Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 22

mock gallows

The adjective "mock" should be replaced with "small". It would be very easy to hang and kill Mike Pence on the small gallows erected. Saying you have to call it "mock" because they wrote "this is art" on it is like saying you have to let bank robbers go if they write "this is art" on their guns.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen it? Mike Pence is not 3 feet tall.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-450/11695508e/2bbfb3cc/trump-loyalists-breach-the-capital-during-electoral-college-certification-washington-dc-usa-shutterstock-editorial-11695508e.jpg

Do you understand how a gallows works? You don't hang someone from the platform, you tie their feet and push their feet off the front of the platform or open a trap door. In your picture the guy with the noose around his neck has his knees at the same height as the the heads of the people in the crowd, that means the noose is plenty high to kill someone.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
This has been discussed thoroughly. See Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 16#Mock Gallows. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
You do understand it looks like it could barely take the weight of a man, as well as its small size? And as said above, this has been discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

https://i.insider.com/5ff630ce6d61c10019cce091?width=1136&format=jpeg

No trap door.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Read through the archives. It was designed to send a message, not for practical use. TFD (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Recent reporting including interviews with some of the insurrectionists suggests that had they caught him, he would certainly have been killed, by whatever means. Pummeled, slashed or shish-kebabbed. See today's interview with Michael C. Bender, author of a new book on 2020-21 Trump matters. [1] SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
No doubt some would have, but we still need to take care. We should try and not be fake news.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Did he say that they planned to use the gallows for this purpose? I have never heard of a gallows used in a political assassination. It would make a great movie to have Secret Service agents looking out for people carrying gallows. TFD (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
The gallows people would have used the gallows, the spear carriers would have used spears, the knife weilders would have used knives, and the hand to hand guys would just have pummeled. Anyway, the gallows was not a "mock" gallows. Whether it would have stood up under the weight of Pence's office will never be known. We have no evidence that the inscritption "this is art" was written by the proprietor of the gallows. Sometimes a gallows is just a gallows. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Your theory has not been reported in any reliable sources. You should be careful as well about making accusations against people, even if at this point their identities are unknown. The problem with your theory isn't just that the structure was too rickety to hold the weight of a human body, but that it wasn't high enough. Since an adult who fell off the platform would be standing on the ground, it would not be an effective execution procedure. TFD (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I cited the source of "my" theory. Others are easily found [2]. Yours sounds like pure OR. SPECIFICO talk 04:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your source merely says that rioters intended to "capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government." The quote is taken from a brief in support of detention (pg 15, ln 18).[3] Neither source says the gallows were intended for this use. Furthermore, the Justice Department quickly removed the claim that anyone intended to assassinate government officials. (See "US takes back its assertion that Capitol rioters wanted to 'capture and assassinate' officials," (CNN, 15 January 2021, published five hours after your source.) TFD (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

What a difference a day makes. Testimony from Capitol police: "If, especially with the razor-thin margins on Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, if any single one person was kidnapped or killed - which I had no doubt in my mind is what they intended - that would affect the outcome of legislation and all your duties for years to come." (Gallows are still being described as 'mock' though) Feoffer (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The facts are that most reliable sources do NOT list the small gallows as "mock", and the word mock was added here by POV-pushing spin doctors. None of us know if the gallows could have killed someone or not, but we know from the pictures it is high enough off the ground to kill someone. We need to remove the POV-pushing adjectives and start using the reliable sources.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. If nothing else, it would show that you do not jump to conclusions without evidence. Articles do not necessarily use the exact wording of sources, but they must report the exact meaning. None of the sources claim the gallows were functioning and imply they were not. See for example "Decoding the hate symbols seen at the Capitol insurrection." (Kristen Romey, National Geographic, January 12, 2001.)

"When the insurrectionists came at the Capitol, they came with symbols.
"Some were immediately identifiable by most Americans watching the chaos unfurl on their screens. The Confederate flag, first swung on the country’s battlefields by secessionist states who saw their future in the enslavement of others; the gallows and noose, shorthand for the terrorization of African-Americans under Jim Crow as well as quick and dirty frontier justice."

As I mentioned above, no sources, including the police, claim that the gallows were intended for executions.

TFD (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they were just fixing to cure some charcterie. Of course, nobody is proposing we say its intent (Hang Mike Pence). Strawman. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
You should avoid irony, because it makes your statement unclear. Are you saying that the gallows was built in order to hang the VP? Or that the people who chanted "Hang Mike Pence" had seen the gallows and decided to use it for that purpose? Or are you just bringing levity to the discussion? TFD (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I am saying what RS say: They built a gallows. We know not who why or when. So we don't speculate or interpret the gallows. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I've read through all the comments here and in the archives (where I first posted this comment mistakenly. My apologies once again). I’ve looked at all the still images I can find of the ‘makeshift’ (per The Guardian) or ‘mock’ (per AP) gallows erected on 6 Jan 2021. All the still images are taken from the rear, at most including the top-most of the steps leading up from the ground to the plywood platform at the rear of the gallows. For scale, there’s one photo of a man kneeling on the plywood platform with his head in the noose. In two photos, there’s a young woman for scale, standing on the platform or descending the stairs at the rear of the gallows. All these photos are misleading, with or without displaying a person for scale, because they are all taken from the rear of the gallows. Consequently, they fail to show the full extent of the vertical drop at the front of the gallows. The gallows platform appears to be about five to six feet off the ground. The horizontal crossbar of the gallows is about five to six feet above the gallows platform. The centre of the noose is about a foot to two feet below the cross-bar. Hence, the vertical drop at the front of the gallows from the centre of the noose to the ground below is at least eight feet. A captive with the noose placed around his/her neck, then pushed off the front of the gallows, would drop vertically until the noose tightened around his/her neck and broke his/her fall. The length of the drop might or might not be enough to snap the captive's neck. Certainly, the captive's feet wouldn’t touch the ground at the front of the gallows, even if they were extremely tall. Hence, if his/her neck wasn't snapped in the fall, then he/she would slowly strangle as they dangled at the end of the rope. Unfortunately, I can't find a single photo of the gallows taken from the front, or even one taken from the side that makes this clear. Only the video footage of 06 Jan 2021 (watch from 01:03 – 01:12) posted on YouTube by The New Yorker writer Luke Mogelson reveals from the right hand side of the gallows (as seen from the front) the extent of the full drop of the gallows, were the captive to be pushed off the front of the gallows platform. See 'A Reporter’s Footage from Inside the Capitol Siege | The New Yorker', (01:03 – 01:12), shot on 06 Jan 2021 of the rioters inside and outside the Capitol, by The New Yorker writer Luke Mogelson at [4]. (Full disclosure, after searching with Google, I found the video footage of the gallows in the first instance on the Daily Mail website at [5]). 82.15.254.27 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's the same video footage by The New Yorker's Luke Mogelson on The New Yorker website, entitled 'A Reporter’s Footage from Inside the Capitol Siege', By The New Yorker, 17 January 2021, at [6]. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Just two lines above the place where you added your comment on Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 16#Mock Gallows, there's a list of links to images, of which [7] and [8] show the contraption from the front. I think it's fair to say that participants in that discussion had a pretty good idea of what the thing looked like from all angles, and more importantly, we had a thorough discussion of what WP:RS said about it. You wrote ‘mock’ (per AP), but as you saw in the comments you read, there are many other independent reliable sources who also wrote "mock", not just the AP. The New Yorker video you posted above is from January 17, and as far as I can tell, it contains no new information about the mock gallows that wasn't already known and discussed in that long archived thread. As long as nobody provides new sources which say the thing was functional, I see no reason to start the discussion again. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to briefly apologize for my earlier undo -- that was me scanning a bit too quickly. I agree, for the infobox, no "mock" is the stable version. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I reinstated "mock gallows" in the image description. The words "mock gallows" already appear twice in the text, and I think it was simply an oversight that nobody also added "mock" to the image description after the long discussion in early June (or maybe someone deleted it later, I didn't check). — Chrisahn (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't really have a dog in this fight, insofar as I think it's not *that* big a difference. But, even if it is an oversight, which I believe, I am not sure that does away with the need for consensus to change from the stable yet mistaken version. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the above reasoning we would presume that there currently exists implicit consensus to maintain a partially failed implementation (due to a copyediting error) of earlier, still extant, explicit consensus, because a copyediting error has stuck for a while, so the error has inculcated itself into the "stable version". Based on this, there can be two contrary simultaneous consensuses and a fracture in the article can be maintained where one part of the article is based on one "consensus" and another part on another, opposite, "consensus". Further, based on this, a copyediting error can magically grow out into a substantive point of content that is subject to implicit consensus, due to mere passage of time. Also, any old copyediting error requires explicit consensus before it can be fixed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
If you read the previous discussion you know it is just a bunch of original research by editors looking pictures. It does not use reliable sources which overwhelmingly do not use the word "mock".Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: You need to remove your insertion of "mock", which was clearly inappropriate in light of this discussion indicating no consensus for "mock" 4 days in at the time of your edit. Calling it an "oversight" is kind of hard to fathom given the opposition to using it in any context. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems pretty clear to me: "mock" is a matter of intent. If we don't know the intent of the people who made it, carried it over there, etc., then we can't add "mock", and it remains a gallows, albeit it possibly a "makeshift" gallows. Adding "mock" based on editors' ideas about who wanted to do what with what gimmicks, that's original research/editorial commentary. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless there are reliable sources clearly stating the device was non-operational, we as editors can not claim it was "mock" or not based on WP:OR (too small, not tall enough, had a sign that said it was art, no trap door, etc.). The device is very clearly a gallows, but unless we know for sure it was non-operational (again, reliable sources stating it could not possibly have hanged a man), then that is all we can say, it is a gallows. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't insert the word "mock". Someone removed "mock" against consensus, and I reverted the deletion. It's been consensus since the very thorough discussion Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 16#Mock Gallows two months ago, based on dozens of reliable sources (hundreds, if we count those based on AP). There's no reason to open that discussion again. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

July 27 was the first time someone added "mock" to the caption, without mention of the discussion. In the body of the article it was added after the discussion. The discussion wasn't an RfC and it ended two months ago, so what's to prevent a new discussion now? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Why "Mock" is important

Our trustworthiness and neutrality matters on this subject. Readers looking to make sense of reality are going to come here, and they need to know we're telling the truth. Many people came to DC with criminal intent, planning to do some horrible things. AT least one person attempted a bombing.

BUT... the gallows were Art, not Weapon. It was undersized, it had big signs on it that said "this is art" or such. It's not impossible that it could have been lethal, but given all the railings and tall trees between the gallows and the Capitol, someone would have had to make a concerted effort to transport victims to the art project, passing many more viable options for execution along the way.

For better or for worse, gallows, effigies, nooses, and guillotines have for centuries been part of mainstream American political discourse, where they are utterly disconnected from their violent symbolism. It's fine to question the wisdom of that culture, but it's a widespread norm across the political spectrum, not especially associated with fringe or violent elements.

RSes use 'mock'. I get the impulse to remind readers that elements in the crowd came prepared for violence -- but we don't know that the gallows constructor was one of those people.

By accurately characterizing the gallows per RSes, we not only maintain our own editorial integrity, but we purchase trustworthiness with any skeptical readers who may already have learned the scale of the gallows from other sources. Feoffer (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This may be great original research, but it has no basis in most reliable sources. Most reliable sources say the gallows was small, but clearly high enough off the ground to kill someone. No one knows if it was functional or mock, because no one was hung from it to test it.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that any reliable source said that the gallows "was small, but clearly high enough off the ground to kill someone". Do you have a reference? — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
If it was art, what were the artists expressing with it? The messages I remember were "hang Mike Pence" (written on other "art" the demonstrators were carrying and "kill Nancy Pelosi" (chanted in the Capitol). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Gallows, guillotines, and effigies are used as messages against the establishment, typically calling for peace, democratic revolution. It certainly plausible that the artist attacked the capitol that day, but it's also plausible they ran as far away from violence as possible and were terrified at having brought a mock gallows on the same day as an insurrection. We just don't know. Feoffer (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
We have no RS reports, to my knowledge, as to who wrote "this is art" or when the words appeared. "Hang Mike Pence" was perhaps the most widely reported message of the insurrectionists. "Mock" is not widely associated with RS references to the gallows. To elevate that word as if it were the dominant description of the gallows would just be adding extraneous Original Research. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
"typically calling for peace, democratic revolution" Really? Because the guillotines seem to evoke the mass executions in the French Revolution. The message would be threatening even if it was art. 05:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
Not to mention the Southern state good old boys, many of whom sadly appear to be represented in the insurrectionists numbers. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we agree that most reliable sources use the word "makeshift" rather than "mock"? Doesn't seem that hard to verify. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/us/politics/capitol-riot-security-delays.html https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h1HgrbOI4x4J:https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/01/14/insurrection-warning-signs/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No. See e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/07/capitol-riot-political-tradition-unamerican-history/ or any of the other reliable sources mentioned in the rather thorough discussion Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 16#Mock Gallows. Please read it. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Chrisahn, that is pretty clearly an opinion piece, and while that doesn't mean it's not some evidence of your position, I am not sure it's the best evidence thereof. I'll be quite honest in that this issue has my head revolving a bit; my position changes from moment to moment. Cheers all, and happy Monday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm astounded that this madness continues to tear us apart. If we just deleted all mention of this terrible object, nobody would be bothered to defend their description of it. As a weapon, it did nothing. As art, it didn't win any prizes or change any minds. I say we do it. Let's do it tonight. Hold on, I'm going to do it right now! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It is done. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I reverted. A gallows is a gallows, one of the iconic images of the day, whether we stick "mock" or "makeshift" in front of it or pretend-label it "art". It's a threatening statement, same as the burning cross in someone's front yard. (I am one of the editors who'd rather say gallows without the sanitization but the consensus seems to have been "mock" (I didn't count)). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It's only iconic in the alternate history version where insurrectionists hanged (or attempted to hang) Mike Pence and/or others. Here, in reality, it's as key or consequential as any two-dimensional placard or flag. But if you want to obsess over it as if it mattered, despite the absurd war of words it clearly causes, enjoy prolonged insanity! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I read the archived discussion, just reads like a bunch of original research by editors looking at pictures. Most reliable sources say "makeshift", which correctly characterizes the issue discussed (smaller than typically used to execute, strangely proportioned) and not the word "mock" which is typically only used by insurrection denialists as it implies the gallows could not be used to kill, something we do not really know.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring? It's consensus (and I more or less agree with you). You're right about the recent addition, though. I hadn't noticed that the word "mock" was added only two days ago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Whilst I agree it is clearly a nonfunctioning mock gallows, the policy does say no OR. So I am torn as to whether this is blue sky or we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The "mock" or otherwise status of the gallows does not remotely qualify for WP:SKYISBLUE. That's an interpretation. If reliable sources don't say it's mock, then neither should we. Inedible's proposal to remove all mention probably is best, but if it is to be included then it must not say mock unless that's sourced.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It's clear from the sources that it was not a functioning gallows. That it is not clearly explained is probably due to the writers not anticipating that some readers would think it was or use their articles to misrepresent that it was. It's similar to an article mentioning fish fingers without explaining that fish don't actually have fingers. The National Geographic article I cited above however is more clear. It was a "symbol." TFD (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The Hindenberg was a blimp. The Titanic was an ocean liner. We simply have no VERIFICATION for "mock". Why is this even being discussed at this point? Although the removal solves the problem of POV bludgeoning on the talk page, I don't think it's really the correct move. "Gallows" should be reinstated -- it describes what RS saw. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Both The Hindenberg and The Titanic functioned in those roles, was this used as a gallows?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
These are some of the best references for "mock gallows" that I was able to locate
Someone erected a mock gallows with a noose.[9]
That’s when supporters of then-President Donald Trump ... constructed a mock gallows in front of the Capitol and called for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence. [10]
The protesters constructed a mock gallows in front of the Capitol and called for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence ... [11]
(opinion/analysis) Some among them constructed a mock gallows, from which was suspended a menacing noose. Among this contingent of the crowd the chant of choice was, “Hang Mike Pence!” [12]
(interview) And there has been uproar about the removal of Confederate symbols, with accusations of “erasing history”, even as a Confederate flag and a mock gallows featured in the January storming of the Capitol, in a “south will rise again” spirit. [13]
None of these texts are of a denialist/revisionist nature. They don't say how the gallows was harmless or not threatening. They mention the gallows in the context of the rioters' extremism. When these sources note the gallows as a symbol of protest, and not as an implement of extrajudicial execution, calling it "mock gallows", they simply want to be precise. When other media shorten it down to "gallows" they fail to be unequivocal and completely precise. When comparing a group of reliable sources that goes an extra step to be precise and a group of reliable sources that frames things in the formulaic broadly-accurate-but-not-exactingly-precise WP:NEWSSTYLE type of discourse, we should rely on the former as they are more cognate to how facts are presented in an encyclopedia (precise, unequivocal). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I support "mock gallows" per the Associated Press in the articles you linked above[14][15], as I trust the AP to be the most precise/accurate and neutral for matters of terminology like this. Regardless, it's shorter than trying to word something to the effect of "gallows but they weren't actually functional" explicitly in the text. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
So, I am okay with 'mock' here, but I am not sure I would agree that sources which lack the term are simply being imprecise--at least in some examples, I think there is a real case for epistemic humility; i.e., we don't know exactly what was intended by its builders or the crowd in general, etc. I don't think there's an easy way to hand-wave either position here. But perhaps that's just me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
We are free to make that call collectively on a consensus basis. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
With this I agree entirely; just saying I don't think it's susceptible to any sort of logical-style proof. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's not a matter of cherrypicking the "best references" to support ones predisposition. We need to evaluate the preponderance of mainstream RS. That criterion does not support "mock" which is a minority subset of references for "gallows". If I am a blimp or a luxury liner, I did not exactly function if I couldn't handle the sorts of challenges such conveyances are known to encounter. Really, neither one functioned. They failed critical functions of such vessels. In the case of the Capitol gallows, we don't know whether or how they would have functioned in use. That's why the bulk of RS doesn't speculate and simply calls them gallows. Moreover the word "mock" is POV, given the absense of WEIGHT. NPOV for the same concept might be symbolic "iconic" "crude" or other descriptive terms used in various sources. Mock conveys the unfortunate common meaning of ridicule or deride, clearly nobody's intent in this case. We are deep into bludgeonry here, and not mock bludgeonry either. Time to restore "gallows" and move on. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Since the object is not an art installation and not a gallows-shaped fashion promotion billboard it must be that it's a gallows (and not mock gallows) -- tertium non datur. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Or "we don't care, we Stand with Trump", per the third sign on the structure. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Since many participants obviously haven't read the previous discussion, I'll copy the list of reliable sources (adding a few updates) stating that it was a "mock gallows":

And a few more photos: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. Could the rioters have killed politicians with that thing? Probably – but it would have been quite a bit of tedious work. Much easier to strangle them with zip ties, stab them with pocket knives, or clobber them with a fire extinguisher... you get the idea. The mock gallows was much less of an actual threat than a lot of other stuff at the scene.

Anyway – I'm sick of repeated discussions like this one, and my ability to assume good faith has been depleted. Too many editors are trying too hard to make the events of Jan 6 look as violent and menacing as they can. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Taking part in something like this is not a productive use of my time anymore. I'll try to stay away from it. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Day of the week in the lead sentence.

I have removed this since it seems trivial and non-encyclopedic for the LEAD sentence. If it needs to go in the body of the article for some reason, whatever, unless its notable of course. --Malerooster (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Errrm.... There's an (a single I think) editor who'd like for it to be included. Said editor has created the article Three Wednesdays of January... — Alalch Emis (talk)
I would support removing it. The date matters; the day of the week does not. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
In principal I agree, but after a quick google search for "Three Wednesdays of January" (Article has already been deleted so I don't know what it once contained, just wanted to know what it referred to) I was actually quite shocked by how many RS cover this, just from page one of google we have CNN "America's trio of unforgettable Wednesdays", a Harvard Kennedy Forum "Three Wednesdays in January: insurrection, impeachment, inauguration", and Boston Globe "Three Wednesdays in January", just to name the first big 3 that I saw. Given they are all from early in the year, I'm not sure there would be enough continuing coverage to warrant it's own article, but at least to me gives it enough notability to leave the "Wednesday" in. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I found another riot

I found another riot, it's in Talk:List_of_riots called 1833 Coldbath Fields Riot, where would I go for help to make a new article? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, that would be Articles for Creation that you're looking for. You can either request that an article be created independently, or draft an article yourself, but with the help and guidance of an AfC reviewer. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"These paragraphs are an excerpt..."

What happened to the excerpt notation in this version of the article? I tried restoring it, but previews seem to indicate nothing is working. If we're going to cross-post information, attribution is necessary, right? Love of Corey (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I hid the hatnote because it was confusing and ugly in combination with the see also hatnote. You can restore it by deleting the hat=no parameter. BTW the hatnote doesn't serve to provide attribution, but has a navigational role equivalent to that of the further/main template (I don't see a need here since it's an identical transclusion; it would mean: "read this same section one more time in another article"). Attribution is provided using other templates. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed. It's preferable to have it there to let people know that they can't edit the section from this article, but rather the main article. Love of Corey (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Hatnotes or other article space templates are not means of attribution. We use edit summaries and the "copied" template on the article talk page per WP:PATT. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Background: state capitol buildings

See also: Oregon State Capitol breach‎

I was surprised to find the "Background" section makes no mention of the events at state capitol buildings in the preceding months. I am most familiar with the breaching of the Oregon State Capitol but I know there were incidents at several others. Before I do a deep dive on the research, I wonder if anybody working on the article has explored these connections and the coverage of any connections. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I kind of agree, we need RS agreeing they were linked, not me.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I second this. Sources about January 6 that also mention those events need to be uncovered. Love of Corey (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
A good thing to look for would be relevant mentions of such events prior to Jan. 6 after Jan. 6. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Disputed move of 'Impact and legacy'

I don't think the move (diffs:[46][47]) of the 'Impact and legacy section' to the aftermath article are an improvement to either article, and is in particular a detriment to this article. This is because the subject matter of impact and legacy (and related/synonymous things like media coverage, cultural memory, historiography, "in popular culture" etc.) is, traditionally, seen as a different topic to that of the aftermath of an event, which really covers subsequent developments (often events in their own right) that often have their own distinct character and meaning. The section helped round the article out, and without it the article just feels incomplete. Likewise, the addition of something like the 'Terminology' section to the aftermath article is clearly out of place there. I seek consensus to revert the move. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Impact and legacy" should be in the aftermath subarticle; good move. VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Could you say something about why "Impact and legacy" should be there, because I've argued that it shouldn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the core premise that these items are not "aftermath". I think they clearly, self-evidently are. Moving the material to the child article doesn't make this article incomplete, it just means it is covered in the child article. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The contrary is "self-evident". See: World War I, World War II... I can go on and on. If these articles have these two subjects separated, and kept in the parent article, this article can too. As to completeness: how will a reader know that a 'Terminology' section on this subject even exists when reading this article? By expecting that it's in the Aftermath article, and going there on the off chance that it'll be there? Not a real-world scenario. This means that readers of the article simply won't be introduced to the matter of the terminology (and also, probably, the other content of the 'Impact and legacy' section), unless they are so interested as to read the child article, and this makes the article incomplete, because it's important to offer this to the reader. For example, with that section, the article was probably close to being a viable GA entry, and now it isn't. Saying "it's in the child article" during review would never cut it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Erm, WW2 has separate impact and aftermath main articles and sub-articles to those articles... it's a much more complex article family. But since the legacy is also pulled into a child article there, I'm not sure what your point is. The rest of your reasoning could be applied to any subsection of a child article. It's not my responsibility to WP:SATISFY you, and you're not the sole arbiter of what goes where. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
It is not my responsibility to WP:SATISFY you and concede to changes which you like, and are unable to cogently defend. Erm, WW2 has separate impact and aftermath main articles -- yes, hello -- separate. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Article family size dictates those being separate. The point is they aren't constrained to being in the main article as your OP suggests. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Article size dictates no such thing. This article hasn't been too large for a while. If anything, the sections with too much detail should be split out and summarized. Sections that are a part of the core subject (like "Terminology", most specifically), can't simply be left out altogether. A good effort would have been leaving a summary of the 'Impact and legacy' section, but the event is still relatively recent, so the section is relatively underdeveloped and short, and doesn't really need a summary. It needs to be kept here, where it's the most needed, worked on, and then (like those daughter WWII articles you've seen), split out in the future, if needed. Splitting it out into the Aftermath article where thematically it doesn't belong to in the first place, distances it from the parent article too much. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The article size comment was referring to the WW2 article family. The aftermath article is 170kB total, didn't check readable prose. If you want to suggest a split, you'd do that at Talk:Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack (feel free to post a link to the discussion from here). It doesn't "need" to be kept anywhere; you don't own either article. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
You know what I'm "suggesting" (disputing a substantial move from this article to a non-ideal move target, when a move is not necessary in the first place). To paint that as "owning" the article is just bad. VQuakr, I'm disappointed in you. You've failed to satisfy very much. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is 300kB, after this info was moved to a child. We should be looking for more to cut/move, not pulling stuff back in to the parent. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Posted a WP:3O. Respondent, please also read the below subsection, which has to do with a specific argument brought up in the dispute, and as a result of which discussion the previous comment has been refuted. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There are like a half dozen participants in this discussion including those below. Not a good 3O candidate even before your well-poisoning falsehood about something being "refuted". VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The "300kB"-based argument is plainly refuted. Funny enough, we are the only two participants in the actual content dispute. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
No, reasoning was refined to readable prose per your request below. The article is still too long per our guidelines, and your ignorance of the meaning of word "refuted" doesn't change that. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that "Impact and Legacy" should remain in the main article. It's a crucial part of the article as a whole, just like it is in other, similar articles. Seems clear to me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Thanks for the 3O. Also pinging editors who posted in the below subsection @BappleBusiness, CaptainEek, and SPECIFICO:, and @VQuakr: What do you think about the validity of an argument that the article is too big*, so what had to be done as a remedy was specifically to remove the section 'Impact and legacy' (and put it in Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack).
*When one looks at the issue of article size, he/she can consider the invoked size guideline:60 kB -- Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) -- the article is a little above 60 kB big. Do you think that this is a kind of article whose scope justifies some added pertinent and sourced reading material in the form of the moved 'Impact and legacy' section, which is traditionally found in some form in articles on important historical events?
Another point: I consider what happened when the said section was removed to be content removal per Wikipedia:Article size#Content removal, which says Removing ... reliably sourced and non-tangential information, from an article simply to reduce length without moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting, may require a consensus discussion on the talkpage; this is because the move was not made to an entirely appropriate article (far from the worst target imaginable, but not a good target for most of the content, especially for the 'Terminology' part). I consider this discussion to be the "consensus discussion on the talkpage", and if consensus for the move is not achieved here, it's only appropriate that the move be reverted. What's your view on this? — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I definitely think that the scope of this event is especially large and justifies a larger article size. Removing the 'Impact and legacy' section is much more of a detriment to this article content-wise than it helps the article concision-wise. It should absolutely stay. I don't see anything wrong with having an expanded version of the section on the Aftermath page with a shorter version on the main page, but I would go about that by expanding the section on the Aftermath page rather than shortening it on this one. BappleBusiness (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy with a partial restoration of 'Impact and legacy' to this article, by which 'Terminology' is transcluded here, and the short 'Historians' perspective' subsection is actually moved back here (and not present in the aftermath anymore), with the rest staying in the Aftermath article. I find this to be a reasonable middle ground solution, and I've removed the dispute tag in the other article. If someone thinks that a section titled 'Impact and legacy' or 'Impact' or 'Legacy' or something quite similar should really be present in this article, that editor can re-add the dispute tag I guess. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Article is not too long

This is a restart of the Article is too long archived discussion, which stalled after ending relatively inconclusively. In May and June, the article was shortened by moving content out to daughter articles. This is when Elli removed the too long tag saying not a helpful cleanup tag (predicting that it will lead to an urge to remove content uncontrollably, which is, spoiler alert, happening right now). Love of Corey was against removing the template, and Amakuru made some important points: It was 104kb of prose at the start of this discussion, and is now 82kb so there's definitely been some good improvement. The size guidelines give 60kb as the point where the page "Probably should be divided" though, so there's definitely more that could be done - as long as it moves to summary style, rather than just chopping important things into subarticles in their entirety. Several weeks later, users can see that what was done by Love of Corey lately -- which consists most importantly of:
- moving the detailed version of 'Casualties' to the aftermath article, where this content does not belong, (discussion)
- moving the 'Law enforcement response' content to the appropriate sub-article, but leaving behind a very low-quality-prose summary, (diff)
- moving the 'Impact and legacy' section to the aftermath article, which is not a good target for most of what's included there (such as most obviously, 'Terminology'), leaving behind nothing here, which is plainly inappropriate. (diff)
...has not followed naturally from what was said in the relevant discussion. Instead of discussing it more, the editor (who I think does many great things, and this is not a wholesale criticism of their contributions to this topic area) acted very unilaterally. VQuakr is now championing this citing the raw 300kB value when it means nothing (see: WP:SIZERULE -- readable prose). "Article X is Y big therefore we should move section Z out" is a completely vacuous argument, under which you could remove anything from any larger article. Apparently, it is based on this comment, that Love of Corey has now re-added the too long tag.

It's worth pointing out here that Mikeblas noticed that a move was haphazardly done and broke references (this is true for practically all of these moves, and I've quietly fixed the references in other instances). I have moved a lot of content out myself, but I've spent some time working on the sub-articles' leads and added excerpts back here, which is one legitimate way of reducing size. A lot more work is needed than crude copy-pasting to get to a satisfactory result.

Let's look at it like this: There is consensus that the lead needs to be significantly shortened, that specific sections can be shorter, so let's get back on track, and make the article shorter by actually improving it in the process, and not in this uncontrolled manner, especially in an interval when there is a relatively low level of engagement (summertime, editors are on vacation...). Also, the aftermath article is an article in it's own right and not a dumping ground, and it is being treated like that currently.

To conclude, a more consensus-driven approach to managing length (especially with regard to moving sections out) needs to start happening. The structure of the article was fine with the 'Impact and legacy', and further improvement would have been in the direction of shortening paragraphs, removing extraneous detail, and not altering the outline of the subject. The too long tag which was re-added based on a false premise of "300 kB" must be removed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging editors from the last and the two preceding "too long" discussions: @The Four Deuces, Nekomancerjade, Chrisahn, BusterD, Novem Linguae, Feoffer, Another Believer, and Firefangledfeathers: — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine, fair point regarding raw size. The article is currently at 63kB of readable prose, after the move of the "Impact and legacy" to a child article, which is still "probably should be divided" territory per WP:SIZERULE. Your final para above (starting with "to conclude") seems to conflict with the section header. It seems we agree the article needs to be trimmed, and it more a question of how best to go about it? VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I would also note that WP:SIZERULE also states that for >60 kB "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". I would argue that 63 kB for this article is actually remarkably concise. Obviously, there are some issues with some of the sections (notably the lead) but I think WP:SIZERULE doesn't really apply here. Focus should really be placed on specific sections that may be too lengthy on their own and the template should be removed to avoid haphazard editing. BappleBusiness (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see this discussion before removing, but I have pulled the tag off. 63 kb is really an incredibly concise length for an article like this. Most recent events articles go wayyyyy over length, 100kb+, so this is really in the goldilocks zone. It could probably use some cleaning up in places, but nothing that requires a big honking tag at the top. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I would add that this article should have substantial length, but if trimming it is necessary, the lead could probably be shortened to follow precedent of other articles, such as the 9/11 article, and not include so much much chronological detail. And second, editing to make sections more concise is a much better approach to shortening this then moving a crucial section such as "Impact and Legacy" Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)

Proposals

Since I posted the above, I've come up with a set of simple proposals: (1) The too long template is not to be used for the whole article, but only under specific headings. (2) Moving sections out requires prior discussion, or at least an attempt thereof. (3) Relevant sections which are too short to be summarized or condensed shall not be moved out; the sections that can be summarized or condensed are worked on instead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support 1, 2, & 3 The too long template invariably makes articles worse by encouraging ill-considered cuts, often by editors unfamiliar with the article and its sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is silly. A proposal regarding whether a template can be used or whether WP:BOLD applies isn't going to be respected, because that's not something we can just decide on an article talk page. Section structure isn't set in stone: small sections might merit being expanded, left as-is, or merged with others; and I see no benefit to preemptively reducing our options. VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think the overall 'too long' template is necessary right now, though. There's some low-hanging fruit in overlong summaries of sections that are already split. VQuakr (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 2; Oppose 1 & 3 I think placing an arbitrary limit on using the too long template ever being used for the whole article (as detailed in proposal 1) isn't really addressing the problem, but I do agree that it should be removed at the current moment. Proposal 3 can be judged on a case-by-case basis; some sections may be too short to summarize but are not significant enough to include in the main article. And proposal 2 is needed to avoid sloppy copy-paste editing. BappleBusiness (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The word “insurrection” belongs in the lede

The United States Senate voted unanimously to award Capitol Police the Congressional Gold Medal for their actions during the January 6 “insurrection”. The House voted 406-21 to support the legislation. Yet Wikipedia continues to march in lockstep with the 21 House conspiracy theorists who refuse to tell the truth and call the attack an “insurrection”. Isn’t it time to stand with 100% of the United States Senate and the 406 members of the House who are willing to tell the truth?Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the preponderance of reliable sources use the terminology in most mainstream writings? Also, using phrases like "march in lockstep with the 21 House conspiracy theorists who refuse to tell the truth" is not likely to engender a spirit of collaboration on the article, and only serves to alienate people who would otherwise actually agree with you, but will now completely stay away from this issue lest they be associated with such rudeness. --Jayron32 14:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Preponderance is unlikely, but a significant number of RS use the terminology. This google search, stolen from the subpage Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends is getting a lot of 'insurrection' hits from selected RS. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Gouncbeatduke, what is your proposed wording for the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
“A violent attack attempting insurrection against the United States government began on the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.”Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Insurrection" is already in the lead. A week after the riot, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, By my count the word "insurrection" appears 10 times in the article. There is certainly no coverup here. BTW please don't politicize other people's motives, as you did by implying that "Wikipedia" (actually the numerous Wikipedia editors who have contributed to this article) is siding with Republican denialists. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed before and their are many reasons not to call it an insurrection, not least of which is that no one has been charged, let alone convicted, of insurrection. Per BLP articles are not supposed to claim that people committed offences unless they are convicted. TFD (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This was more than an insurrection – this was an attempted coup d'état according to the Coup D'état Project at the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research [48] cookie monster (2020) 755 02:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
We will have to wait and see whether their assessment gains support. I noticed that they accuse the Communist Party of an attempted coup in 1948, citing Dennis v. United States, although it is not normally described as such. Furthermore, they changed the definition used to assess 1/6 as a coup. Previously it was defined as action against "the executive authority," but this was changed to targets that "have meaningful control over national policy," presumably because the actions were not taken against the executive authority but against the legislature. Also, since the report was published three weeks after the incident, a lot of speculation would be required to determine what the protestors intended. TFD (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't claim to have any idea of the motives here, but the article certainly reads like it was written by "Republican denialists". The article acknowledges Mitch McConnell called it an insurrection, and Trump was impeached for insurrection, but implies all the people claiming this are wrong because the article clearly avoids calling it an insurrection.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Their definition didn’t change, just their assessment whether all criteria for calling it a coup attempt had been meet. Their January 8 statement says that it may have been an attempted coup, but they weren’t sure that criteria 4 and 5 were met. By January 27, they were convinced that the planners "intended to usurp congressional authority to certify the election, arrogating control of the transition to themselves or to the executive branch. This would change who controls the federal government, rather than merely disrupt the process of governing." By January 26, the involvement of several organized groups was known, as was the Trump-Jeff "Clark gambit". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a range of views between Democratic orthodoxy and Republican denialism. Neither should influence how the article is written, since articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources. The fact is that authoritative sources do not call it an insurrection. Partly that is because the term is unclearly defined. It's meaning in law is a set of circumstances that require the executive to suspend civil rights, including habeas corpus, and turn police power over to military authorities. But even then the description is rarely used. The article, 1992 Los Angeles riots, for example, does not use the term insurrection to describe the events, even though President George H.W. Bush declared it an insurrection. TFD (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Authoritative sources do call it an insurrection, and ample evidence of that has been posted since January on this talk page. Also your position here is based on the golden mean fallacy. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, "citing the "urgent need to restore order", after meeting with "military and legal advisers and then with civil rights and community leaders" but I haven't found any sources for him having declared the riots an insurrection. Bush said the violence in Los Angeles is "not about civil rights" or "the great issues of equality" but "the brutality of a mob, pure and simple." He said he would "use whatever force necessary" to restore order. (By that time 40 people had been killed, businesses looted and burned, and "entire city blocks reduced to rubble", per NBC, "total anarchy", per WaPo.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Even had Person X called event Y an insurrection which it wasn't, it's in no way a valid argument that event Z is not an insurrection, and/or that when people call Event Z an insurrection we should equate what they're doing to when Person X used the term wrongly. There's a sea of bad logic between that reasoning and where we should be: referencing all the reliable sources and scholars that keep calling it an insurrection. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you talking to TFD or to me? If the latter, you're preaching to the choir. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Alalch Emis, if you have reliable sources, rather than a tweet from Rachel Maddow, that calls it an insurrection, you should provide it. There are various levels of civil disorder (affray, unlawful assembly, riot, insurrection, etc.) that have criminal consequences. Can you explain why no one has been charged with insurrection? Space4Time3Continuum2x, I don't see much difference between calling something an insurrection and using powers provided to the president under the Insurrection Act. TFD (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a feeling (I might be wrong) that you've been on this talk page for about as long as I have... Have you not seen the many times people have posted references that name and characterize the event as an insurrection? You are employing a two-pronged discursive approach here, on one hand you're implausibly denying that reliable sources are calling it an insurrection, and on the other hand you are saying how it isn't an insurrection because "no one has been charged, let alone convicted, of insurrection". Let's distill it a bit: reliable sources are calling it insurrection. You should stop denying this well-known fact on this talk page. It's a little disconcerting. Since reliable sources are indeed calling the event an insurrection (quite prominently, while using other terms as well), the burden is on you to prove how your second argument overpowers that, i.e. how despite reliable sources calling the event what they're calling it, we should avoid doing so based on your specific reasoning. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Although I would not normally use a news article for a legal opinion, Mia Salenetri, Verify Researcher and Fact Checker atWUSA-TV in Washington, DC, interviewed lawyers and wrote the following:

"There will be an investigation," Jeffrey S. Jacobovitz says, "You have potential charges of sedition. You have potential charges of treason. And, you know, it was a mob, which was breaking into the Capitol and causing vast destruction. There have been arrests already, but there will be more arrests."
The key for prosecuting, he says, is intent. If federal investigators cannot prove that a person charged with insurrection actually intended to overthrow the government or lawful authority, they would likely face lower charges instead, like rioting or destruction of property.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 exists to allow a president to quell uprisings like this. It gives the president the power to deploy the military and National Guard within the United States. Jacobovitz says President Trump's involvement in yesterday's events muddies the waters.
"It allows the president to enforce military law, sort of a takeover of the government. But this is an unusual situation because you had the president involved and telling people to go to the Hill."

That was written 7th January. Since then no one has been charged with insurrection. Trump was charged on impeachment with incitement of insurrection, but acquitted. We have a lot of examples of politically motivasted descriptions of the events as an insurrection, but nothing one could use.

You still haven't answered why no one has been charged with insurrection. One cannot have an insurrection without insurrectionists. I have read that it is almost impossible to prove insurrection, but you may have a different opinion which I look forward to hearing.

TFD (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You brought up the 1992 L.A. riots. 12,000 people were arrested and, AFAIK, none of them were charged with insurrection, despite the Insurrection Act having been invoked. As for January 6, so far no one has been charged with insurrection. Prosecutors have hundreds of cases to investigate and appear to take the usual route, plea deals for minor cases to clear the docket. We don't know what prosecutors will do, but we do have numerous sources calling the storming/attack/riot an insurrection. Random samples: WaPo, [Politico, CNN, USA Today, TIME. Trump was acquitted on a technicality (only 57 of 100 Senators instead of the required two-thirds found him guilty). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not how plea deals work. Prosecutors charge people with the most serious crimes that can reasonably be proved, then bargain down for a guilty plea. In homicide cases for example where the police suspect it was premeditated, they lay charges of first degree murder. If they only charge someone with manslaughter, we would not say that the person had committed murder. The reason no one has been charged is that there is insufficient evidence to indict, which requires a minimal amount of evidence. It's quite possible the 1992 riots were not an insurrection either, but that the president overreacted. Ironically, no one is arguing that it should be called an insurrection, although it was much more violent. TFD (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree about the plea deals but we don't know and probably won't find out what prosecutors threatened to charge people with to get them to agree to plea deals. Whether or not Bush should have left the response to the governor of California and the California National Guard, there was widespread violence and pretty much an armed conflict between groups of citizens but it wasn't a "rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof" (18 U.S. Code § 2383). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about the article content instead of about who said what. The article already says "insurrection" in many places, but I gather you think it needs to be said more clearly in Wikipedia's voice. Is that correct? Please propose what actual wording you want, and where it should go. Then we can talk about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: We actually have the terminology section. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you point me to it? I don't see any specific suggestion for actual wording in this thread. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@MelanieN: This is what happened: An editor wrongly removed the terminology section (read about it here). What naturally happens, a few days later, another editor starts this discussion requesting inclusion of term x in the article. Link to the section (in the article): 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Contemporary analysis and terminology — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Alalch Emis. It looks to me as if that "terminology" section was valuable. Several people said it was "wrongly removed", but I don't see where anyone has suggested it be restored. Maybe that would be a more productive discussion here - to restore the Terminology section. With it in the article, the whole meta-discussion of "what should we call this" is given well-sourced coverage, without Wikipedia committing itself to any particular word (which IMO we should not do). -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I seem to remember that there was a previous consensus against using the word "insurrection" in WP voice precisely due to the concerns repeated here - outside of quotations and the charge of impeachment at least. The word currently only appears once outside of a quotation or naming the charge laid by the House in the impeachment - and this is in the lead. The word should not be used in WP voice as multiple other words that do not impart potential criminality on individuals (insurrection is a criminal act with which nobody has been charged as of yet) exist and are adequate. I have removed the word from the sentence in the lead as according to the source, Biden did not use the word in his speech. If sourcing can be found that can include the word in a quotation from Biden, then it may be replaced with a more full quote with the word attributed to Biden. Otherwise, we should stick to neutral language wherever possible, such as "those in attendance" or even something such as "rioters". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
To add, I have no problem with using the word "insurrection" in WP voice when it is discussing what others have called it. But WP voice should not call it an "insurrection" when not even a plurality of sources do so. Insurrection is a charged word that requires exceptional sourcing and rationale for using in WP voice - and that is not present here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Prosecutors do not want to charge January 6 insurrectionists with the crime of insurrection as they genuinely believed they were helping a legitimately elected President stay in power, so while they were technically guilty of insurrection the charge does not serve the interests of justice. The cowardly insurrectionists who sold them this lie all stayed safely away from the crime and watched on TV, making it difficult to charge the liars as well. So it should not be too hard to understand why reliable sources agree an insurrection was attempted, but no one has been charged with the crime. By refusing to acknowledge the consensus of reliable sources that an insurrection was attempted, Wikipedia supports the insurrectionist liars who claim no insurrection was attempted.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed wording

What we are debating here is what word or words to use to describe this subject. That is something that has been repeatedly discussed here. (Reminder: We need to stay focused on discussing the content of the article, rather than on what we personally think about the matter.) There used to be a section in the article on that precise subject. Here it is. The three-paragraph section had been copied from the Aftermath article, where it still appears. The section was removed two weeks ago by someone who was trying to reduce the size of this article. The section cites 15 Reliable Sources on the question of what to call this event, focusing particularly on the terms insurrection, coup attempt, and domestic terrorism. I think this is exactly the sort of thing we as an encyclopedia should have in the article: analysis of the possibilities by Reliable Sources, while not stating a preference in Wikipedia’s voice. And I propose that we restore this section to the article. (P.S. Please don’t anyone go ahead and restore it until there has been a chance to discuss and reach consensus - which of course does not have to be unanimous. But give it a few days for people to chime in.) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That does not fix the problem that the lede continues to be written in the voice used by insurrection denialists. It explains that the voice use by insurrection denialists may be technically correct, but failing to tell the whole truth (that an insurrection was attempted to overturn a legitimate election) passively confirms the position of insurrection denialist. You cite sources that have "evolved" to using the word insurrection after not using it initially, Wikipedia should be able to similarly evolve to to a position of telling the whole truth, not just a part of it.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Suggest a specific change please. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
First sentence: “A violent attack attempting insurrection against the United States government began on the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.” Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
On January 6, 2021, a violent mob comprising thousands of supporters of Donald Trump attacked the US Capitol and hundreds stormed inside in an attempt to overturn Trump's loss to Joe Biden in the US 2020 presidential election. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I like it. Concise. Direct. Encyclopedic. Supported by sources on the page. BusterD (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I also wanted to say how I like this first sentence, from a style perspective. However, substantively it says the same thing as the longstanding version (and that's not really what Gouncbeatduke is about here...). What's really gained by changing the longstanding version on stylistic grounds, when said version is at least adequate in that regard? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Not bad, you have to rephrase the second sentence. I think just changing riot to insurrection works well as in "On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the U.S. Congress was violently attacked in an attempted insurrection at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C." Riot implies spontaneity, at least for the part of the crowd bringing bear spray, tazors, and zip ties, the insurrection was planned. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
"Attempted insurrection" (as opposed to just "insurrection") makes no sense. It's based on a wrong notion of insurrection. Please see my thoughts about it in the insurrection RM (the nomination). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, please avoid passive voice. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
How about "On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked in an insurrection targeting the U.S. Congress."? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion "Attack on CONGRESS?" below, the following lead sentence has gathered some support: ""On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked in a riot targeting the U.S. Congress." I personally like that sentence as summing up the situation well - both what was attacked and who was targeted. SPECIFICO's suggestion above also has merit. I do NOT believe that the word "insurrection" should be in the lead sentence, since "insurrection" is only one of the RS proposals for a word summarizing the motivation of the rioters. In any case I would like to restore the whole three-paragraph section on terminology. In fact, IMO we could not use the word "insurrection" in the lead without that section, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You said essentially the same thing before. Again, That does not fix the problem that the lede continues to be written in the voice used by insurrection denialists. The article explains that the voice use by insurrection denialists may be technically correct, but failing to tell the whole truth (that an insurrection was attempted to overturn a legitimate election) passively confirms the position of insurrection denialist. You cite sources that have "evolved" to using the word insurrection after not using it initially, Wikipedia should be able to similarly evolve to to a position of telling the whole truth, not just a part of it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's a thought. I have proposed re-adding the terminology section; I have not seen anyone support that idea. You are totally committed to the notion that "insurrection" must be in the lead sentence; I haven't seen anyone support that idea. Let's pull out those two ideas into subsections to find out if anyone agrees with us - or disagrees with us - or doesn't care one way or the other. If we find a clear consensus on either idea, maybe we can lay that idea to rest. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Terminology section

Misunderstanding on my part. The current situation in the article is fine. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

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 have proposed re-adding the three-paragraph section "Terminology" to the article. Here it is. Please comment briefly whether you think we should add it, or should not add it, or don't care one way or the other. This is just a test of consensus; if you want to comment at length, please do it in the section above. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I support adding this section, because it explores several possible terms we should use to describe this event - one of which is insurrection. It is based on reliable sources, and does not try to choose between the terms. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    MelanieN, you seem to be referring to a section that is currently in the article. Is that true? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    I am referring to a section that USED to be in the article but was removed a few weeks ago on the grounds of reducing the size of the article. But now I see that is was restored, and I missed that because it was restored under a different title.-- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. MelanieN is apparently coming from an understanding that the current inclusion of 'Terminology' is on an ad-hoc basis, and should not be seen as backed by consensus or "stable", because there's an ongoing content dispute regarding the removal of the h2 'Impact and legacy' section which was moved out into the aftermath article, and the terminology section is a part of it (it's still in the aftermath article, and is transcluded here). [struck the speculation part after MelanieN's response below] The restoration of 'Terminology' (as a h2 section, independently from the rest) was done by me in the wake of the "insurrection in the lead" discussion, to illustrate a point, and not as an explicit result of a resolved dispute between much more specifically involved editors. A few editors have expressed an opinion that the whole 'Impact and legacy' section should not have been moved out. This is now basically a fork of the content dispute. Maybe people should be directed to comment there, so that the wider dispute can finally be resolved. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, Alalch, I was not aware of that larger discussion. I had only seen the removal of the "Terminology" section here. Thank you for restoring it as a stand-alone section; I missed that because of the different title. I am happy with the situation now and as far as I am concerned this subject is no longer at issue here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insurrection in the lead

Gouncbeatduke feels strongly that the word "insurrection" should be in the lead sentence. As an example they have proposed the sentence "On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked in an insurrection targeting the U.S. Congress." Please comment briefly whether you support that sentence - or oppose it - or don't care one way or the other. This is just a test of consensus; if you want to comment at length, please do it in the section above. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I oppose putting the word "insurrection" in the lead sentence, because IMO it goes too far in assuming the motives of the rioters. Most reliable sources seem to prefer words like "attack", "riot", etc., which describe what the participants DID without trying to say WHY they did it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • While I think it's awkward to try to cram too many such words into the lead, I do not think that there is any question that recent RS refer to this as an insurrection and the larger scheme as a failed coup attempt. The words of the insurrectionists have been widely reported to support such description. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to see the fact that most reliable sources agree that an insurrection occurred acknowledged in Wikipedia voice somewhere in the lede. Whenever it is added, it is immediately removed. The article lede reads like something written by an insurrection denialist.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Just be patient, please, Gouncbeatduke. The subject is being discussed below, and so far three people have spoken in support of version #6 which says "insurrection". There may turn out to be a consensus to include it; that's how Wikipedia works. In the meantime, I wish you would stop accusing everyone of being an "insurrection denialist" in every post you make. You don't know what anyone's motives are or how they feel about this word. There are many possible words to describe this event; if someone doesn't want to include every one of them in the lead sentence, that doesn't mean they are "denying" some or all of them. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I deny it based on the utter lack of supporting evidence, but contend that makes me a simple matter-of-fact denier, not a hardcore ideologically-driven denialist. Moderately detached annoying contrarian realist, sure. Skeptic, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying. MelanieN has a whole section of reliable sources calling the event an insurrection. Are you saying we should not use reliable sources because your understanding of the event is better than the reliable sources? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You're pretty close. Those sources have a pro-impeachment and anti-protestor conflict of interest, are using the word rhetorically and offer no evidence that an actual insurrection occurred. If it's mentioned at all, it should be attributed as an opinion, not in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
No true Scotsman. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The wording of the lead sentence

Over the past few days there has been a lot of changing the lead sentence, usually without discussion. (The second sentence has held pretty steady at “A mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attempted to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.”) I think we should try to reach a consensus, and if possible nail it down as “do not change without discussion”. Two discussions here involved whether to say it was an attack on Congress rather than the Capitol, and whether to call it an insurrection. Neither discussion was resolved, but both have been put into the article and removed over the last few days. Here are some of the versions that have been in the article recently (leaving out wikilinks and references). I've tried to call attention to the changes with boldface.

  • #1 (August 9 and 10) On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., was stormed during a riot and violent attack against the U.S. Congress.
  • #2 (August 10) On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., was attacked during a riot and violent attack against the U.S. Congress.
  • #3 (August 10) On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. and the the U.S. Congress were violently attacked during a riot.
  • #4 (August 10) On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the U.S. Congress was violently attacked in a riot at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. 
  • #5 (August 10-11) On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked in a riot targeting the U.S. Congress.
  • #6 (August 11-12-13) On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked by a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump in what was widely characterized as an insurrection. The mob sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by…
  • #7 (August 13-14) On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked by a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump. The mob sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by..

Number 6 is the version in the article now. It has been there for four days. Does that mean it is the consensus? #7 is now the version in the article.

Comments: Do you agree with one or several of these versions? Discuss by numbers, please, and if you give a reason, please keep it brief. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I like #6, but I don't actually see in what was widely characterized as an insurrection anywhere in the article. Am I missing something? soibangla (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Good question. It's in the section "Analysis and terminology". -- MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
In case anybody trusts the people actually prosecuting the mob, they formally allege this was mostly violent entry, disorderly conduct and disrupting Congress. As far as those victims go, anyway. I take it we'll continue to downplay the theft, conspiracy and assaults on police, because. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The page you linked lists all of those, not just the first three. "Many have been charged with assault on law enforcement officers; "violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol ground";[3] trespassing; disrupting Congress; theft or other property crimes; weapons offenses; making threats; and conspiracy". Not personally a fan of downplaying any of those. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm just talking about what to highlight and what to bury in this opening sentence, to be clear. Personally and elsewhere, not a fan, either. But listing all the alleged crimes upfront would make a terribly long and terrible summary, as all parties can agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
There's also the fact to consider that the first three are more easily demonstrated for anyone involved in the event, but that the "theft, conspiracy and assaults on police" need more evidence to link to particular suspects. Such charges could be added at a later date as better identifications become available. --Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Correction: "widely characterized as an insurrection" was added 19:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC), deleted (by me, because it's unsourced) 16:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC), and hasn't been restored since. The current version is: On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked by a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump. The mob sought to overturn his defeat... I think we should add it as #7 to the list, and correct the dates for #6 from 11-12-13-14 to 11-12-13. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, fixed. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Speaking for myself, I am partial to #5 (disclosure: I wrote it) and I am also OK with #7. (This is not part of the current discussion, but I also agree with a thread above saying we should remove "Wednesday".) -- MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • #1, #4, #5 & #7 are okay, but go back to #1.
    #6 is problematic because if the event is "widely characterized as an insurrection", and this article is generally not calling it an insurrection (such as in the title), then it probably isn't quite an insurrection, i.e. there must be some particularly good reasons to consistently not call it that. But there are no such reasons; the event is an insurrection. When the issue is dropped completely in the first paragraph (and the lead in general), this dubiousness does not occur. #2 (obviously bad for reasons of style) started off the chain of edits, and did so for the wrong reason -- changing the descriptor from "storming" [noun] to "attack" in the title doesn't mean that the verb "to storm" needs to be eradicated from the text. #3 I consider even worse also on stylistic grounds. IMO it would be best to go back to #1, which is the longstanding version, and #5 is almost the same. I consider #7 to be a little worse than #1 and #5 because the first sentence feels unnaturally short, as if there's something intentionally left unsaid. If #7 should stay, the first two sentences should be joined. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
There are reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • #6 is far more informative than the others. For first sentences, think about the Five Ws. #6 is the only version that tells us WHO and WHY. Agree with others to chop "Wednesday". Feoffer (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • #5 is 100% accurate, regardless of informative quantity, I like that. I don't like weekdays. I find #7 Mostly True, but only a few people in that mob actually attacked the building, and a few more were undecided anarchists or (thought they were) doing it for flag and country alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • #5 clean, precise (I would also be fine with chopping Wednesday) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    'Riot' doesn't work very well, now that RSes report it was a pre-planned attack with radio coordination, which was already underway prior to the conclusion of Ellipse Rally. Feoffer (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting a riot can't be intentional, can't be cooperative or can't involve radio? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    Others have stated 'riot' best characterizes spontaneous events, not planned attacks. The article isn't titled 'Capitol riots', after all. Feoffer (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think we should write for a general audience, who are more familiar with common dictionary definitions for words than what two obscure writers 200ish years apart (one in German) think, but duly noted, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    Both links are mainstream and modern. The second on this particular issue. There are many other such source describing why attack is the most precise label and riot is not. Feoffer (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    On War is modern compared to The Art of War, sure. And The Raw Story might seem mainstream to those in progressive online junk news circles, OK. But #5 does say the Capitol was "attacked", which essentially conveys the feelings of that columnist and our title, in verb form, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    You asked if 'riot' connotes spontaneity; it does. Thus, a 'in a riot targeting congress' is inappropriate given the now-known facts and the terminology used by the FBI & LEOs to describe the event. Feoffer (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    It does to you. In a federal law enforcement context, it does not. Per the Anti-Riot Act, inciting, organizing or promoting these violent forms of protest are not just illegal acts in themselves, but entirely possible and easily conceivable. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    No, not "to me". You've seen sources on this precise point about this precise event, you know riot connotes spontaneity. In contrast, your application of the the 1968 act to how we describe the 2021 attack is entirely OR/Synth. Feoffer (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    I know it does to the Raw Story writer, assume it might have for that Prussian philosopher (Google says I reached my limit) and thought it did to you. But I also know the law, the dictionaries, several co-editors here and many other academics/pundits/bloggers think riots are just a group of people protesting violently. I appreciate you trying to explain yourself, but it's not convincing me, and I'm not changing you. OR and SYNTH are inapplicable to this conversation, but don't worry about it. May the best wording win! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    One bonus note, that law you might think is antiquated applied to this precise rioter just 20 days ago. Note also the sentence, "On or about January 6, 2021, riots were occurring in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.." If that's not modern mainstream "FBI & LEO" terminology on this precise event, what could be? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    Cherrypicking WP:PRIMARY sources like dictionaries and indictments is going to be of limited utility to you, especially in the lede. RSes concur that 'riot' is not the most accurate label due to connotations of spontaneity. Congress was the target of a planned attack, not a spontaneous riot -- there's ample RSes on this point now. If we want to include Riot Act charges for people who weren't even in DC on Jan 6, that's what the body is form. Feoffer (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    I won't be the one adding or keeping the consensual wording; whatever citation is needed (if any) can be found easily by whomever implements this. CNN, WaPo, Vox, Politifact, NPR, whatever fits best. They concur it was a planned riot, too. I cherrypicked a press release, by the way, not an indictment. Indictment precedes sentencing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    "Riot" is simply the word RS generally use to refer to the events, more frequently than any other term. Just a few examples from the last five days or so: Washington Post [49], Fox News [50], Seattle Times [51], CNN [52], Guardian [53], New York Times [54], Reuters [55], NBC [56], etc. etc. etc. They all call it "Capitol riot". There are tens of thousands of similar sources from the last seven months. No "cherrypicking" needed. Rather the opposite.
    Regarding your claim "congress was the target of a planned attack, not a spontaneous riot" - that's at best half true. Yes, some participants had said in advance they wanted to storm the building, but it's pretty obvious that most rioters didn't come with a plan. They didn't even bring tools to break windows or doors – they had to use whatever they found at the scene. They were just as surprised as the police that they managed to advance so quickly. Most of what they did was chaotic and spontaneous. And that's why RS use the word "riot" all the time. You'll hardly find an article about the events of January 6 that doesn't use the word "riot". — Chrisahn (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    Nobody's trying to purge the word riot from the article, but #6 and #7 are demonstrably better than #5, which didn't identify the attackers and used the cringe-inducing euphemistic phrase "riot targeting Congress" rather than insurrection or attack. Feoffer (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    This is obviously a heated subject which demands some neutrality. I agree that the U.S. Capitol was attacked, and I agree that the crowd was mostly Trump supporters. But to say that they "violently" attacked the Capitol "in order to overturn the election results" is incorrect. They were there to "protest peacefully and make our voices heard." There are many who believe--and plenty of video evidence to support--that Antifa was present and had infiltrated the crowd. Those of us who believe Antifa was involved recognize their tactics of smashing windows and starting fires. They were the ones who initiated the destruction. Trump supporters would never try to destroy our Capitol building as it is "The People's House." Many Trump supporters followed them into the Capitol right past Capitol police who seemed to be welcoming them in. I wasn't there that day, but I watched on social media as the story unfolded. Shortly after the violence erupted, while it was still daylight, President Trump posted a message calling for all Patriots to "go home" and "we have to have peace" and "we don't want anybody to get hurt." Anyone who did not listen to his call to stop and go home were NOT Trump supporters. Please change the wording in the opening TWO sentences to reflect neutrality based just on the FACTS and remove the implication that over 75 million Americans had some sinister motive behind what happened that day. They did not. MusicTree3 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • #6 Would fixed the fact the article lede clearly attempts to deny an insurrection occurred, while most reliable sources agree an insurrection did occur. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    I reverted your last change.[57] With your !vote here, are you suggesting we use the term "insurrection" TWICE in the first paragraph?? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No, I would like to see the current insurrection denialist voice of the article corrected so the article in line with reliable sources. I don't really care where it is corrected. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Per Impartial tone and People accused of crime, we should avoid judgmental terms, particularly when they accuse people of crimes they have not been convicted of. A riot for example is a form of disturbance where each participant bears equal legal responsibility. During the 2019 Venezuelan protests in comparison, groups of protestors attempted to overthrow the government, yet the terms riot, insurrection and mob are not used. TFD (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • #5 is the clear winner for me. It is simple, non-repetitive, and consistent with the article title. WP:BLPCRIME is not an issue since no individuals are named in or identifiable from the lead sentence. VQuakr (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong preference for #6 or #7, with a bit of a lean towards the former. It's important that we make it clear from the start who the rioters were. Cpotisch (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    I have been trying to keep out of the discussion for personal reasons, but I think your second sentence is very important to think about. The goal of an article is to make clear what it is about. To get to that goal, we need take steps to ensure that what goes on the article can be understood. While I agree with your sentence, I want to modify it here to what I believe. It's important that we make it clear from the start who the rioters were along with what happened, then followed by the aftermath. I personally believe that the article takes too long to describe what happened. We currently are trying to cram a rough, generalized paragraph with everything about the event including the consequences into in the first paragraph instead of proceeding with a simple sentence or two on when it occurred, who did it, and what did they do. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I get frustrated each time I read the lede and this made me reflect about it. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Length of the lead paragraphs

I feel like we need to address the length of the lead paragraphs, they are clearly too long to be read clearly and without confusion. We should do the best we can to shorten them without leaving out critical information. But there are five paragraphs of differing sizes in the lead. So I feel like we should start working on shortening the lead paragraphs. We should make them four well composed paragraphs according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section NSNW (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We could shorten the lead to its first paragraph plus a few sentences from the third and fourth paragraphs, and move the rest of the lead to a new top-level "Overview" section. The lead would then look like this:
On January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked by a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump. They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes that would formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.
The Capitol Complex was locked down and lawmakers and staff were evacuated, while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. Police and National Guard cleared the building of rioters by mid-evening, and the counting of the electoral votes resumed and completed in the early morning hours of January 7, when Vice President Mike Pence declared President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris victorious.
Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three succumbed to natural causes. Many people were injured, including 138 police officers.
A week after the riot, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. By mid-August, 615 individuals were charged with federal crimes relating to the attack.
I left out items that I think aren't as relevant as the others, e.g. the police officer suicides and the House select committee. Thoughts? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this is a good start, the officer suicides, the select committee should be removed but make sure that they are throughly, and covered in the main body. There are some other parts that should be added though, such as the fact that Trump was acquitted, eg. Other than some copyediting that could be done I feel like this is a good start. NSNW (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Things that I feel like some things that should be added back are the quotes, details of the rioters, and other details that we can discuss whether or not should be included. We can decide what's more relevant and include them as we go. NSNW (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, make sure not to implement any of these changes until we have more people on board, the last thing we want is to start a massive edit war. NSNW (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is too long. But I disagree about the officer suicides and the select committee; those are important enough to be in the lead. The problem is not with the first two paragraphs, which are important summaries of the subject. IMO what we could and should remove, easily, is quotes and people's opinions, like whether it was terrorism or whether it was Trump's fault. Here's my suggestion: the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs are now like this:

Later that afternoon, in a Twitter video, Trump reasserted that the election was "fraudulent", but told his supporters to "go home in peace".[57][58] The Capitol was clear of rioters by mid-evening,[1] and the counting of the electoral votes resumed and completed in the early morning hours of January 7. Pence declared President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris victorious. Pressured by his administration, the threat of removal, and many resignations, Trump later committed to an orderly transition of power in a televised statement.[59][60] The assault on the Capitol generated substantial global attention. Political leaders and organizations both domestically and internationally widely condemned the attack. Mitch McConnell (R–KY), then the Senate Majority Leader, called it a "failed insurrection."[61][62] Several social media and technology companies suspended or banned Trump's accounts from their platforms.[63][64]

A week after the riot, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice.[65] In February, after Trump had left office, the Senate acquitted him.[66] The House passed a bill to create a bipartisan independent commission modeled after the 9/11 Commission to investigate the attack,[67] but it was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.[46] Pelosi then proposed, and the House approved, a House select committee to investigate the attack.[68] Christopher Wray, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), later characterized the incident as domestic terrorism.[69][70] President Biden, who described the rioters as "terrorists" aimed at "overturning the will of the American people" later shared this opinion.[71] Opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans disapproved of the attack on the Capitol and Trump's actions leading up to and following it, although many Republicans supported the attack or didn't blame Trump for it.[72]

Dozens of people present in Washington, D.C. on the day, including some who took part in the riot, were found to be listed in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, most as suspected white supremacists.[73] Members of anti-government groups, including the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters, were charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions at the Capitol.[74][75][76] By mid-August, 615 individuals were charged with federal crimes relating to the attack.[25]

I think we could trim it like this:

Later that afternoon, in a Twitter video, Trump reasserted that the election was "fraudulent", but told his supporters to "go home in peace".[57][58] The Capitol was clear of rioters by mid-evening,[1] and the counting of the electoral votes resumed and completed in the early morning hours of January 7. Pence declared President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris victorious. Pressured by his administration, the threat of removal, and many resignations, Trump later committed to an orderly transition of power in a televised statement.[59][60] The assault on the Capitol generated substantial global attention. Political leaders and organizations both domestically and internationally widely condemned the attack. Mitch McConnell (R–KY), then the Senate Majority Leader, called it a "failed insurrection."[61][62] Several social media and technology companies suspended or banned Trump's accounts from their platforms.[63][64]

A week after the riot, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice.[65] In February, after Trump had left office, the Senate acquitted him.[66] The House passed a bill to create a bipartisan independent commission modeled after the 9/11 Commission to investigate the attack,[67] but it was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.[46] Pelosi then proposed, and the House approved, a House select committee to investigate the attack.[68] Christopher Wray, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), later characterized the incident as domestic terrorism.[69][70] President Biden, who described the rioters as "terrorists" aimed at "overturning the will of the American people" later shared this opinion.[71] Opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans disapproved of the attack on the Capitol and Trump's actions leading up to and following it, although many Republicans supported the attack or didn't blame Trump for it.[72]

Dozens of people present in Washington, D.C. on the day, including some who took part in the riot, were found to be listed in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, most as suspected white supremacists.[73] Members of anti-government groups, including the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters, were charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions at the Capitol.[74][75][76] By mid-August, 615 individuals were charged with federal crimes relating to the attack.[25]

What's left could even be combined into a single paragraph. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@NSNW: I like how you said that quotes should be kept, for example the quote of Trump saying the election was stolen (instead of only using the word stolen in own voice) was included based on this recent discussion: Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 17#26 Quotes around "stolen" — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2021

I definitely agree with almost everything you proposed, we shouldn't include the opinions from others, such as FBI director Wray, Leader McConnell, opinion polls, etc. Still, IMO we should keep the quotes from Trump's speech in the first and second paragraphs, which I also agree are clear and concise and shouldn't be drastically formatted any further. NSNW (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I am not suggesting to remove anything from the first two paragraphs. They are really the "meat" of this subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm checking right now to see how covered the quotes and opinions are in the main body before we make any changes. NSNW (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, almost everything that we think we should trim is not really included in the article besides the international/domestic opinion polls, the FBI classifying the incident as "domestic terrorism," and Trump's social media accounts being suspended or banned. Before we do anything we should include these in the main body, I'll start doing that as soon as I can. Leave me any thoughts on where and how I should include them. NSNW (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for checking this. Things should not be in the lead if they are not in the article. If something isn't in the article, you can move it there, and that will in effect delete it from the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I'll start doing that right now, do you think I should put the quotes from Mcconnell and Biden in the Political legal and social reprecussions section, or in the domestic reactions section, whats your opinion? NSNW (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Domestic reactions. EDIT: you can use </includeonly> to include something here via transclusion, but not to have it visible in the original article, to maintain lead conciseness there. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll use that in the future, having to edit another article for that to be included was a real hassle. NSNW (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I removed the quotes and opinions from the third and fourth paragraphs in the lead, they have been put into the domestic reactions section. NSNW (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for doing that. Now the lead is just four paragraphs, all summarizing material that is in the article - and you were able to reduce the lead without actually removing anything from the article. Good work! -- MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Line saying the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt is still unidentified is now out of date

All the major outlets have confirmed that the cop who shot Babbitt is now identified as Michael Byrd, so this line is no longer true. Not sure if he should be identified in the article, but that line at least needs to be removed or updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.223.135 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a link to a reliable source to verify this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736

Right here, sorry that it's not in a cite or signed im on mobile right now. NSNW (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the source! I added it to the article and removed the claim "and the officer remains publicly unidentified". I don't see a need to mention his name. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The relevant policy is Privacy of names. It is usually preferable to omit the names of persons "who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." This may change if the person becomes notable, but we can always add their name later. TFD (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This had already been added here FYI (name too): Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I added his name (and rank) earlier today, before reading this, hope that's "later" enough. I think when a man's action is already huge news for seven months, coming out on NBC by name, unmasked and unblurred, is soon enough. It's not like he didn't realize a lot of people still watch NBC (or at least read about its "exclusives" online). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the name, per UNDUE & BLP. The name is irrelevant to this topic. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That first complaint is vague. Let's hear how those policies apply to this willing public figure and only reported killer in this much-ballyhooed "deadly insurrection". Naming a killer is standard in shooting articles from all 50 states, even when he doesn't actively seek publicity for doing what he openly considers a good thing and has been described namelessly in the article lead since Day One, begging the widely-reported question. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This is not a "shooting article". It is the article about the insurrection. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Or, as NBC and other mass media put it, the deadly insurrection. Are you going to explain why you think the killer's name is irrelevant and undue in an article centred around violence and authority? Are you going to admit there's no BLP violation in relaying something written about a famous person that same person doesn't deny, rather goes out of his way to confirm? Are you going to raise a similar obstruction to naming the dozen or so far less crucial and famous people without articles here, or is Byrd just somehow "falsely equivalent" to any of those considered among "a mob of Trump supporters"? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The article is about attempted overthrow of the US Government. Per @The Four Deuces: and me, its a BLP violation and its UNDUE for this page. Use talk and don't edit war. You should not have reinsert it with the nonsense edit summary that your view is correct. Please see WP:EW. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
IMO we should keep the info about the officer in. He publicly identified himself and that's something that has to be included. Furthermore, I believe that it is relevant information as the event happened during the attack, even if it's not mainly notable its still widely talked about and referenced by multiple sources. If anything related to the officer or the killing itself we should relook this, but for now I think we should keep it in. NSNW (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Per the FBI via Reuters, there was no attempted overthrowing. Biased columnists with preconceived notions certainly disagree. But this event was a lot of things, and one aspect that all sides of American news agrees totally happened was the deadly shooting of Ashli Babbitt by Michael Byrd. Name your preferred outlet, it's covered this fact. I gave (and am still giving) you ample opportunity to explain how BLP applies to the cop whose identity reveal was a media event in itself, and doesn't apply to a cop whose family explicitly asked for privacy and for nobody to politicize his death. Or people who just happened to die of heart disease concurrently. Or Ashli Babbitt. You can repeat UNDUE and BLP all you want, but it'll still be the objectively weaker argument unless you elaborate on how that makes sense here, like I've at least tried to show you it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
(And my summary said my argument was stronger, no nonsense about how my "view is correct".) InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I already explained why the officer's name should not be included; because policy ("Privacy of names") says that it should be left out even if it has been published in reliable sources. It doesn't improve the article to add the name of someone no one has heard of. Who the officer was is irrelevant because the officer acted according to standard police procedures, according to best information. The reason a fatal shooting occurred is that a demonstrator wearing a backpack tried to enter the Capitol Building illegally and died as a result of reasonable force used by an officer against someone who appeared to pose a serious danger. Whether or not there was an attempt to overthrow the government is irrelevant. The officer assessed the threat based on what he knew and acted according to procedures.

The officer has not gone out of his way to name himself. According to NBC, "He has been in hiding for months after he received a flood of death threats and racist attacks that started when his name leaked onto right-wing websites." After he was cleared of wrongdoing, he explained his version of events in an interview. He has not become the topic of ongoing news reporting.

Unless he choses to become a regular guest on network cable, the officer's connection with the events should be quickly forgotten. It serves no social value for us to make sure that doesn't happen.

TFD (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Privacy of Names" applies "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". That might have been the case until a few weeks ago, but when the individual has publicly identified himself, and has been widely described as the person who shot the intruder,[58][59][60][61][62][63] it is a very big stretch to try and apply it . Inf-in MD (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we should look at it from a reader's perspective. Per WP:AUDIENCE, Assume readers are reading the article to learn. Learning is made easier when there isn't an excess of information. What information is contained in a name? Would a reader keep digging to find out more about this police officer, based on the name? If so, people would find the NBC interview (and the trail kind of ends there) -- so I ask: how would that figure in the context of learning about the Capitol attack? If what he said in the interview was particularly noteworthy and informative, we could include that and then include his name as an attribution. If nothing attributable to him specifically, as an individual (i.e. something that does not fall under generic conduct of a police officer in line of duty in 21st century America), needs to be included, his name doesn't need to be included either, because a name as a name doesn't make anyone learn anything. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you think having the victim's name is similarly not useful, because a name as a name doesn't make anyone learn anything.? Inf-in MD (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in fact. For example I don't see value in including the names of three Trump supporters who died nonviolently, and details about them. A. Babbitt however is not just a victim, she is a person who did something out of the ordinary, and became famous for it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
There were four Trump supporters who died non-violently, you keep seeming to forget, counting the only one whose family explicitly asked for privacy instead of a whole Wikipedia article for dying ordinarily. Anyway, I heard of Byrd months ago, and agreed to leave it under my hat, because BLP did once apply. Not now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
"a person who did something out of the ordinary, and became famous for it" could equally apply to the officer who shot her. But let's take this a bit further. Should we name the Secret Service officers who acted during the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan? By your logic, the did nothing extraordinary, just their job. Their job is to protect the President, which they did. Not only are they named in that article, they have complete articles about them. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd have to take a careful look at that, I can't asnwer right away. The police officer didn't do anything out of the ordinary, he did what police officers are taught to do, and are generally expected to do. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Not my position, but some people hold that shooting an unarmed intruder is a bit out of the ordinary, as is keeping the identity of the shooter secret for months. But I am not saying he did something out of the ordinary, only that this is not typically a reason to keep the name of law enforcement officers that become public knowledge out of the article.Inf-in MD (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Once you've read Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, take a look at Murder of John Lennon - Officers Steven Spiro and Peter Cullen are both named in the article, even though what they did was simply arrest Champan - routine policework if ever there was one. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It was certainly more unusual than whatever Cindy Chafian, James Epley, Brandon Straka, Jessica Watkins and Howard Liebengood are said to have done in several hundred words here, speaking of too much information. Whether you believe this is a high-profile police shooting article or not, people generally want to know more about the shooter and the victim(s). Only weirdos (with due respect) want several hundred words on bystander randos and their supposed or stated motivations. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree, we have multiple references to officers, names included, who not only didn't shoot anybody but were notable in the attack, i.e., Howard Liebengood, Eugene Goodman, Brian Sicknick, they are all mentioned with names. I don't see why we shouldn't continue that. Also, just because people aren't notable, such as victims, doesn't mean that their names shouldn't be included, @Alalch Emis~, we include victims lists in mass shootings and bombings for an example, so I don't neccessarily get your argument that the 4, or IMO 3, capital rioters who died that day, shouldn't have their names included. NSNW (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware that there's a sort of a convention to name (include the lists of names of) the victims of such events, but I don't see this is as valuable information. In any case, there isn't an analogous convention regarding police officers. Eugene Goodman was recognized for doing something extraordinary, and received a very prestigious award. The officer who shot Babbitt wasn't recognized for doing anything extraordinary. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone doesn't necessarily have to do something extraordinary per se. For example, there is a reference in the article about Andy Kim (D–NJ) cleaning up litter in the capital rotunda, I wouldn't call that extraordinary, but it's something that happened, and therefore we included it because we as an encyclopedia are supposed to document what happened. Also, some may not call officer Byrd shooting a rioter extraordinary, but at the same time there are some that do. It was reported on, and it's a standing controversy. My whole argument here basically is that just because somebody didn't do something extraordinary doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. NSNW (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I might not personally call that extraordinary, but it was noted as something really extraordinary. edit: the suit the congressman was wearing was even put in a museum... — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Really? Can you send me a source for that. Anyway that's beside the point, the reference to that was just an example. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of other references to non extraordinary things. My whole point is you don't have to leave something out just because it may be considered unextraordinary or non-relavent. NSNW (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Source: WaPo. It isn't beside the point to back up an argument with an example, and have that example be shown as not a valid one. I think it's good to leave this out as the name doesn't impart any useful information to the reader. Extraneous detail in current event articles (i.e. articles that have formed up as current event coverage) is a chronic problem, in general. We're dealing with one instance now (ocean.... drop...), but now that attention has been brought to it, we can do it justice. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
A cop shouts from the headlines, "I saved countless lives" and you say any cop would, no big deal, ordinary useless information. Is that justice? And if every ordinary cop would have done the same, why didn't any in the exact same non-hypothetical scenario? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
We leave it out because that is Wikipedia policy. If you want to add the name, get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It is actually not Wikipedia policy, as I explained above. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
You merely provided the most obvious case where a name should be excluded, when it "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed," It also says, "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." Caution means not doing something unless there is a good reason to do so. In this case, there is nothing that the name adds to story, since the person only appears once and is not otherwise significant. I notice that InedibleHulk refers to the officer as a "killer" and "shooter," yet these terms are rarely if ever used to describe law enforcement officers legally carrying out their responsibilities. That seems more like revenge as a reason, rather than policy. TFD (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I refer you again to Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and Murder of John Lennon (and there are many others, of course). Both of these are rated as good articles, and would not have been so rated if it was "Wikipedia policy' not to include the names of police officers involved. It is common practice to include those names, even when they only appears once and are not otherwise significant. Inf-in MD (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I did it. Not because he and all mainstream outlets say he "shot and killed Ashli Babbitt". But some completely batshit sort of revenge. Against someone who never wronged me or someone I care about. By letting him identify himself. You should be a detective. I'd pay to watch that, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
If you still think "the relevant policy" is BLP1E, you need to get it changed. It applies to standalone article creation, currently, not naming names in existing articles. And if you mean BLPNAME, delete the "widely disseminated" caveat. Anyway, sorry if you thought I was referring to you in my comment to SPECIFICO earlier, you explain well. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
And if you're honestly concerned about exposing a shy living person to threats and vitriol, let NBC assure you, "Byrd said he wanted to speak out to counter the misrepresentations of his actions that day, even if doing so exposes him to more threats and vitriol." InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of the shooting officer's name is clearly contentious, at least under WP:BLP1E, WP:PRIVACY and WP:BRD. It is up to the inclusionists to start an RfC if they want the name included. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is a policy about article creation, it is not relevant to mentioning people's names in articles. The WP:PRIVACY has been dealt with, above. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
As the officer has recived death threats there is (I feel) an issue of privacy here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There's no issue of privacy once he granted public interviews that were broadly covered. That's ridiculous. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Removing other names

@InedibleHulk: sorry if my AGF-radar is off right now, but your edits are looking fairly WP:POINTY. Do you truly believe all those names need to be removed? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Not the journalist and expert publishing under their own names, good catches, sorry. But yes, the rest are low-profile figures and didn't ask to be lumped in with Nazi insurrectionists, possibly face harassment. Some were directly implicated in crimes, prejudicially. Consensus is needed. BLP violations, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to unname the suicides, because suicide is especially personal and sensitive, but the setup there was a headache linked to a worse article. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
No we should not name suicides.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
We've already got articles on two of the officers who committed suicide now, though. Love of Corey (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
On their deaths, not them, and neither are clearly notable standalone events. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I know, I was just pointing it out. Love of Corey (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, in that case, fine! 😀 InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not exactly supportive of the existence of those articles either. Love of Corey (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Reuters

Please note a new article from Reuters, "Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources," which may help us. Specifically there was no plot to overturn the election results, Trump's people had no involvement in the attack and the attackers had no plans on what to do once they entered the building. TFD (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"according to four current and former law enforcement officials.", so it is not an official finding (I also note "law enforcement officials", so not even "FBI officials").Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The report cites people close to the investigation. Key quotes are the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations. and one source said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as "seditious conspiracy" to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government. They have also opted not to bring racketeering charges, often used against organized criminal gangs. Prosecutors have also not brought any charges alleging that any individual or group played a central role in organizing or leading the riot. Law-enforcement sources told Reuters no charges appeared to be pending. The Hill has also covered this based on the Reuters report.[64]
A mention to this report should be included in the lede and in an appropiate section where the FBI is mentioned. Loganmac (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that something should be included. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
="The FBI has found little evidence at this point to suggest that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was largely coordinated by supporters of former President Trump or right-wing groups, according to a Reuters report." A.little does not mean none, B. the hill attributes it. We should wait until the FBI makes an official report. rather than engage in wp:notnews speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why this warrants a change to the lead. VQuakr (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Not a change to what's there, but maybe adding something along the lines of the very last bit in the lead, that was removed relatively recently (diff though prosecutors acknowledged...). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Added something, only to the lead: (diff) — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Adding something is changing the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course. What I meant was a change only by virtue of adding (Not a change to what's there). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Absence of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result doesn't mean that the attackers did not attempt to overturn the election result. There doesn't have to be an organized plot for an assemblage of people to do something collectively. Also, five percent, maybe, of these militia groups ... were more closely organized -- what were they organized to do? Something other than overturn the election results? The article doesn't say that those that were indeed organized were organizing to do anything but that. A minority of the attackers was organized, and the majority was disorganized but they all attempted to overturn the elections results, some in a more organized and targeted manner, and some in a disorganized manner. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hard to give too much weight to anonymous sourcing + article notes conspiracy charges have been filed by DOJ. Feoffer (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree that "law enforcement sources" have fooled and failed this article (like many others) before. Use with due weight and caution. But general conspiracy and seditious conspiracy are two very different accusations. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

As this content is disputed, it should not be added anywhere without consensus. The lede (by the ay) is a summary of the body, it is is not in the body it can't go in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If the same addition was to be made to the body, and there had been agreement to include this information, where in the body would you put it? Maybe it could only fit in a daughter article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: in other words: if we imagine that we agreed on a good place in the article where to put the reverted sentence (diff), what would be your reason to revert it? ... not an official finding? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is not the FBI who have said this, it is some anonymous people who are not even alleged to be in the FBI. SO we should wait until the FBI make an official statement as to their stance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
There, fits like a glove. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
IF, yes. But as we have not agreed it should be added (let alone the wording) it should not be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
It's important to provide information about the FBI's interpretation of the events, considering that the article reports many different views. Only the FBI has conducted an extensive investigation and would know which claims lack evidence. TFD (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe this information should be included as it provides more context. It does not say the event did not happen or that it wasn't dangerous or that there wasn't motivation for it. It simply reports: "The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an ORGANIZED PLOT to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials." So it only speaks to whether an organized plot existed. Wikipedia considers Reuters a "reliable source" so that should not be a problem.--Auctoris (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's my proposal, let me know what you think.

According to a report by Reuters that cited four anonymous current and former law enforcement officials, the FBI found "scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result". While investigators did find that cells of protesters such as followers of the far-right groups Oath Keepers and Proud Boys , had aimed to break into the Capitol, the sources said the FBI "found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside". The violence was, according to these sources, not "centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump".[1][2][3][4]

Like most here said, this isn't really shifting blame or downplaying, it only speaks on the question of it being an organized plot or what The Week called spontaneous "self-radicalization". -- Loganmac (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I like it. Sounds good to me. Auctoris (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
In principle it's good. I would omit "that cited four anonymous current and former law enforcement officials," since most readers don't care about their methodology. Also, we should summarize statements rather than provide direct quotes. Direct quotes are only helpful when the exact phrasing is notable. "I do not choose to run," "I did not have sex with that woman," "He would say that, wouldn't he?" TFD (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Impossibly long and looks like WP:COPYVIO. My single sentence is much better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
According to Copyright.gov:
"Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances."
The four standards adopted to judge fair use are: "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a com- mercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and sub- stantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the poten- tial market for or value of the copyrighted work."
It is my opinion that quoting two sentences from a news article for use in a non-profit setting constitutes fair use. I'm sure opinions vary. Auctoris (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Reuters is an exceptional source, but this is nevertheless quite WP:EXTRAORDINARY and I'd like to see a supplemental source for something this big. soibangla (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are the claims extraordinary? Alex Jones and Roger Stone didn't have a great scheme of overturning the elections. That's the gist of it. Very ordinary and expected. It't a follow up story to stories from March about how FBI was looking into the possibility that these figures were seriously involved. Now the media asked them again and their reply is "no evidence". This can be painlessly included, as I have already proven. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I say we wait until there is an official announcement. There is an investigation, lets wait for it to finish. We are wp:notnews and lose nothing by waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You reverted from this:

As of February 2021, the FBI and Justice Department were investigating the possible influences that prominent figures like Trump confidant Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones may have had on the rioters. However, it was not yet clear if Stone and Jones would be criminally charged.[5] In August, Reuters reported that the FBI has not found meaningful evidence of a "grand scheme" of the attack, that would involve such prominent figures, but that it had evidence that cells of attackers, involving far-right groups, had planned to break into the Capitol.[6]

To this:

As of February 2021, the FBI and Justice Department were investigating the possible influences that prominent figures like Trump confidant Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones may have had on the rioters. However, it was not yet clear if Stone and Jones would be criminally charged.[7]

Clearly a detriment to Wikipedia. You'd leave an allegation from February, not based on an official account either FBI Reportedly Probing..., that was addressed in August, by reliable source (and an awarded journalist), at the level where it was in February. Not good. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ "Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources". Reuters. 20 August 2021.
  2. ^ Vakil, Caroline (20 August 2021). "FBI finds scant evidence Jan. 6 attack was coordinated: Reuters". TheHill.
  3. ^ "FBI finds no evidence Capitol riot was coordinated". The Independent. 20 August 2021.
  4. ^ "The Jan. 6 'plot' that wasn't". The Week.
  5. ^ Papenfuss, Mary (2021-02-21). "FBI Reportedly Probing Roger Stone's, Alex Jones' Possible Links To Capitol Violence". HuffPost. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  6. ^ Hosenball, Mark; Lynch, Sarah. "Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources". Reuters.
  7. ^ Papenfuss, Mary (2021-02-21). "FBI Reportedly Probing Roger Stone's, Alex Jones' Possible Links To Capitol Violence". HuffPost. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
OK, if there is no official investigation we can remove this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Remove the whole paragraph? I guess, go ahead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
You are the one objecting to it, on the grounds there is no investigation, this [[65]] tells me there is. But this [[66]] tells me its not about Trump. So it needs a rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how those links pertain here. Can't find "Alex Jones" and "Roger Stone" on those pages.
Also, in this thread you make an original conclusion how Reuters journalists didn't talk to FBI members when they made a report on what FBI is doing, because in their report they said according to four current and former law enforcement officials.. First of all, FBI is a law enforcement agency (see: invalid disjunction) -- you don't know if they talked to FBI members or not. Second, what gives your premise validity? Even if they didn't talk to FBI members, how can you say that this invalidates journalistic work by an awarded journalist, published by a source which is a benchmark for reliability? You can't override WP:SOURCE based on a groundless suspicion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Further, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. Not updating what reliable sources say about an allegation, i.e. picking only the older sources that report on an allegation as a current issue, and not updating our coverage with a newer source that reports it as no longer current is counter to WP:BLPBALANCE: The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times, and it is WP:CHERRYPICKING. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Reuters bit is nonsense, with torturedly parsed wording that doesn't add up to anything significant. There are numerous reasons why an anonymous source may leak "news" to an eager journalist. Valid news leaks are quickly confirmed by other media and independently reported. That has not happened in this case. OMIT. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, omit entirely until corroborated by another reliable source. The Reuters story makes sweeping assertions that surely some other source should be able to follow up on. soibangla (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
It isn't nonsense, it's a follow-up story to the stories, at least from February onwards, about alleged involvement of prominent Trump associates, rotating around an idea that the attack was a grand plot directed by prominent people like Jones and Stone (basically a banal Big Bad narrative that a part of the public will naturally default to, and that some outlets will try to satisfy). The Reuters report says basically: FBI doesn't have evidence that would support this idea of the attack. Don't omit. Include where appropriate (already clear where that is, from the preceding discussion). Reuters is one of the WP:BESTSOURCES, and there's nothing to wait for. Other outlets will simply regurgitate what they reported.
@Soibangla:Please list some sweeping assertions and extraordinary claims contained in the article. Is a claim that there is absence of meaningful evidence pointing to Jones and Stone as architects of a grand scheme extraordinary? — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Alalch, that is a straw man argument and it's irrelevant. We don't publish controversial material that's been written by a single source and not indpendently confirmed and reported by broad mainstream RS. Your argument above sounds like Trump's "no collusion" motto. Your assertion that other news organizations simply copy Reuters is not correct. In the event of a potentially explosive investigative scoop by Reuters, other organizations would corroborate it through their own sources once the first story breaks. That has conspicuously not happened in this instance. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Reuters is a broad mainstream RS, and its report has been covered by other mainstream sources - see above. That's all that's needed under wikiepedia's reliable sources policy. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a big difference between sources reporting what another source reported and reporting it themselves. Maybe this will spur other sources to independently corroborate Reuters, but I see no evidence that has happened. We should not fall into a trap of "everyone's saying it" when it's actually people repeating one source. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
that's true, but it is not wikipedia policy, as far as I can tell. When many reliable source cite another reliable source, that's good enough. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with everything in the above comment by SPECIFICO: (1) What strawman argument? I don't see it. (2) it is not "controversial material", (3) that's not how the news works -- when Reuters, a news agency, publishes a story, downstream outlets publish that same story, or use it in subsequent reporting, in commentaries, but it's nothing of the sort that they would follow in Reuters' footsteps to independently verify it; that is not what normally happens (4) My "argument" (which argument specifically?) doesn't sound anything like that, (5) outlets copying from Reuters is how Reuters makes money, it's a news agency. I could go on and on. More people should weigh in, I don't want to bludgeon this convo, but this could lead to WP:DR (which is fine); because of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the sad state of the Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack article after the two reverts. Wikipedia is supposed to be responsive to how reliable sources treat allegations. You can't use HuffPost's ("reportedly") allegations to include them, and when Reuters' awarded journalist comes in with a follow-up, say WP:NOTNEWS. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
You mean, if I'm Reuters you pay me a nickel every time you mention my name? Also I take bitcoin. WP:IDHT. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:IDHT — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree, this is not nonsense, it is pertinent information from a high quality source. I have already added (yesterday ) the following to the Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack article, and we could add something similar here:
"On August 20, 2021, Reuters reported that the FBI investigation found "scant evidence" that the attack was coordinated or was result of an organized plot , and cast doubt on the likelihood of more serious charges such as seditious conspiracy being brought. [1]" Inf-in MD (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources
If we report in the article a claim that this was an attempted coup, we should provide the evidence that it wasn't.
Jonathan Turley, who is a prominent expert, commented on the Reuters report in "The FBI comes up empty-handed in its search for a Jan. 6 plot" (The Hill, 08/21/21 11:00 AM EDT.) He wrote, "After five months of dragnet arrests nationwide, a few reporters have noted that no one was actually charged with insurrection or sedition." Turley rebuts claims that it was sedition or insurrection as politically motivated misrepresentation.
The Reuters article merely states the obvious.
TFD (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Nothing in the Reuters article points to a conclusion that the attack was not an insurrection. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Turley has taken some interesting positions of late, kinda like Dershowitz has (and how), but this is the largest FBI investigation ever and they have massive amounts of data to consider, so the fact they have not yet found a seditious conspiracy does not necessarily preclude such a finding. This is an exceptionally sensitive matter that has suggestions of involvement by prominent individuals, and all the implications of that, so they must proceed with extreme care. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
So "suggestions of involvement by prominent individuals" received also from anonymous sources in February ("according to people familiar with the investigation.") is the default position that we take at face value, and when in August, Reuters publishes a follow up story, that's "sweeping assertions" and "extraordinary claims", and we'll keep our coverage of the allegations at the level where it was in February, without updating. Is this normal to you? — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not cite that WaPo source, my assertion is based on numerous sources that have indicated possible involvement by prominent people. And yes, given everything I've said here, I maintain that Reuters has made extraordinary and sweeping assertions that should be excluded unless/until corroborated. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
By "interesting positions," do you mean based on law rather than political affiliation? So they have arrested 570 people who are facing lengthy sentences and many are being held without bail, some of them have problems with mental illness and the foremost police force in the world in its largest ever investigation has not been able to get one person to crack. You shouldn't believe in massive conspiracies without evidence. TFD (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
No, by "interesting positions" I mean some that have elicited little support from other scholars but quite a few raised eyebrows among others. has not been able to get one person to crack? A third member of the Oath Keepers has entered a guilty plea and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors soibangla (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, with You shouldn't believe in massive conspiracies without evidence you are returning to taking baseless swipes at me. Remember how that worked out last time? soibangla (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla, any information that has been determined to be false should be removed, no matter how widespread the publication of the correction is. This article for example no longer says that an officer died from injuries suffered on Jan. 6, although the claim is still in the article about Steven Sund.[67]
Although the FBI got a member of the Oath Keepers to testify that there was a conspiracy "to stop, delay, and hinder the Certification of the Electoral College vote," the indictment does not say that any other group or individual was involved or even that there was any plan to storm the Capitol building before they arrived there.[68] The map published by NBC shows that one blogger suggested that demonstrators block legislators from entering the Capitol grounds, not that they planned to enter the building themselves.[69]
You wroted, "the fact they have not yet found a seditious conspiracy does not necessarily preclude such a finding." I thought you meant that you believed that a seditious conspiracy exists, although you accept there is no evidence. Is that a correct assessment of what you meant?
TFD (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The WaPo article is the original reporting piece, and it was picked up by other outlets (The Justice Department and FBI are looking into whether Roger Stone and Alex Jones played a role in the deadly insurrection on January 6, according to The Washington Post. (Business Insider), etc.). I don't agree with the reverts based on my above arguments. Do you have any middle-ground proposals? How long to wait approximately? — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The Reuters story came out yesterday. My guess is many DC reporters are pursuing this further as we speak and may elaborate soon. Let's wait and see. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Waiting for a while is practically fine, but on principle bad from the standpoint of WP:BLPBALANCE as long as the February allegations are included on their own (and fortunately they aren't given that much prominence in the topic area). A reasonable option is deleting the whole paragraph, until it the reporting from February and follow up reporting can be integrated on a consensus basis. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. It's natural to try to read tea leaves, but the Reuters doesn't really tell us anything for sure. "Scant" evidence isn't "no" evidence, after all. If 90% were spontaneous, that still leaves quite a large remainder. The anonymous money quote is worded as to be practically a tautology: "there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol". That language certainly doesn't exclude the possibility of a less-grand scheme with some of those people. Feoffer (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
That is a bit of semantic sophistry. "scant evidence", as a figure of speech, does NOT mean you found a little evidence, it means you did not find the evidence you were looking for to support something. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
It's anonymously sourced, the quote has to be closely parsed. Feoffer (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
English is not your first language, so I get why you are confused, but no. The figure of speech "found scant evidence " does NOT mean "found a little evidence ", it means the evidence that was looked for was not found, or that not enough evidence was found. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
[[70]], no it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Did you even bother to read what you linked to? "not as much of something as there should be." In English speech, the following sentences convey the same meaning and are nearly equivalent: "I didn't find evidence for the theory "; very little of something; "I found scant evidence for the theory" ;" I didn't find enough evidence for the theory". Conversely, despite their similarity, these sentences are not equivalent - they convey almost the opposite meaning: "I found some evidence for the theory", "I a found a little evidence for the theory". The difference between "few" and "a few" or "little" and "a little" is a nuance that confuses many non-native speakers. (...and apparently some native speakers, too) - https://www.grammarly.com/blog/few-a-few/. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
"As there should" be is not synonymous with "none" or "not enough to prove it", just "not as much as we thought". "very little of something" means, not a lot not none. This is why we do not do OR, it has to say exactly what we want it to say, without a need for interpration.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
"There is scant evidence for" is nearly synonymous with "there is no evidence for", just like "I paid scant attention to what you said" is nearly synonymous with "I didn't pay attention to what you said ". We don't need to do any OR, we simply quote what reliable sources said - which is that there is scant evidence for the conspiracy theory., Inf-in MD (talk)
No sone anonymous sources said there was scant evidence. As I said, we can wait till the FBI confirms or denies it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
reliable sources reported that an anonymous person connected to the investigation said it found scant evidence - and we report what reliable sources say. Alternatively, we can do as — Alalch Emis (talk) suggested, and remove this entire paragraph - both the part where anonymous sources that say "suggestions of involvement by prominent individuals", and this piece. But we can't leave one in and excluse the other, on the basis of "anonymous sources", that would not be neutral .Inf-in MD (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
It does not say they are connected, it says they have knowledge, not the same thing. I have already addressed the issue of the passage, if you want to remove it do so.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. I doubt all the hooligans at the Bastille were checking their iPhone for coordination either. Maybe Prof Turley is engaging in a bit of academic sophistry here. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@Feoffer:What Reuters reported doesn't exclude the possibility of a less-grand scheme with some of the people -- it affirms this as an actuality instead. Also, important to remember that The defendants can still be convicted of conspiring to obstruct Congress even if the plan was formulated only moments before they stormed the Capitol, said Jimmy Gurule, a former federal prosecutor who’s now a professor at the University of Notre Dame law school. And prosecutors have some “pretty compelling circumstantial evidence” (AP, March). However, the language of "there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol" excludes the possibility that there was a grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol. This is a follow up to the story how Roger Stone and Alex Jones were investigated as potential planners and coordinators (anonymous WaPo source, Feb. 20). People are failing to see the nature of this article as a follow up reportage, that has a very exact place in the overarching news trajectory. It's a very regular piece of news. Not "controversial", not "extraordinary" etc. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I would add that conspiracy does not require any words are exchanged, just that there was an agreement to act together. So if a tresspasser opened the door to another tresspasser, that is conspiracy. Since the building was entered at multiple points, it is reasonable to assume that there was a plan. But there is scnat evidence this plan was formulated before arriving on the Capitol grounds.
I agree that scant evidence does not literally mean no evidence or no valid evidence, but it can imply that. So we don't know if any evidence was found. We could say for example that there is scant evidence for alien abductions. While there is evidence, it's not considered credible.
TFD (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Really? SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, I don't see how the Reuters article negates this content you just removed[71] and you acknowledge consensus has not been reached, so I advise you self-revert to restore the long-standing content until consensus has been reached. soibangla (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

the new report by Reuters says there's scant evidence that Rogers and Stone were involeved in a conspiracy. So we either add this to the article, or we remove the anonymously sourced suggestion that they were involved. Keeping just the latter is a violation of the Neutral Point of View. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla: The Reuters article doesn't strictly negate it but keeping the coverage of allegations at the level from February, without updating with information that evidence hasn't been found (Reuters, awarded journalist) six months later is not good from the standpoint of WP:BLPBALANCE. Pretending that this hasn't been published and construing how unchecked allegations form "long-standing content" (instead of vigorously updating which is mandated in BLP matters) is unserious. There's disagreement on whether and how to include new information, but there appears to be support for a middle-ground interim solution to remove this paragraph until an consensus based version is reached. Basically, more people need to become involved. There are options: RfC, DR... — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see there appears to be support for a middle-ground interim solution. I see that we continue to discuss with no consensus. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I support it, — Alalch Emis supports is, and Slatersteven supports it. Who, other than you, opposes it? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
At the time when I made the edit, the idea had been suggested twice. I have proposed it, Inf-in MD supported it, and Slatersteven has said if you want to remove it do so. From this, I concluded that there is no real opposition to this action (interim solution) which is warranted under policy. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I have objected to the new source as it is not an official claim, but rather a "rumor", I cannot see how the material about Jones (et all) is any different, there is no evidence that the FBI has investigated them, and its been 7 months now. This seems to me (now) just as much idle speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
So when sources tell WaPo the FBI is investigating possible involvement of Trump, Stone and Jones, it's OK to put it in, but when sources tell Reuters the FBI has found scant evidence of any involvement it becomes rumor. What is the difference? TFD (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Errr, no. And I fail, to understand how you came by that conclusion via the line "I cannot see how the material about Jones (et all) is any different, there is no evidence that the FBI has investigated them, and its been 7 months now." in fact it is exactly the opposite of what I said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack reads, "As of February 2021, the FBI and Justice Department were investigating the possible influences that prominent figures like Trump confidant Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones may have had on the rioters. However, it was not yet clear if Stone and Jones would be criminally charged." This is sourced to a HuffPo article, "FBI Reportedly Probing Roger Stone’s, Alex Jones’ Possible Links To Capitol Violence," which says, "Investigators are examining ties among Stone, inflammatory conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and violent rioters, sources told The Washington Post." So could you please explain why the sources used by WaPo are reliable for facts while the information provided by sources to Reuters are rumors? TFD (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and when did I agree we should keep this, as that seems to be the implication of "So when sources tell WaPo the FBI is investigating possible involvement of Trump, Stone and Jones, it's OK to put it in"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
You reverted the text sourced to Reuters, while maintaining the text sourced to HuffPo.[72] Alalch Emis lists your differences at 08:29, 21 August 2021. Why did you do think the text you removed is rumor while the text you kept is factual? TFD (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I reverted two days ago back to the version that had been long-standing and before a reasonable argument (which you will see I agree with above) was put forward as to why we should also remove the Huff Post piece (which you will also see I have not added back). You seem to just be looking for an argument, please stop, and rather spend your time arguing with those arguing here for its retention.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone taken the time to read and address the facts found in the FBI's final report that came out on August 20th, 2021 about the Capitol Riot? Namely that they found "scant" (ie none save people simply agreeing to go there as a group) evidence of any kind of "right wing" organization to allegedly overthrow the government. In other words, the FBI's report, and I imagine this will deeply anger some people for strange reasons, was not an insurrection, but simply a riot, and a fairly tame one at that, at least according to the FBI (and this is "Biden's FBI").

Care to provide a link?Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's relevant to note that Reuters has partnered with the Russian news agency TASS since June 2020. It's no longer the pristine objective news source it was for so many many decades. In my opinion it should definitely not be used as the sole source for a controversial claim, especially one that seems to contradict many other reports. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    Misleading. Reuters Connect provides content from TASS as well as 17 other international news services, including BBC News, to its clients. TASS reporters are not working with Reuters newsroom. Reuters btw is part of Thomson Reuters that is a major media corporation in its own right. TFD (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I find it breathtaking that you transformed "the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump" into "there was no plot to overturn the election results, Trump's people had no involvement in the attack". I see a clear equivocation with "no central coordination" with "no plot". Saying that "Trump's people had no involvement in the attack" is another equivocation which denies the possibility that "Trump's people" used rhetoric which caused people to engage in the attack. All of this is like saying that a report found that there were no sandwiches made in a restaurant, when really the report said that there were no hamburgers. BirdValiant (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A plot requires "central coordination." While the demonstrators wanted to overturn the results and some of them acted violently, there was no plot to do so by illegal means. Trump and his people had no communication with the demonstrators other than speeches by Trump and others outside the Whitehouse. While there was speculation that demonstrators, perhaps in coordination with Trump, his people and Alex Jones, agreed to go to Washington with the intention of a violent attack on the Capitol that would change the outcome of the election, there is no evidence for that view. The grand conspiracy theory is belied by the fact that the demonstrators were disorganized once they entered the building. That doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to your own interpretation of the events, it's just that it is unsupported by evidence. Personally, I enjoy the irony of Alex Jones et al being the subject of a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: "A plot requires 'central coordination.'" Does it? I disagree. Merriam-Webster uses "a secret plan for accomplishing a usually evil or unlawful end"; Oxford Learner's uses "a secret plan made by a group of people to do something wrong or illegal"; American Heritage uses "A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme." In none of these is "central coordination" a requirement, and nowhere is there any prohibition from disorganized, decentralized, ad-hoc, organic, etc. groups forming the "group of people" engaging in the plotting. If you intend to use the word "plot" to mean precisely "a plan with central coordination" then you need to announce that intention beforehand, as readers cannot be expected to be reading the word with your preferred idiosyncratic meaning. Otherwise, equivocation is the natural outcome. The Reuters article uses the word "plot" twice, first in "scant evidence ... of an organized plot" in the opening paragraph, and then later "prosecutors have not alleged that this activity [of the defendants discussing their plans in the weeks before the attack and working together on the day itself] was part of a broader plot". Neither use discredits an idea of a disorganized plot, ad-hoc plot, or the like.
You did not address my criticism of your claim "Trump's people had no involvement in the attack": to say "no involvement" is a bold claim which is not supported by the Reuters article, which specifically uses the language "not centrally coordinated by". Using the phrase "not centrally coordinated" to justify "no involvement" necessarily involves equivocation; a claim of no sandwiches is not supported by a report of no hamburgers. Additionally, the phrase "Trump's people" is vague and leaves the door open to any preferred interpretation. BirdValiant (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
One of the defintions you provided is "a secret plan made by a group of people to do something wrong or illegal." What is that but central coordination? What would a plot look like if the plotters didn't coordinate? Or do they coordinate, but just not centrally? Can you give me an example of a plot that meets this definition that was not centrally coordinated?
The term Trump people is clear from the context in which it is used. It's people that work for Trump. Trump and his people had no secret contact with the demonstrators in which they plotted the attack on the Capitol.
Anyway, the language appears clear to me and should be to most people.
TFD (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Who are "Trump people" then? "It's people that work for Trump" you say. But wait, your claim was "Trump's people had no involvement in the attack" and used the Reuters article as support. The Reuters article reads "not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump". Nowhere does it imply anything about people who work for Trump. The equivocation is laid bare.
"Can you give me an example of a plot that meets this definition that was not centrally coordinated?" If you can't think of a plan formed in secret by a fluid group of people which was not centralized or organized, then I apologize. I attributed the barrage of equivocation to malice when it could've been better explained by... well, I guess a lack of imagination. BirdValiant (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
You are just arguing semantics. I don't mind if you want to believe that - as Donald Rumsfeld linked to say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but it's not relevant to what does in the article. TFD (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot seems to hinge upon connotations of terms like "planning" and "centralized", which are all the more difficult to suss out in the age of stochastic terrorism. Should months of creating an superheated emotional atmosphere in which violence could foment be considered "central coordination"? I'm not asking that rhetorically, one way or the other; it's a genuinely difficult question that we shouldn't WP:SYNTH our way to an answer for. As I posted over at Talk:Parler earlier today, an analysis by a subject-matter specialist gives reasons why the Reuters report might be missing the big picture. We can wait until that picture emerges. The House January 6th Committee is still at work. Just today: a Politico report reveals that the day before the insurrection, the Secret Service warned the Capitol Police about threats of violence posted on Parler. “The user posted multiple threatening posts from today (01/05/21) to include, ‘Its time the DC Police get their ass whooped for being traitors in our nations capitol’, ‘DC Police are the enemy of the people. No mercy to them on the 6th. They are not on our side’, ‘time to fight! We cant trust the police, the laws, or the politicians. It’s time to take out all of them to remain a free country on the 6th.’ And ‘The police need to be dealth with on the 6th. Our 2A covers Marxist police officers. If they want a war, they will get one Wednesday. (middle finger emoji) the DC police.” XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

emptywheel is not an expert, she "is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties."
Right wing extremists posting vague threats of violence on websites pretty much happens every day. But there is no evidence that anyone carried out these threats or that the posters even attended the Capitol.
While it's possible that Trump deliberately or otherwise created an environment that cause several hundred extremists to storm the Capitol, that's not what is being discussed.
Did Trump, Guliani, other Trump officials, Alex Jones and the demonstrators form a criminal conspiracy to attack the Capitol? That would be similar to the Beer Hall Putsch and could lead to charges of treason, insurrection, sedition, terrorism and conspiracy to commit those offenses. Prosecutors would then have to prove the charges using taped conversations, emails and other communications, perhaps including witnesses to the conspiracy. But it's always been clear due to the disorganization of the attackers after they entered the building and the fact most of them had limited contact with other demonstrators before Jan. 6, that there was no plan. The QAnon Shaman for example has denounced Trump but has made no claim he was ever in contact with him. I don't see the reticence to state the obvious when it is stated in reliable sources.
TFD (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
it's always been clear ... that there was no plan. Reliable sources report no such clarity. Feoffer (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
There have been indictments for conspiracy. That's what is perfectly clear. Moreover, the legal definition of conspiracy is strict and technical. There was widely reported incitement, collaboration and support for the breach, including Republican officials giving tours of the inner hallways of the Capitol buildings. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
None of the charges relate to conspiring to commit treason, insurrection, sedition or terrorism or to enter the Capitol before Jan. 6. We now know that is because despite hundreds of arrests no evidence was found. Of course it's possible that the arrested are highly disciplined geniuses who will never talk. It's equally possible the moon landing was faked. But articles rely on reliably sourced facts not imagined conspiracies. TFD (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"Four alleged leaders of the Proud Boys have been indicted in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol over allegedly conspiring, including in discussions on encrypted messaging apps, to obstruct the certification of President Biden's Electoral College victory." https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/979304432/4-proud-boys-charged-with-conspiracy-over-jan-6-capitol-riot]. SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
That has been discussed before and is mentioned in the Reuters article: Biggs "recruited members and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol." But there's no evidence they planned to storm the building beforehand or discussed it with anyone else, although according to your article police had access to their communications. TFD (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say "expert", let alone "authority"; I said "specialist" and chose that word carefully. I'm not advising that we treat that blog post as an RS, only indicating it as an item of potential interest. We're not journalists, we're not on a deadline, and we don't need to go running around changing everything the moment a vague report of rumors comes out. XOR'easter (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
emptywheel begins by pointing out that charges under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) (obstructing or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding) carry the same maximum sentence as seditious conspiracy - 20 years. She doesn't tell us what the recommended sentences are for each offense. Paul Allard Hodgkins for example pleaded guilty to obstruction and was sentenced to 8 months. (The prosecutors had asked for 18 months.) The judge said that there were no similar cases to guide him in sentencing.[73] That's not surprising since the charge comes under Sarbanes Oxley and was intended to punish people for obstructing SEC investigations. It could be that sentences for seditious conspiracy would be longer. That's something that requires an expert source, not just a journalist who consulted the USC. TFD (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I don't see how any of that addresses XOR'easter's point at all, the point being that as editors on this encyclopedia, we should wait until the dust settles instead of latching onto a single news article when there are valid alternate viewpoints available. Also, but I don't see where the problem of how to interpret such phrases as "planning" and "centralized" was addressed. Maybe I missed it. BirdValiant (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The Reuters article does not present a viewpoint but facts sourced to reliable sources. If articles say that the FBI is investigating things that reliable sources say they are not, then we need to correct outdated or false information.
XOR'easter said that even if there was no "centrally coordinated" plan, there might have been a plan "formed in secret by a fluid group of people which was not centralized or organized." As I said, that's just semantics. Either the plotters plotted together or they didn't. I asked him to provide an example of an actual example of the second type of plot and he failed to do so. I assume the reason he did not do so is that there is no real difference. He is implying that the Reuters article is using careful wording in order to mislead readers.
I replied to his link to the emptywheel blog to show the danger in relying on opinions from unqualified people. Yes we know that obstruction and seditious conspiracy carry the same maximum sentences, but we don't know if sentences would be the same, since they are determined by sentencing guidelines.
I don't see anyway why the onus is on me to prove anything. There is no evidence of a grand conspiracy and it is up to you to prove there is.
TFD (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't get hung up on the legal principle of "conspiracy". It is not the relevant factor for the instigation and execution of this raid. There can have been multiple independent planning groups and enablers that led to the observed outcome. We don't know the full story yet, but it is not currently DUE to feature a declaration of "no conspiracy" from an unknown source within an agency that may have much to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: You said, "I assume the reason he did not do so is that there is no real difference. He is implying that the Reuters article is using careful wording in order to mislead readers." I will leave this here without comment. Also, you appear to be very confused about who said what, so I would suggest going back and carefully re-reading. BirdValiant (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Both in law and common speech, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act. The agreement does not have to be written or spoken. Opening a door to someone at the Capitol would be a conspiray because both parties had tacitly agreed that the second person would illegally enter the building. If you have an alternative definition, please tell me what it is. Are you saying that although no one agreed to enter the Capitol building before Jan. 6 that it was a conspiracy because [insert reason here]?" TFD (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
No, not in law. That's wrong. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are right, then you can explain the difference.. TFD (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about a plan "formed in secret by a fluid group of people which was not centralized or organized." That was BirdValiant. The link to the emptywheel post was me; I didn't offer it as an RS, or even intend for anyone to find it convincing. It was more of a "hmm, that's interesting". Concerns like those raised there could turn out to be important, or maybe they'll be irrelevant. I'm just saying that it's not our role here to leap to decide. That was my view before I happened upon that post, too. Generally in this discussion, there seems to be a lot of verbal hair-splitting, which to me is a sign that there simply aren't enough good sources to work with. When the full picture is clear and available, one generally doesn't have to parse minute turns of phrasing. XOR'easter (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thompson and Cheney: "(McCarthy) has suggested, based on an anonymous report, that the Department of Justice has concluded that Donald Trump did not cause, incite, or provoke the violence on January 6th. When this anonymous report was first published, the Select Committee queried the Executive Branch agencies and congressional committees involved in the investigation. We've received answers and briefings from the relevant entities, and it's been made clear to us that reports of such a conclusion are baseless."[74]

soibangla (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Related: Justice for J6 rally

Page watchers may be interested in watching/improving the newly created Justice for J6 rally entry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Question of motivation

While this entire article could go in Mad Magazine as a parody of a real article, complete with distorted agenda-driven bias, the main sin it commits is mangling the motives of the protesters. First, it is claimed here that they wanted to overturn the election result. The sources cited are badly out of date and tendentious to put it kindly.

What is far more clear is that they were protesting what they viewed as a stolen election. Some people on Wikipedia may disagree it was fraudulent, but we’re talking about the protesters’ motives, not editors’ view of the election. That was obviously the primary motivation, with some perhaps wanting to disrupt the procedural vote by Congress. Those actually thinking they could overturn the result? Show them, who are they? I’ve looked at this for a while and I’ve not seen one person claim they had that as the practical goal. Who thought that at the end of the day the election result would change? They were angry and irrational and that had more to do with it than any organized plan, the latter is from the loony left fiction fantasy world.

An objective article is beyond Wikipedia these days, but on that specific point, even Wiki can do better. 

Sych (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Those actually thinking they could overturn the result? Show them, who are they? I’ve looked at this for a while and I’ve not seen one person claim they had that as the practical goal. Sounds like we should add a section full of quotes from participants in which they describe in their own words the outcome they desired. There's plenty of quotes calling for dead elected officials. Feoffer (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
See Woodward and Costa's latest book, Peril. SPECIFICO talk 03:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
If reading isn't your thing, ProPublica published over 500 videos taken by Parler users during the riot here. Their independent analysis also classifies the attack as an "effort to overturn the election." ––FormalDude talk 07:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Britannica

Encyclopedia Britannica published their own article on the attack over one month ago. Is there anything there that we could add to this article? X-Editor (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Trump supporters won't find much to like in that piece.
I disagree with their assertion of "widely regarded as ... attempted coup d'état". While several reliable sources called it that initially, this turns out to be a minority of reliable sources, so mentioning it there in the lead seems like undue weight to a minority viewpoint. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It's worth noting Britannica is using attempted coup and domestic terrorism in their lede. Feoffer (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I wonder what classifies as "domestic terrorism" if not armed intruders attempting to overturn a political election in a nation's capitol building. ––FormalDude talk 08:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No argument here. FBI is clear this is DT. Feoffer (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Feoffer:@FormalDude: Should the coup and domestic terrorism descriptions be added to the lede on Wikipedia? X-Editor (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd ask @Anachronist. ––FormalDude talk 20:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude: Why them? X-Editor (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, why me? This has already been discussed in the past and rejected. The discussion is in the archives. There isn't enough weight in reliable sources to support calling it a coup attempt. The fact that Britannica does so is just one more source in a small population. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Because Anachronist was the main one disagreeing, and I was looking to do more than just preach to the choir. Plus I figured they'd have a good reason, which they do. ––FormalDude talk 05:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a list of a lot of reliable sources saying "coup". ––FormalDude talk 05:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If America is the most robust democracy in the world, spending more on defense than the next 11 countries combined and has 700,000 police officers, the idea that 800 largely unarmed hooligans almost took it over is silly. TFD (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Considering it was Trump appointees who stalled the military from being deployed to the Capitol, even when Vice President Pence demanded it, it's more nefarious than silly. (source) ––FormalDude talk 05:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible typo fourth paragraph Senate vote.......

This sentence seems to contradict itself, perhaps there is a typo that should be corrected? quote "In February, after Trump had left office, the Senate acquitted him: 43 senators found Trump not guilty, 57 found him guilty."216.6.185.102 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The info is correct but misses the contextual detail that 67 votes are needed for conviction. I added a parenthetical note to that effect in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Number of insurrectionists?

Has any reliable source offered an estimate of just how many were involved in the attack on the Capitol? I came here looking for that figure, & didn't see it in the article. (As an unreliable source, I would say that group numbered 1,000-2,000. And I'm probably wrong.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

If you consider the prosecution (via these seven) reliable and "involved in the attack" to include non-violent suspects, the answer at the end of the lead is 668. Of those, zero are alleged insurrectionists. A much more substantial minority allegedly used violence, but I don't see the precise figure in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
If you trust the defendants (via same story), 92 pleaded guilty to some form of related criminal behaviour or another. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Capitol building secure

Change 7:30 pm to 8:00 pm. The Capitol building was secure at 8:00 pm. Thank you! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The source is in the infobox already. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
According to the body, it was declared secure at 8:00. So presumably was secured some time sooner. The body doesn't say anything about 7:30, though, so 8:00 is at least the internally consistent choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done I figure if we're going to cite that source, we might as well actually use it. I didn't see anything mentioning 7:30pm in the source cited, but 8pm (20:00 in the document) is given, so lets go ahead and use that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox results - suicides

The number of suicides in the 7 months the attack shouldn't be in the results section. It's currently not even sourced and if it is to be included in the infobox, the deaths section would probably be more appropriate. As far as I could find, the family of at least one victim blamed the riot on the suicide. The suicides are already in the first paragraph, but to be included as a result of the attack, reliable sources would have to say that all 4 suicides were a direct result of the attack or that the attack contributed to them. Nettless (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Time specification

Please change 12:53 to 12:53 pm. 12:53 pm was previously in the infobox. Here is a source. [75] Thank you! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Singular Article For Trumps Speech

I've been wondering for a while now whether or not we should make an article specifically about Trump's speech at the ellipse that preceded the attack. I'm not going to make an article yet, just want other's opinions on the matter, as it's a big factor in what happened. NSNW (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No, as I am unsure it is in and of itself notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
There's already a wikisource link to the transcript of the speech, is that what you're discussing? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about an article about the speech itself, its effects, and other aspects of it. An example that I can think off the top of my head is George S. Patton's speech to the Third Army. im not thinking of an article exactly like that but I'm just an idea out. NSNW (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Four Hours at the Capitol

"Four Hours at the Capitol". BBC iPlayer. Retrieved 22 October 2021. Available for over a year to UK residents, apparenly [was] also on HBO. Review: Mangan, Lucy (20 October 2021). "Four Hours at the Capitol review – a chilling look at the day the far right 'fought like hell'". the Guardian. Retrieved 22 October 2021. Looked good as a potential source. . dave souza, talk 14:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting suggestion

I feel this page focuses to much on trump, rather than the event itself. I do believe this information should be in the page, but maybe in its own category? At certain points this pages does read a bit off-topic. I do understand this page is locked for edits so I doubt this will happen. JavierTheCactus (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

JavierTheCactus, we are open to suggestions. Can you provide a bit more info on where you think the article is too focused on Trump? Or what else may be off topic? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious too. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

Update to protest and not attack. This post is being skewed towards one politically ideology.

https://www.businessinsider.com/66-percent-republicans-jan-6-capitol-riot-trump-government-poll-2021-10

If we want to consider this an attack then attacks and riots were also performed during summer 2019 after the death of George Floyd. Stogersen (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We follow reliable sources, which call it an attack. 66% of Republicans polled are not a reliable source for anything other than for what those 66% of Republicans think. This page has nothing to do with George Floyd, so there was no purpose in mentioning him. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Change attack language. There were a few rioters which doesn’t justify calling the entire event an attack. No one was hurt or ‘attacked’. Stogersen (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"No one was hurt..."? Have you not read any news articles or seen any of the footage from the event? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources must back up the text

I'm sure we all agree that the sources in a citation must back up or support what the text says. If there are two or three sources linked to one statement, they must all back up the source. Otherwise, the text can be revised, or one or more source should be eliminated. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:LEADCITE. Most citations in the lead are already extraneous. Instead of words being removed from the lead that aren't found in a source, but are found in another source in the body, what should happen over time is that citations be removed from the lead. Claims that aren't directly sourced in the lead, but are in the body, should not be removed from the lead. Ideally, there would be none or very few citations in the lead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They do back up the text. Firstly, please open your discussion with the entire context of the situation. If I hadn't just come from the page history, I wouldn't know what you were talking about. You appear to be objecting to the word "false" in the phrase "his false claim" in the sentence highlighted in this diff – correct me if I'm wrong. Yet, in this talk page discussion, you appear to be suggesting that every source at the end of that entire sentence must support that one word. My response is that it's okay to cite individual words in the sentence. If you take issue with the word "false" not being cited directly, then just copy the equivalent cite note from the article linked by that phrase. You can see it is well-supported in that article body. AlexEng(TALK) 21:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Stop the Steal"+"False Claim" yields a news story from just today. Feoffer (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
As others have said he lede dos not really need to be cited if it says what is cited in the body, this does.Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced Article

Numerous sources used by this article call the Jan 6 riot an "insurrection" which is completely false. This is a prime example of how history, over time, becomes distorted. People don't want to report dispassionate, objective truth and instead need to insert their own bias and agenda into the event. What happened on January 6th is an objective event. It was not an insurrection, and a more accurate word would be "riot". Numerous sources this article uses as authoritative are already called into question by distorting the riot as something it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:180:2C0:90BB:AD04:8F0:24EE (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Are there any sources used in this article that are unreliable? X-Editor (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
An insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Unless you can demonstrate that the Jan 6 riot was a) not violent (which would be hard to do, as riots are a form of violence) or b) not against the authority of the United States government going through its Constitutionally mandated process of certifying elections, then the wording will stay as is. --Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The only violence was against the one Trump supporter who was killed, and no others will killed at the time. Please provide real sources for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.43.200 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per WP:SNOW, there is no consensus to change the page name at this time. (non-admin closure) AlexEng(TALK) 17:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 United States Capitol attack → January 6 attack – As this event has become cemented in reliable sources the lasting common name for this event is "January 6 attack". The current title gets 37 million pings on google compared to January 6 attack getting 815 million. I think the decision is clear per WP:COMMONNAME. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment "January 6 attack" is a viable option, but it seems to me "2021 Capitol attack" is just as common in reliable sources. Considering that we are still in 2021, it makes sense that "January 6th attack" is commonly used, but, longer-term, "2021 Capitol attack" may surpass it. ––Formal 🐧 talk 05:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, but it could also turn into something similar to the September 11 attacks. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Doubt it. "September 11" was selected on because the media were unable to come up with another name for the series of attacks on that day (not a terrorist bombing or other clear verb, not one particular building, not one particular city, etc.). They stumbled around calling it the "events of September 11" for lack of a better description. And the name stuck. Walrasiad (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now per WP:WORLDVIEW. There was no commonallity among readers to determine whether January 6 attack is primary name or not. Calling it January 6 attack would confusing most readers outside the U.S. (mostly using DMY format) as there is unknown reasons where phrase "January 6 attack" comes from, similar to "June 4 incident" for mainly mainland Chinese. For me, "2021 Capitol attack" feels more comfortable title. 180.254.164.201 (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There have been other attacks on January 6, including Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, January 2012 al-Midan bombing, 1994 Cobo Arena attack and National Airlines Flight 2511. Renaming this article January 6 attack is ambiguous, unhelpful and confusing. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is fine, common name and certainly clearer for non-US audience, or those not addicted to contemporary US media which happens to be following a current political commission that happens to have that name. Walrasiad (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONWP:COMMONNAME. "January 6" is the name sources have settled on. There's a January 6 commission and a January 6 Committee, for example, not a '2021 Capitol commission'. Feoffer (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Feoffer: Are you aware you linked to WP:COMMONSENSE rather than WP:COMMONNAME? ––Formal 🐧 talk 06:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Well I am now! Good catch Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • No problem. I figured you probably weren't trying to use an essay to override a policy lol. ––Formal 🐧 talk 07:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for several reasons. It's not nearly precise enough to distinguish from other events that happened on Janary 6th. Readers should be able to clearly identify the topic from reading the title. Consision is not more important than precision and recognizability in WP:CRITERIA. As has been stated, WP:WORLDVIEW is another reason for not changing the title, possibly the strongest. "January 6 attack" is only the WP:COMMONNAME in America. ––Formal 🐧 talk 06:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the suggested title is not really the common name outside the United States where US Capitol Attack or similar appear to be more used, 6 January is not unique to this event. MilborneOne (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This may not be the last one, or the last one on a Jan 6th. It was the only one in 2021, and the last on on the US capital.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nomination's common name rationale is badly formed, and a step back from more scrupulous analyses we've had in the past months. Evidence that something is the single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used is not had by using a descriptive name, which the current title is, which results from the community applying Wikipedia's more or less unique naming criteria (and is not copied verbatim from somewhere) and seeing how many google hits this exact phrase has. It's natural that there won't be many, and that practically any simpler phrase with fewer moving parts will produce more. January 6 attack giving more hits is not evidence that there isn't yet another name that would produce even more hits, and even then, coming upon a phrase that produces the most hits still wouldn't mean that that would be the common name. With many alternatives, maybe the most frequently used exact phrase has only like 10% prevalence. We just don't know. So we don't have anything resembling evidence of a common name here, but maybe such evidence could be found. If such evidence isn't shown soon in the course of this discussion, I will specificate this comment as an oppose !vote. /done/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Naming the article "January 6 attack" is ambiguous, especially to those outside the US. However, since the attack ultimately has become known to many as the "January 6 attack", I think it could be mentioned in the header of the article like: "The 2021 United States Capitol attack, also known as the January 6 attack, occurred..." M2r1k5 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. "January 6 attack" is not the common name. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. "January 6 attack" isn't the WP:COMMONNAME, is ambiguous, and removes clarity. Secondly, as User:FormalDude mentioned, it seems the reason why "January 6 attack" is somewhat popular-ish is probably partially because we're still in 2021. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Way too vague of a title. Many attacks have occurred on January 6, and I'm pretty sure there's a couple to a few of them out there that could also be notable. We also don't know if there'll be other notable attacks that'll occur on a future January 6th. Love of Corey (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. -- lomrjyo 🐱 (✉ • 📝) 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Way too vague. Many events (planned or not) have occurred on a January 6 date. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too vague. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – far too vague. Cpotisch (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Opoose unless another attack on the US Capitol occurs before 2021 ends. Otherwise, there is no need include the "January 6" disambiguation, especially when removing "United States Capitol" makes the title imprecise and non-descriptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above the above. Really one of the biggest WP:SNOWBALLs I've ever seen. BirdValiant (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like all above the above, I find it too vague. A title should identify the topic, but the suggested new title only identifies some attack on that date. That's not good enough. -- Valjean (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The actual date isn't particularly defining. From a British point of view, I had no idea it took place on that date. You'll find maybe that a lot of the sources talking about this already expect the reader to know about the attacks, and the intracies as it is an article talking about the situation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy close since there's clearly not consensus here to move the page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article is too long

Some of the sections can be whittled down and referred to already-existing pages, or the info therein can be transferred to new articles. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Or, failing that, the existing sections should be truncated or seriously word-edited. Some of them are just too wordy.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia suggests splitting or trimming articles with a length over 10,000 words. This article currently has about 12,600 words. WWGB (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There has recently been pretty much consensus that this template should not be added on top of the whole article because it doesn't lead to overall improvement of the article (link). Since the template has been placed against what seems to be prevailing opinion, I've removed it. Concrete ideas on how to shorten article are needed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There is not any consensus whatsoever to exclude a template at that link. VQuakr (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
That discussion led to the template being removed, and this wasn't subsequently contested (now it was added again and has been removed and the removal also isn't contested). Prevailing opinion was that it should not be used. I understand that you hold a view that "banning" a maintenance template on an article talk page is not feasible, but it isn't about that, just about a general sense of the template's utility compared to other templates that serve the same purpose. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I would be happy to hear some suggestions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph (diff); it's information for Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack at best (edit: it's already there, search for "January 18") — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@BeenAroundAWhile: What sections do you think are too long? X-Editor (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I strongly agree that the article is still too long, and that efforts need to be taken to shorten or split the article further. But I'm not sure where to start. Love of Corey (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I moved a bunch of names that don't make for a good reading to a note (diff). Maybe similar things can be done elsewhere. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay. That sounds like a good idea. Love of Corey (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Love of Corey: If we're going to do splits, would that mean creating new sub-articles, and if so, what would those sub-articles be about? X-Editor (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I still believe that the "Trump supporters gather in D.C." and "Attack on the Capitol" sections can and should be split into an article of their own, or otherwise merged to the Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack article. Love of Corey (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Recent changes, such as moving a list of names and flags to notes, and other changes to the Groups section (while not really removing any information from the article) have reduced the word count from 12,600 to ~12,100, which is almost 20% progress toward reaching 10,000 words. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
We're getting there. Love of Corey (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Heh-heh. Glad I started something. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: the time Ashli Babbitt was shot. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That's too much detail for this article, it's something covered in daughter article(s). — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. It would add just a few characters to the article and is essential information; not to include it is ridiculous. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly point me to the exact text of the current version of any "daughter article" that includes the information about which I had posted. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

She's already mentioned in this article: 2021_United_States_Capitol_attack#Casualties -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
There's also Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. clpo13(talk) 19:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The most detailed coverage on Wikipedia of the shooting of Ashli Babbit should be here: Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, both that and the timeline article mention the time. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Article fails to use sufficient sources to justify bold statements

The second line of the article “They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election…” is a highly charged claim that requires substantial evidence if it is to be accepted as fact. It’s inclusion definitively defines what the intentions of the events of the article were. Such a claim ought to be only made if affirmed through a multitude of valid and authoritative sources. And yet, the only cited article for the claim is a Washington Post Book Review of a Congressmen’s Memoir titled, “Adam Schiff points to a second insurrection — by members of Congress themselves” with sub header “In his memoir, the House Intelligence Committee chair argues America barely passed Trump’s “stress test” of American democracy.”

There is multiple problematic elements of this. First being that the article never features any explicit verbiage stating that the goal of the events were to “overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.” On this alone, the source is insufficient and fails to substantiate the claim in question. This leaves the stated claim unsubstantiated, and purely an opinion. Additionally there are issues even if the source had backed the stated claim clearly. As the source is a book review of a memoir, it sets out to summarize and critique a non-academic and non-authoritative book. Not only does this make the sole source for the stated claim a source of a source, but it is based upon a book that does not even make the event of the article it’s core focus. 

Additionally, there is a clear conflict of interest even if the source material did explicitly affirm the stated claim and was a sufficiently academic and authoritative source. The author of the book being reviewed and used as a source is presently serving Congressman Adam Schiff (D) from California’s 28th district. Clearly a ranking member of the opposing party of the  president at the time of the event is prone to having a bias for such a charged and condemning claim. Schiff’s opportunity for bias is even noted in the source used to justify the claim. Per the cited article for the stated claim, “As the chair of the House Intelligence Committee and the lead manager in Trump’s first impeachment trial, Schiff is properly remembered as one of the former president’s primary antagonists.” No one defined as a primary antagonist ought to be used as an authoritative voice to determine whether or not such a polarizing and indicting claim is true or false. It is as egregious a conflict of interest as akin to if the former president himself were given permission to write the article.

Wikipedia has a duty as such a widely used encyclopedic tool to ensure that it is built upon accredited factual information affirmed by a consensus of strong sources. Such a bold, divisive, and unfounded stated claim severely distorts public perception without legitimate justification, and erodes the credibility of Wikipedia itself. It necessitates editing the statement to reflect the disputed and politically charged nature of the claim, or at least sufficient and multiple sources to justify it need to be included. The former being more suitable. The current state of the article is opinionated, and unsubstantiated beyond validity after only two sentences and in dire need of revision. Markwardlaw (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that "[s]everal dozen of those charged with storming the U.S. Capitol explicitly prepared for violence in the effort to thwart Congress’s confirmation of Joe Biden’s election that day, according to court records."[76] While not quite word-for-word the language with which you disagree, it's close enough for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Pro-Trump mob storms US Capitol in bid to overturn election --- They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in --- Mob of Trump supporters storms Capitol in attempt to overturn election, but Congress certifies Biden’s victory -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of "January 6" in the MOS:LEAD of this article

Somedifferentstuff reverted a change made by X-Editor to the lead of the article. The change was well-cited, and establishes January 6 as a term used to refer to the event in shorthand. I believe this should be included and bolded per per MOS:BOLDSYN. It sounds like Somedifferentstuff is saying that consensus is against inclusion, presumably based on the consensus against the Requested Move which I closed above. I don't think we can extrapolate consensus against a move into consensus against including the alternative name in the lead sentence. Does anyone else have any thoughts about how this should be handled? Does it call for another RfC? AlexEng(TALK) 03:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC done to change the title and simply saying in the article that it is referred to by the shorthand are two completely different things and the January 6 claim I added is well cited. So yes, it should be readded to the article. WP may be a global encyclopedia, but the September 11 attacks article still says it is often referred to as 9/11, so I don't see why we can't do the same for the capitol attack article due to the significance of both events. X-Editor (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe we've had a discussion of "January 6" in the opening sentence, as opposed to in the title of the article. I support re-adding X-Editor's content, as the date of the attack is definitively an important WP:ALTNAME. I would be convinced to change my opinion if "January 6" is less common than it has been in my anecdotal experience. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I was going to ask if the article can be nominated as good, but apparently, we're still discussing this. It honestly should have been settled already. -192.35.61.9 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:BOLDSYN should not apply because only MOS:AVOIDBOLD should apply since the primary name, which is our descriptive name does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence. If the title isn't bolded, synonyms shouldn't be bolded. Title wasn't bolded for months, and it was better like that. I was really hoping someone would have restored the stable form of the first sentence by now. There hadn't been bolding for a very good reason. So as things stand I support Somedifferentstuff's revert, but I'd especially support that all bolding from the first sentence be removed, which would neutralize the issue altogether. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm pinging EEng to see this:

2021 United States Capitol attack occurred on January 6, 2021, when a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol ...

          . . . shouldn't we change it back to:

2021 United States Capitol attack, also known by the shorthand January 6, occurred on January 6, 2021, when a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol ...

           :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Diff for reference. Ugh, no the word "shorthand" obviously should not occur in the first sentence of this article. The date of the attack clearly should, I don't care if it's an altname or just the date. Keep the cites out of the first sentence (and the lead overall), please. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
2021, United States Capitol, attack, January 6: neither of these should repeat. The first sentence was changed from the good longstanding version to the bad version with bolding on October 29: diff. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree we should revert back the bold-less version: On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. In a following sentence—or maybe a footnote—maybe we could insert something like The attack is sometimes referred to as "January 6". with "sometimes" alternately being "commonly" or just "also"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, seems like a good idea. Capitol riot and Capitol insurrection are the other commonest-but-not-COMMONNAME names that could also be included in the note. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Good point. If it's three-ish names, a footnote is probably the best way to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't care if it's bolded or not. That's not the hill I'm willing to die on. My main concern is that the shorthand name for the subject should be included there in the lead. The way it was written by Firefangledfeathers above is fine with me. I don't think it should be in a footnote, though. AlexEng(TALK) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@AlexEng: if the lead sentence includes the string "January 6", I don't see why it's important to specifically mention that some people call the event that. VQuakr (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@VQuakr: what do you mean you see why? "January 6" is not just the date on which the event took place. It's also a commonly used alternative name for the event itself, per the 6 sources that X-Editor provided in the edit under discussion. We should include some mention of that in the lead per MOS:ALTNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES. I see no reason to depart from how we treat the same topic in September 11 attacks. AlexEng(TALK) 23:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@AlexEng: Poor analogy. "9/11" isn't an intuitive name for most people since it is a truncation of the MDY format. That isn't applicable here. In this case the alt name is utterly intuitive and unsurprising; it doesn't warrant mention in the first sentence. WP:OTHERNAMES just mentions that alt names should be mentioned in the article, "usually" in the first sentence or paragraph: we're not deviating from policy by choosing to focus on more important stuff in the opening sentences. That's my editorial opinion, how many sources exist isn't relevant since no one is contesting whether it is indeed an alt name or not. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@VQuakr: it's not a poor analogy; September 11 attacks has both the name and the date in the same sentence, the former of which is written two ways. It seemed like you were downplaying the common usage above with some people call the event that, but if you're not contesting it, fine. It's great that the alt name is intuitive and unsurprising, but we should mention it, since it's an alternative name for the subject of the article. We do link to this article from the January 6 DAB, after all. It takes 4-6 words max to articulate this in the lead (e.g. sometimes called January 6). It's not going to detract from "focus[ing] on more important stuff". Perhaps it would help if you could give the reasoning behind your editorial opinion here. AlexEng(TALK) 00:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, because "9/11" doesn't intuitively translate to a date for most people, which isn't an issue here. It's also a term that is an order of magnitude or three more ingrained in the US English lexicon than "January 6". So: poor analogy. "4-6 words" is enormous when you're talking about the first sentence or two. And this is a proposal that in my view adds nothing whatsoever to the article in terms of content. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: agree the earlier version is better, that there should not be repetition, and that we shouldn't trip over ourselves to add bolding. VQuakr (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I figured (I forgot to link the relevant essay in some fashion, which I was referring to, so might have caused a bit of initial confusion there.) ... So now basically -- AlexEng: Wanna see the note solution tried out after all? Pretty conventional I think. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you articulate why you think the lead in this article should be treated differently than the one in September 11 attacks? WP:POSA notwithstanding, the fact that a common alternative name belongs in the lead sentence is not obviated by the date of the attack also being in the lead sentence. Sigh... maybe we'll need another RfC after all, if we can't agree on such a basic concept. AlexEng(TALK) 23:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I really do think that. It is because "September 11 (attack)" is a WP:COMMONNAME, and "2021 United States Capitol attack" is a significantly more belabored descriptive name, that was decided through community consensus here. 2021 United States Capitol attack was designed to answer the questions of "when, where and what". Incidentally, the first sentence of event articles also serves to define the subject through "when, where and what". So we'd have this repetition problem by repeating the title. As AVOIDBOLD says, it does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence. With September 11, we more or less must use the title in the first sentence because in that case we do have an actual common name, and that specific common name does, to a bit larger degree, lend itself to being used easily and naturally (producing less of a repetition problem). — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Without actually reading the discussion, I see (from looking at the article history) that someone remembered that an article doesn't have to robotically barf out its own title in its opening sentence. I suspect that breaks the logjam. EEng 02:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

Change “They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election…” into “they sought to demonstrate that they wanted to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election…”

This change is necessary as the current statement does not have a sufficient source to justify it. Presently the source being used is a book review of a member of the opposing party of Trump, which gives room for bias, and does not in the cited source actually explicitly support the present statement. Further, this is a rather contentious statement that has been disputed repeatedly and fervently.

The proposed change still reflects the sentiments of the original statement, but recognizes that, as stated further into the article, most of the participants were unorganized without any affiliation to any broader groups, and had no planned actions for the riot. Additionally this proposed change recognizes the fact that the charge of this statement is disputed and vehemently denied by most involved with its orchestration or aligned with it.

The proposed change also is more verifiable and can be backed by more sources and more credible sources. Sources that support changing the present statement to the proposed statement include but are not limited to:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56004916 Protesters surge past Capitol police protecting the west steps, the side facing the White House. Minutes later, an officer declares there is a riot at the Capitol. "We're going to give riot warnings," he says. "We're going to try to get compliance but this is now effectively a riot."

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/982381991/capitol-conspiracy-cases-show-plans-for-violence-not-necessarily-for-breach Article cites federal investigation revealing many plans to commit violent acts, but outside of two smaller groups who account for a tiny fraction of the charged mob and the rest of the rioters, there’s a lack of evidence for plans to overturn.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/capitol-riots-impeachment-trial.html

“The managers concluded that the available record was compelling enough to make a judgment, but they have conceded gaps in their knowledge. “There’s a lot we don’t know yet about what happened that day,” Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas, acknowledged…” 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

“The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials. Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."” Markwardlaw (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, count me as opposed. Lack of coordination does not equate to lack of a desire to overturn the election. You seem to have asked one question and then answered a different one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 23:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The only reason for a demonstration is to influence opinion. It's unlikely hundreds of people would descend on Washington to demonstrate their views if they did not think they would have any influence. If you don't want to influence people, you can always stay home. TFD (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

“They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election[29]” needs better citation and more citations than the one present.

I addressed previously my thoughts on using such a politically charged statement, especially when it’s so vehemently disputed. And while I stand by that the wording of the statement should be adjusted to more accurately reflect its disputed nature, separate from that is that presently the only cited reference, (29) is a book review of (per source) a “primary antagonist” of former president Trump’s memoir. Not only is this a blatant conflict of interest, the source also does not explicitly back up the claim it is supposed to. I read the cited source start to finish, it does not affirm the statement in question and furthermore, the events of the statement in question in this Wikipedia article not the primary focus of the cited.

Whether you agree with me or not that the language of sentence needs to be changed. We can all agree that with such a well documented and highly talked about event, we can and must have a better reference for a statement than one singular book review. Markwardlaw (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please propose exact wording or exact replacement source before using the edit request template. Melmann 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
So, the article in question does say In effect, there were two insurrections, not one, Schiff argues, and he is more interested in the insurrectionists wearing suits and ties than in the shirtless ones in buffalo horns. “We came so close to losing our democracy,” he writes, looking back on the varied political and legalistic efforts to overturn the 2020 vote and to convince the public that the contest was illegitimate. “The system held, if barely.” For me, that is indeed enough to sustain the sentence as currently constructed, but this is one where reasonable minds may differ, and I, at least, take your point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
There are more extensive cites in the body of the article which more than cover this wording. The lead is just a summary of the body, so there's no need to duplicate huge lists of sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
We could consider removing some references from the lead, leaving only those for quoted statements (per WP:LEADCITE). I don't think that this claim is likely to be challenged, as it hasn't been credibly challenged since the beginning, is very rarely challenged at all, and is now challenged only because the claim is supported by only one citation as opposed to being cite overkilled... there's irony here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Article title should be "January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol"

Suggest change article title to "January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol". The indictment of Steve Bannon says:[77] "the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex, hereafter referred to as the 'domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol'..." At a minimum, "January 6" should be in the article title. MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the party. Your information is new, so thank you! There have been a dozen or so well-attended move discussions and this pagename is what we're using now. Considering the last move request was closed less than a week ago, I think it unlikely anything published today will move the consensus needle yet. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I oppose this title. It's not in line with our normal naming customs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
That is one source, its not the common name. Also Bannon has not been convicted yet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources which describe this attack as domestic terrorism? Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The indictment does not say that. Instead it quotes House Resolution 503, which set up the Select Committee Bannon has been called before. If we decide that House resolutions are reliable sources, then we'll have to accept the wave of idiotic resolutions that will come out of the House when the Republicans gain control, probably next year. TFD (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Even if we take as granted that it was a domestic terrorist attack, that is a long and unwieldy title. I suspect there will be a strong consensus against this name. AlexEng(TALK) 21:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

FBI Confirms No Insurrection Occurred

Not a new story, I just haven't seen it before - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/ar-AANxOuQ. Given how many references there are in the Wikipedia piece to the claim an insurrection was attempted, some tidying up might be required. 人族 (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

We had a long discussion on this single Reuters piece (link), and it didn't lead to any meaningful changes in this article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Every mention of "insurrection" is either a direct quote or a reference to what Trump was charged with, and therefore I see nothing wrong with these descriptions being in the article. Bill Williams 01:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dispute over two categories

The categories in dispute are Category:Rebellions in the United States and Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States

The categories in question have been there for only just over a week when you added them to the page and had indeed been removed from the page for a considerably longer timeframe. In addition you cannot cite wikipedia in a circular manner to justify the inclusion of the categories.

In addition the article itself which you cited never refers to the capitol attack in Wikipedia's voice as opposed to as a quotation as either a rebellion or an attempted coup and has an entire section describing the disagreements concerning its description.

Although this article would fit into a category such as "events described as coups" or similar Wikipedia cannot choose which terminology to use when reliable sources present several options and disagree with each other.

Thank you TheFinalMigration (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheFinalMigration: I'm not citing Wikipedia in a circular fashion. Yes, the categories were only there a week, but, since June 27th, the article has included both "List of rebellions in the United States" and "List of coups and coup attempts." This is clear reason to categorize the article as such.
Disagreements concerning the label of the event does not mean we do not label the event. It means the event has multiple labels. Hence the addition of the two categories that are supported by reliable sources within the article. ––FormalDude talk 05:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC) ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Categories are justified by RSes. Feoffer (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

WP:NOR and misunderstanding of the meaning of a key word. VQuakr (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Claim: Trump was first president to have been impeached twice.

Fact check: False✔️

Both impeachment trials failed, therefore he was either the first president to be acquitted twice from impeachment, or the first president to twice have been ATTEMPTED to be impeached.

The articles use of the word "impeached" does not match with the definition of the word 173.240.245.132 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment means to bring charges against an elected official; this is preliminary to the actual trial and possible conviction. Thus, the House did impeach him twice, but he was not convicted in the Senate. See Impeachment in the United States for the definition. clpo13(talk) 06:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Your use of the word "impeached" does not in fact match with the definition of the word, as noted above by Clpo13. He was impeached twice. See Impeachment of Donald Trump which leads to links for each impeachment. AlexEng(TALK) 06:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
And this is why we don't accept original research. ––FormalDude talk 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Extremely biased

Written explicitly from a very left leaning viewpoint, not an unbiased informational article at all, rather a politically charged article that makes a very controversial claim, and makes the event appear clear-cut, although it was in fact a very complicated and controversial large scale event. 173.240.245.132 (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The article reflects reliable sources. Is there anything specific you propose we change (please support any proposals with a reliable source)? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources? Tell me, how does a riot cause people to die from "natural causes"? Regardless of the source reliability, you warped the information to misconstrue this protest into something equivalent to an antifa/blm protest. The inclusion of "natural causes" deaths in the death toll is an example of how you're attempting to weaponize Wikipedia and merely turning the entire project into a joke the public no longer takes seriously.
2601:1C0:C800:7BD0:B8C5:22FF:315C:74F6 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
turning the entire project into a joke the public no longer takes seriously[citation needed] clpo13(talk) 21:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Riot not attack

Ive seen you go back and forth on this, but most sources have settled on riot and this should follow suit. An “attack” implies an orchestrated action with an identified objective, usually to overtake or destroy a position, as in the attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 attacks. There hasn’t been any finding that was the case here. Calling it an attack adds an element that doesn’t pass an impartiality test. This article has significant impartiality issues. It needs to be reviewed and rewritten to (1) focus on the relevant topics and (2) document verifiable events and relevant information. There is far too much editorializing and it is a mess to read. Isn’t there an international group who could research and rewrite for an impartial take? 2600:8801:C403:BB00:68B2:88F3:2907:188 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Recall that the article's scope includes two attempted bombings. Wikipedia is comprised of editors from all over the globe. You say "it is a mess to read" -- do you have suggestions on how to improved readability? Feoffer (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Riot is problematic too. AFAIK no one has been charged with riot. TFD (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't edit

It is clear in terms of use that we are able to contribute and edit various sites and projects. Yet I can't edit this one. 73american (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What has this to do with this RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Note this was originaly added to the end of an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Some articles are limited to people with an established Wikipedia presence. After you've made a few hundred edits, you'll be allowed to edit articles like this. In the mean time, is there something specific you think needs to be changed? Bkatcher (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
73american You only need to become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Wikipedia wants you participate and contribute, just not to this specific article through direct editing until this very very low bar has been met. Still, even before your account gets automatic confirmation, you can ask for specific changes to be made. The protection isn't there to prevent changes, just to prevent specific damaging events, that have already happened, from happening again. Actually there are articles with much more stringent protection levels. This is the lowest one, and it's still meant to draw as wide a participation as possible. So please make a handful of constructive edits elsewhere, or ask a few more questions and you'll be able to work on this article freely. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of daughter article AfD (Shooting of Ashli Babbitt)

This is a notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Ashli Babbitt is ongoing, which is a matter of content organization that may be of interest to editors in this topic area. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Poor choice of words in title.

The title of this Wikipedia page “2021 United States Capitol Attack” does not accurately reflect the event nor does it convey the content of the article. An attack would imply that the motive was to kill, such as in terror attacks, attacks on other nations, or attacks against groups of people. The definition of “attack” is given by Oxford Languages as to, “take aggressive military action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force”. It can also be argued that those wishing to learn about the event for the first time will be initially misled as to the nature of the event before reading the page and coming to conclusions not reflected by the title. Reading the word “attack” in the title of the article create assumptions about the event that do not hold true, when reading such a title we expect the event to be one of devastation, planned and calculated with the sole purpose of causing serious or fatal harm. In the infobox under “Goals” the stated goals of the event clearly do not infer an “attack” nor are the words “attack”, “violence” or “armed” mentioned under “Methods”. In fact the first words under “Goals” are “Disrupt and delay” and the first word under “Methods” is “Demonstration”. I feel as though this is clear evidence that the word “attack” in the title is totally inappropriate and misleading for use under educational purposes. Protests with far higher death tolls are not titled using the word “attack” and nor should they be, neither should this article. I would suggest a more appropriate title would be “2021 Storming of the United States Capitol” or “2021 Protest within the United States Capitol”. However I think any new title should also be discussed to avoid making the same mistakes as the first title and to ensure this page is titled in a way that most accurately reflects the event it describes. Which it currently is not.

Thank you. 111.220.17.152 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Capitol was physically attacked (as demonstrated in hundreds of videos) and many people were injured (including over 100 police officers). One could also argue that, symbolically, it was an attack on American democracy itself. Anyways, the naming of this article has been discussed extensively (at the top of this page there are talk page Archives - have a look through those to gather more information.) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

>The Capitol was physically attacked (as demonstrated in hundreds of videos) You cannot “attack” a physical building, simple as. I challenge you to provide a definition that says that you can.

>and many people were injured (including over 100 police officers)

First, the 100+ figure was given by the union, which has an incentive to exaggerate. The actual number is much lower (the amount that received medical leave was 17, and that again is union influenced.) however, that’s besides the point.

But incidental harm done does not constitute an active attack. If someone broke into a museum and a security guard was injured defending it, would you call that an attack on the museum? Of course not. You’d call it “the museum break-in”.

>attack on democracy Pure editorialization. Goblintear (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Attack can certainly mean aggressive or belligerent action against a place (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/attack). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the correct title would be (and should be, in my opinion) the previous one - "Storming of the US Capitol" (or whatever it was). This would be consistent with "attack" being used in Wikipedia titles to mean a terrorist attack (typically one with a great loss of life) and "storm" being used in the sense of "Storm the Bastille". Of course, there have been about ten million change requests and all of them (as far as I can see) have been defeated except for the most recent one which now apparently has consensus - so I wouldn't expect it to be changed even if I don't think it's very good.Tentonne (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not an attack

You can’t attack a building, and no one in the building was attacked. Better title: “2021 Storming of the US Capitol”. Goblintear (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a difference in idiolect, but the idea of "attacking a building" strikes me as grammatically correct and perfectly cromulent. Reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Please read this article before starting a thread like this. -- Valjean (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relatively recent consensus supported 'attack' over 'storming' in this August requested move discussion. Firefangledfeathers 02:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You can attack a computer. You can attack the castle gates or a fort. You can attack a palace. You can attack a country. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Right, an attack on Congress did not mean they physically attacked the building (though they in fact did) it means they attacked the institution, its members.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It was a storming and a attack on the Capitol. That is enough. -47.196.35.44 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The Current consensus on naming and terminology:

The page's title was moved to '2021 United States Capitol attack' after this move request. In the header of this talk should be expanded to tell people not to keep starting threads about the naming of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski: It's actually already in there, in the consensus box. Edit: oh I see you mean the literal header.— Alalch Emis (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_18&oldid=1104085168"