --Jayron32 14:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, even articles which are pretty straightforward about their situation include a "parties to..." section. See for example, the article on the Football War of 1969 between Honduras and El Salvador. It's a pretty brief and not too complicated conflict with two parties, yet despite this it still retains the infobox display we are talking about. In fact, from what I have seen nearly every single conflict or violent engagement on Wikipedia seems to have this.

  In short, while it may already reiterate information presented in the article, I'd strongly support its addition both for consistency, formality, and aesthetic purposes. It shouldn't be too difficult to lay out either, with perhaps Trumpists and right-wing militias in one column and Government of the US, Capitol police, and the National Guard on the other. 108.46.168.9 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@108.46.168.9 I'll bite..... suppose (hypothetically) we did include a "Parties to" section. What do you propose it should say? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I propose two columns: in the first, "Government of the United States", followed by "Capitol Police", "DC National Guard", and "FBI"; in the second, "Pro-Trump rioters" followed by "American far-right groups and militias" (under here would be bulletpointed "Oath Keepers", "Proud Boys", "Three Percenters", and "QAnon movement"). I think this effectively gets the "belligerents" laid out, but I'm open to suggestions of potentially higher quality. 108.46.168.9 (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The infobox was recently changed to "5 deaths from the attack." It had been "5 deaths during the attack." Both are incorrect. The number of deaths from the attack is 4. Can we get that corrected? (The death inappropriately tied to the attack is the death of Brian Sicknick, a Capitol police officer who died by stroke on January 7, 2021.) 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit

User:Muboshgu, you reverted my edit, and said this: The title literally says "Four officers who responded to U.S. Capitol attack have died by suicide". Yes, that is true, however, the fact that four officers who responded to the capital attack died by suicide—where is the connection? Did they commit suicide due to the capitol attack, or in spite of it? Based on my reading of the article, claiming that they did is WP:SYNTH. Cessaune (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The connection is that four officers who responded to the U.S. Capitol attack died by suicide within the next several months, as noted by the reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH means We (as in editors here) can't draw inferences, this does not apply to wp:rs who are allowed to. The claim is sourced to RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the source and tell me whether it states that the suicides are directly connected to the capitol attack. Cessaune (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course articles can report synthesis that is reliably sourced, otherwise it would be impossible to write articles. The problem here is that the synthesis is implicit rather than explicit. We should use a source that explains what if any connection there is between 1/6 and the suicides and the degree of confidence there is in the connection. TFD (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

But the source doesn't make a connection between the suicides and the capitol attack. Cessaune (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does, by noting that four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide over the next several months. Reuters did not say that this was the reason for their suicides, and neither does our article. If the officers left suicide notes, or ever stated a reason for their suicides, I am not aware, and we have not inferred. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is that notable on its own, without it being tied to the capitol attack? Cessaune (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The source makes an implicit connection. It implies that the events were contributing factors in the suicides. While there is no policy I know of that prevents us from repeating implicit synthesis, I think that the WP:NEWSORG section of RS stops us from using any conclusions as facts unless stated by experts.

Note that the deaths section of the info-box includes these suicides. Are we going to add to the list each time a person who attended the demonstration dies? How meaningful would the number be in 100 years time? TFD (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

so remove the statment about the officer's commiting suicides, because this has not to do with Jan. 6th incident Huberthhayes (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A spokesman for the USCP says “media reports regarding the death of a United States Capitol Police officer are not accurate. Although some officers were injured and hospitalized yesterday, no USCP officers have passed away.” Huberthhayes (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This [[24]] says one of them died in the line of duty. This [[25]] says the deaths were connected to the Jan 6th riot. What with the other sources in the article, this is enough to say the suicides are linked. Slatersteven (talk)

Thank you. Should we replace the citation in the lead, as it doesn't really give that much information? Cessaune (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)