Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pikavangelist (talk | contribs) at 04:36, 7 January 2021 (→‎Requested move 6 January 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Closed discussions re: page title

Below I'm collecting/merging discussions related to the page's title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I've moved the discussions on the title prior to the move request here; please contribute there rather than here. Sceptre (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Rally" title?

Resolved

Is this really a "rally" as the article title suggests? A rally usually refers to a lawful gathering of citizens and is largely peaceful. This is an unlawful protest and there are already reports of gunshots. We should consider moving the article to a "protest" or perhaps a "riot." AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hardly a rally or a protest at this point. More like a coup attempt. District9123 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. We need to remove "protests" from this title as quickly as possible. Jami430 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Coup attempt" exaggerates or overstates the power of the actions to the protesters' benefit. Protest can be violent. It is slightly more accurate than "riot" in that the main purpose of this gathering is political. That you do not agree with them does not make them not protests. — Bilorv (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page title change

I have opened a formal Requested Move discussion; see below. Neutralitytalk 22:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Is there any objection to me moving this page to January 2021 storming of the United States Capitol? That is how the reports are coming in. [1] [2] [3]

--Neutralitytalk 20:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I object. I think that violates WP:NPOV RobotGoggles (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also object. Not simply a matter of the Capitol being stormed, but also the rally beforehand. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support it and believe you should start a move discussion for more attention. Regarding NPOV, sources across the aisle are calling it a storming. As for the rally beforehand, this article probably wouldn't exist and rather be merged into a short section in 2020–2021 United States election protests. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is hardly a protest. Armed domestic terrorists carrying deadly weapons, waving flags, and shouting slogans attempted to storm a national institution over a free and democratic process in order to instigate an authoritarian regime. This maybe a riot at the least, if not an attempted coup. ZorpTheSurveyor — Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - This is obviously more than just a simple protest, it is a violent seizure of the capital in an attempt to install an unrecognized political power on the United States, that power being Trump as the next president. Drdak
Whatever what, it should not stay "2021 United States Capitol protests". There are sure to be multiple protests and demonstrations of some sort near/at the capitol in 2021. Could be renamed "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol protests", or something other than "protests", as has been suggested. SecretName101 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Rename to 2021 United States Capitol riots

These are riots, not protests. I'd like to suggest that this page be moved to 2021 United States Capitol riots. --Poklane 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to determine that, sorry. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do need to find actual sources to support this, but: it seems that there is a group of peaceful protestors and a group of more destructive protestors present, who are acting separately, based on what I'm seeing, though this could be false. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest they are both, it seems that in these instances we go with 'protests'. I'm not really in agreement with that but it at least helps to be consistent. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with User talk:Mtaylor848. When there's ambiguity, we go with "protests" or "unrest".
I do agree with Poklane (talk) that the title should be changed to riots, as “protests” do not seem to do it justice, because raiding the capital is much more than just a protest, it is much more like a raid/riot. It may also be worth it to change it to raid. Just my opinion. --Bdub 604 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of article to "coup d'etat attempt"

From what i can tell from the news these are no longer protests. It is a violent storming of the Capitol where lawmakers had to be herded into secure bunkers. There are reports of tear gas and shootings as criminals illegally enter the Capitol building threatening the lives of others.

This is obviously an attempted coup d'etat, not a protest. Do you guys think we should change the name of the article to reflect this, or does this come off as too biased or unfactual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.cal.69 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows the lead of reliable sources, so we should not describe it as such until reliable sources do. Mz7 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that The Hill is a reliable enough source and the fact several government members are using the terminology is certainly enough to justify renaming the article. zacthebard (zacthebard)

Sitting members of Congress have described it as such, as has apparently the Attorney General from New York.District9123 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why someone in the heat of the moment would describe it as a coup d'etat attempt, but we should wait until a consensus of reliable sources agree that the intent of the people storming the Capitol was to attempt a coup d'etat. "Coup d'etat" has a rather specific meaning that may not necessarily apply to this particular situation. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a third-world country, it would have been called a coup d'État seconds after happening, but because it's the US, it's just protesters exercising their free speech. 5.186.121.181 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parliaments get stormed more often then one would think; it's typically labeled as something else than coups d'état, depending on circumstances and so on. The act of storming the building would probably not have automatically been called a coup had it happened elsewhere. /Julle (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defeinitely not a coup; a coup is led by the military. You could perhaps call it an 'attempted revolution' without being egregiously wrong, but we would still be playing very fast and loose. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the definition of a coup d'état attempt as stated by Wikipedia. This is the attempted "removal of an existing government from power" through "violent means." This is an "illegal" and "unconstitutional" attempt at "seizure of power" by a "political faction." A coup does *not* require the military. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under what definition is a coup only "led by the military"? Here's the actual definition of a coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." That's it. The word coup fits here, and calling it anything else is merely a racism-based defense of those involved. Had this been any other country, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But because it's white Americans, suddenly it's "not a coup" even though it fits the definition exactly? Reality does not work that way. This was a coup attempt, and the article should be titled so. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence[reply]

It should be noted that the AP is advising journalists to not refer to the events as a coup, as they do not see the objectives of the invasion as being overthrowing the government. Riots or insurrection seem more likely changes, but coup should not be considered. Spengouli (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A coup carries the connotations of a "stronger" action - for example, the Turkish Coup of 2016 saw attacks on multiple cities, with various media and state institutions falling under attack. The Soviet coup was well organized, with multiple organizations opposing each other across the scope of the entire country. In contrast, this was a relatively localized incident. And similar things have happened recently - the Armenian parliament was stormed after their defeat in November, nobody called it a coup [1] Nmurali02 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "2021 United States coup d'état attempt"

Armed insurgents are storming the capital of the country... this is a coup and most media are calling it a coup.

this was going to be exactly my suggestion. So I second it. Several sources have reported that the intent was to burn the electoral college ballots. And this was at the urging of the sitting president attempting to maintain power. RobP (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From NYT: “This is what you’ve gotten, guys,” Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, yelled as the mayhem unfolded in the Senate chamber, apparently addressing his colleagues who were leading the charge to press Mr. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election. “This is what the president has caused today, this insurrection,” Mr. Romney furiously said later. RobP (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Move: 2021 United States Capitol insurrection

This is not a fucking "storm" (whatever that is), and whoever titled this a "protest" should win the euphemism of the year award. Riot does not begin to cover the intent of overthrowing the American government and ending our 300-year tradition of democracy and installing Trump as un-elected dictator for life. The most appropriate words would be Insurrection, Putsch, or Coup.

What does "Snow Oppose" mean? Benicio2020 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My only opposition was procedural, since when I wrote this we had four separate move discussions proposing moves to four different page titles, and I did not think we could hold a series of different active move discussions in different sections of the talk page. Having people support moves to multiple locations at the same time is incoherent; I thought it should be considered as an alternative proposal in one of the pre-existing discussions, which have already had numerous amendments offered in those discussions. I do not know how we will get consensus if multiple move discussions close as successful. But it looks like other people did not share that confusion, so fair enough, that's what discussion is for. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: 2021 United States Capitol incursion (or incursions)

Throwing out another idea, with no preference on singular or plural. "Incursion" focuses (accurately) on the physicality of what's happening. A quick search online defines it as "an invasion or attack, especially a brief or sudden one." One advantage of "incursion" (or a similar tactical word) is to avoid politically-freighted terms about what is happening, such as protest, riot, coup d'etat, or insurrection. It's also kind of a synonym for "storming of" -- yet more elegant, Wikipedia-like, and sort of recognizing that today's events are not likely to have the same impact as the storming of the Bastille. Dss16 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick search shows that a few different media sources have used this term. Dss16 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few hours before renaming

We don't know everything about this, just the media feed as it happens. Yes, I agree Trump's tweets are to blame, but we don't know if others have worked behind the scenes for this. We may not know all the background yet. Other factors may surface. I think there is possibly more unknown than known about this. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. News media seem to be converging on "insurrection" and "riot", but the situation is still developing and we should wait rather than wasting time on page moves while facts on the ground change. --Calthinus (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Things like this, of this magnitude, do not happen because some public figure shot their mouth off on one occasion, or even whined in tweets for weeks before. Or even a handful of occasions. This just seems too successful, with everyone seeming to be caught by surprise. And if there's one thing we've learned over the last 4 years, there are sometimes contributing factors that don't surface for years. We have time to wait, a day or two perhaps, and keep building the article. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think about that... you're right, this seems too successful to have been simply as an instance of popular allegiance to something the president had said. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that the current title is highly misleading, but it seems that there is still uncertainty around what happened. Lood1234 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Protest" is probably inadequate, but trying to define exactly what something like this is as it's happening is probably beyond us. /Julle (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(ish) Why not rename it to "Conflict" if it's going to take time to arrive on a consensus on what to rename it? I think renaming away from "Protest" should be a relative priority, since it's gone so far beyond that. NHCLS (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an armed white supremacist insurrection by a mob intent on overthrowing the incoming democratically elected government and installing God-Emperor Trump as dictator for life, motherfuckers! Open your eyes! Why some of you want this to be titled "rally", "protest", or "peaceful gathering of friends" is beyond me.108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a deep breath. The best articles are written with a cool head and we should aspire to that standard. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's worth waiting to see what like The Associated Press and other news media organizations start to call it over the coming hours before making a conclusive decision on the naming of the article. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Renaming this an insurrection should be the default response based on the reliable sources and plain meaning of an insurrection versus protests. Its title is simply misleading and incorrect. I can accept that further precision may be required later on. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Rename ASAP. There is overwhelming support for renaming in the actual, genuine, and only relevant discussion below. There's a healthy discussion on what the best name is and there are at least two quite good options. Either is okay. If one is better than the other, a subsequent rename is also just fine, and that, subsequent, rename can wait. Not this one. This one needs to happen now. If a rename is done now, there will never be going back to "protest" that is clear at least.
Support Wikipedia will ultimately use the WP:COMMONNAME that is determined over time and is compliant with normal WP practices (e.g., 2021 preface, etc.) for such events. No need to rush a change from an reasonably descriptive term that exists at this time.

As one who was inside my high school building in a prior decade when an organized "protest" (attended my many; with many merely protesting various events and public policies) was turned into a "riot" when a group of troublemakers joined and threw molotov cocktails against the building, I get how both events can happen in the same few hours. But we need not sully the many "protest"ers with the obviously smaller group that actually did the law-breaking and riotous behavior. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2021 (coup attempt)

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: (non-admin closure) Not moved - WP:SNOW close - clear conesnsus against "coup" in the title. Discussion of other names can continue at the other open move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt – Armed insurrection in an attempt to overturn the 2020 US presidential elections, "Storming of the US Capital" is whitewashing, this isn't some romantic "Storming of the bastille." Albertaont (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.

is this legit cc-licensed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZvBZpBzMWk Victor Grigas (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, says so in the "License" in the description, but not clear on the point of the question. Was this in the article at some point? Should it be? — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I assume Victorgrigas was asking because it looks like a case where someone's uploaded something under such a license without actually holding the copyright to it (see commons:Commons:License laundering). The same account has uploaded this, which it's very unlikely they recorded themselves, under the same license. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I mistook this at first glance for a genuine Canadian news publication that would be recording the footage itself (and the channel's name and attributes seem designed to encourage this misreading). — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I asked because it looks like license-laundering to me. Victor Grigas (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tear gas and tasers

On several streams I've seen tear gas is deployed inside the capitol building, and tasers are heard rattling. I think this should be added to the article, but I'm still under 10 edits on Wikipedia (I only really edit wiktionary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mårtensås (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please present reliable sources which describe the information you wish to add. For convenience, it would be helpful for you to present suggestions in extremely specific detail in the form "Replace this wikitext with this wikitext". — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo source: "Cannisters of tear gas were fired across the rotunda’s white marble floor" -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-supporters-storm-capitol-dc/2021/01/06/58afc0b8-504b-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military-style parties in infobox?

Both sides are armed, so it may well make sense, but I think the use of the side params should be discussed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be something to discuss at Template talk:Infobox civil conflict, since it's the standard template. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that that is the right infobox to be using. It is not clear why certain names are included and others aren't. This is breaking news, obviously, and we should not be rushing to fit it into a template. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bondegezou. /Julle (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bondegezou for two other reasons: (a) it's very unclear how the unrest was coordinated (or whether it was) (b) parties should characterize all parties. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that part of the infobox for now given it's 4:1. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties in infobox

Someone removed the sides part of the infobox 'as per weight of support' with only 4 or 5 users even weighing in their opinion. I believe it's necessary to know the involved parties, and that the only problem was overcomplication. I think that it should be re-added, but kept simplified. Such as Pro-Trump protesters, and then just DC, VA, MD, NJ and the national guard or something? I'm not sure but I feel putting the involved parties in the infobox will help give a better overview. FlalfTalk 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest discussing this at #Military-style parties in infobox? rather than starting a new section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this suggestion doesn't really cover the reason given by Bondegezou and DenverCoder9 for why they opposed it. Maybe you should make a sandbox version of this proposed change with citations so that it is a bit clearer and to try to resolve the issues. So far, I am in agreement with their responses. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2021

2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol – The protests preceded a much more noteworthy event, which will be the focus of the bulk of this article: the storming of the Capitol by an armed mob Neutralitytalk 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General move survey

  • Support as nominator. RS are clearly settling on this name for now; e.g.,
    CNN ("Pro-Trump mob storms US Capitol as armed standoff takes place outside House chamber");
    Wall Street Journal ("RIOTERS FORCE WAY INTO CAPITOL; PROCEEDINGS HALTED");
    New York Times ("Pro-Trump Mob Breaches Capitol, Halting Vote Certification").
    Associated Press ("Trump supporters storm US Capitol, lawmakers evacuated").
    NBC News ("Pro-Trump protesters storm Capitol, forcing Senate evacuation during Electoral College count")
    The Guardian (""Pro-Trump mob storms Capitol as former DC police chief denounces 'coup attempt'")
    LA Times ("Biden says U.S. democracy under 'assault' after mob storms Capitol")
    The Times of London ("Trump supporters storm Congress")
--Neutralitytalk 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also BBC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz opinion piece As pro-Trump Extremists Converge on D.C., Will There Be ‘Bloody Civil War’ or More Bluster? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using coup or insurrection. As someone else stated, "storming" is too poetic; this is no romantic "Storming of the Bastille." This was also not simply a protest, and "2021 United States Capitol protests" is way too vague and will become outdated as soon as there is another protest at the Capitol this year, which is certain to happen. This is an article for the events of today (and the past few days for context), not a catch-all for all 2021 Capitol protests. Duey (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to add that I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it later, as it seems clear this is more than a protest, but I think it would be better to wait a bit before moving it. Seagull123 Φ 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, while there were plenty of protestors remaining peaceful, there were many violent/destructive actors that, in my opinion, warrant the term "insurrection". LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the article, this is clearly the focus, so riot. Esszet (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly is perfectly justified under Wikipedia policies. Des Vallee (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This was without a doubt a riot into the US Capitol, and this title fits the events perfectly. Fulserish (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support, this clearly has gone far beyond mere "protests". Wikipedia neutrality doesn't mean we should mince words or speak euphemestically. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I'd prefer insurrection or coup, this is better than the current title. I also think that if we go with storming we need to include the year, as the Capitol was stormed by the British Army during the War of 1812. (As it was a foreign army, it was not an insurrection so it's not a problem if we go with that title.) Smartyllama (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But would prefer using the term riot. To me that is stronger than "protest" (and more accurate) but more neutral than "insurrection" or "attack" or "storming." While there are certainly valid arguments for using those stronger terms, to my riot captures the violent nature of the event without passing judgement. — Schistocyte (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While some pro-Trump protesters entered the Capitol building, they didn't manage to hold it for a very long time. The event was a part of the 2021 protests that have taken place outside the Capitol, so am against the renaming proposal. Fernsong (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-It was mostly peaceful protests, just like the George Floyd "protests," which are so named on Wikipedia. Display name 99 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly peaceful and yet they stormed the damn Capitol. "George Floyd protests" is used because that's the most common name, it's not Wikipedia making a judgement. Meanwhile, this event is so far typically identified as a "storming" or "insurrection". Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also consider 2020 United States Capitol breach. I don't think "riot" is the proper title. C(u)w(t)C(c) 03:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move survey: riots

— Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose Most sources I've seen refer to the event as a "storming" of the capital. "Riots" could be sufficient enough but "storming" is more precise and indicative of what actually occurred.Yeoutie (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike what some say, some reliable sources have called it insurrection. These sources bear much more weight than sources containing the verb "storm" (and not the noun "storming") for the purposes of this discussion. This is what the media that is actually making a call on terminology predominantly going with, it's increasingly becoming clear. The media just saying "storm" in the headline has not yet made that call and relying on that to change the title to "storming" is premature. I can keep adding to the list of sources.
    Facts of the event meet the definition of an insurrection: a group was present at an organized event (the protest which was organized), a radical element of that organized group which acted in unity with the whole of the group (the protesters who didn't enter but exerted pressure on the authorities with their presence, and they knew that Capitol would be breached), this radical element attempted to disrupt the government in a sensitive moment by severing constitutional continuity which "defeats" the government on an existential level, in order for the political faction they associate with to unlawfully remain in power when it would have lost power, and violence was used to this effect. And on top of it there were guns, and a woman was killed.
    Oppose, It's clearly not a protest, but there's little reason not to wait to see what reliable sources end up calling it. Perryprog (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for 2021 United States Capitol riots, things seem to have settled down a bit now, coverage wise. Perryprog (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. By definition of the word riot (noun) a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets. [23] The storming of the US Capitol fits the definition. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: riot, storming, insurrection

It's clear from the above discussion that there is consensus to move the article to a different title. The two main suggestions have been "storming" and "riots". Which of these would editors prefer? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources say "storming" than "riots" by a wide margin. Benicio2020 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is false, there is no such clarity on which of the pro-move suggestions are the main ones. Insurrection is also a top contender, and perhaps some others. This thread is a pseudo-move discussion and needs to be closed. Alalch Emis
What does it mean for a thread to be "false"??? There is consensus that "protests" is not adequate (approx. ~100 supports vs ~25 oppose). Insurrection is mentioned a lot (more than "riots" from what I can see?), but "storming" seems like it pretty clearly is the main contender by a quite wide margin, so that's what I'm supporting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give it some time. The WP:COMMONNAME will emerge over a few days, not in the early hours of news media sources hitting the newswires and web. Let's face it, the daily media news circuit naturally has an incentive to, shall we say, embellish the title of various news articles to get the clicks. In a few days, we'll have the benefit perhaps of a few historians weighing in on the matter, and looking at it from a bit more of an arm's length. N2e (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is "insurrection", and in the "incurrection" [sic] section below you'll find Senate leaders calling it that.  Nixinova   T   C   01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"insurrection" is probably the most "correct" term; "storming" is the term that has become the de facto description of the event by WaPo, the NYTimes, and similar large news orgs. I would be fine with either, leaning toward "storming" as it best serves the goal of Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia. SpurriousCorrelation 01:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any of these four terms (storming, riots, insurrection, attack) would be technically accurate. I'd recommend insurrection, which not only multiple lawmakers are referring to it as, but is also I think the most encyclopedic and least emotionally charged. --FlagFreak talk 01:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell us more about the term that settles, but right now in the Capitol and on news stations (see NPR) the term insurrection is being used. "To rise against a civil authority" is the definition from Merrium-Webster dictionary, whose editors have already created a special page for the term ("lookups have spiked 34,450%" the page says) [24]Comm260 ncu (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


CNN, NBC News and other networks have systematically called it a terrorist attack during the last few hours. It was called a terrorist attack by Schumer in the senate as well. I think we should also consider a title that includes that word in some form, e.g. 2021 terrorist attack on the United States Capitol. --Tataral (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We typically don't name articles "terrorist attack". That's not a judgement on whether they're terrorist attacks or not, it's just not a good naming scheme. September 11 attacks was certainly a series of terrorist attacks, but we feel no need to include it in the name. El Al Flight 253 attack, Northwest Airlines Flight 253, 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing, 10 May 2010 Iraq attacks, 7 July 2005 London bombings and so on. "Terrorist attack" isn't very descriptive. /Julle (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike the George Floyd protests, which were mostly peaceful but did notably erupt into violence sometimes, the "protests" at the Capitol are very unusual and would be better described as riots. The January 5 events can be considered a part of the background leading up to the riots. However, I would wait until we know what the sources will call it. FreeMediaKid! 02:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, it seems that insurrection would be more accurate than simply riots, as it describes the motive behind the autocratic sabotage. Nevertheless, I would still wait until the sources have a consensus on what to call it. FreeMediaKid! 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support storming This insurrection was much more than a protest, and the word storming is the most accurate description of what actually happened. The word riot can be used to describe a variety of activities, but this was a deliberate attack on a specific building, so storming is the correct term.Calmecac5 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either insurrection or riot with preference to the former. —{Canucklehead} 03:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all three, with preference for insurrection first, then riot, then storming. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with preference to storming, then insurrection, then riot. Protest vastly, vastly understates this, as multiple people have mentioned. Nmurali02 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support storming and insurrection, with preference to the former. Spykryo (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The name of the article should include the word "storming." There were many hundreds of people on the steps of the capital, which is a restricted area. Dozens of individuals broke through the windows and occupied the offices of members of Congress. A woman was shot inside the Capitol building. Mediaexpert3 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at minimum using storming, but prefer 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt. Taken in context with ongoing objections to the certification of electoral votes, I believe what is happening now sufficiently constitutes a coordinated effort to overturn the established political order of the United States federal government. SweetFruityKindOfSad (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the use of "storming" over "insurrection". Although the exact chain of events and motives that lead to protesters trespassing the Capitol is a bit murky and would direct the naming of this event, "storming" is a better description of what they did, which was to try and enter an institution without seeming to have the knowledge and organizational wherewithal in overtaking a government other than act offensively and chaotic inside a government building. (Perspective from the Philippines) LionFosset (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using the term insurrection. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

&Support insurrection. Include a redirect and ensure it's in the lead. Missvain (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain images

Any ideas on where to look first? Charles Juvon (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr is usually where I go. You can also filter by CC-licensed images using Google Image Search. I doubt any photographers currently in DC have sat down to upload and license their photos yet, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historic:
BritishBurnTheCapitol-CoxMural
Charles Juvon (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Victorgrigas sometimes shares helpful images/videos for current events. Pinging for possible leads? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pistols drawn on the Floor of Congress Charles Juvon (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd suggest 1.) make a keyword list of things that people might upload footage under, like: MAGA, DC, Capitol, Capital, Revolution, Protest and so forth. 2.) look for new uploads 3.) Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud all have cc-licenses. This guy in particular is prolific: https://www.flickr.com/people/95413346@N00 4.) VOA is useable if its made by VOA staff (which is like 10% of the time) 5.) be careful of license laundering

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

Lots of reliance on Twitter here. This has WP:BLP implications, and WP:DUE considerations. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced all the Twitter sources, and added a hidden comment to urge people not to add to the "Reactions" section without a secondary RS. Hopefully people bother to read it... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is PD

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058 Victor Grigas (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victorgrigas, thanks dude! Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should use this; we do not need to give more airtime to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already extensively cover Trump's lies. This is highly relevant, and should be included to ensure the coverage is balanced. Melmann 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the video is historic, so I think it should go in the article. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we do, it needs a content warning like Twitter uses. ɱ (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely should be included, absolutely should have some caption warning. The subtitles are a bonus. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a pitiful conspiracy theorist-pandering content warning like Twitter uses, but something which accurately describes Trump's claims as false (not "disputed" or "some people are saying..."). — Bilorv (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like this: "However, he reiterated his false accusations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election." Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to commons. It has a description there that may be suitable. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump makes a statement during violence in D.C. on January 6, 2021. Trump reiterates lies about the 2020 United States general election.
@Feoffer: Can you explain your removal here? We ain't Facebook, inclusion discussed already. Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Material inciting violence is a BLP violation, I'm afraid. If for no other reason than there are legal implications for the foundation. Feoffer (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer. First amendment. Laughable. Also, the video isn't inciting violence, it's just lying about election results. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting interpretation. Can you cite the specific policy? Especially since you are invoking the Foundation as the reason, which if they have a problem they can intervene directly. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that this video is notable all by itself -- https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/facebook-youtube-twitter-delete-trump-video-rioters-risk-violence-1234880063/ Victor Grigas (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Int'l reactions

They are starting to pour in. I just want to say right now that I think it will get very long, and we should limit it to heads of state, heads of major autonomous units (Scotland matters of course because of Trump's property there) and or major party leaders. For example, the mayor of London may not merit inclusion once the section begins exploding. --Calthinus (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can split it into a new article if we need too. Swordman97 talk to me 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This can also work.--Calthinus (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mayor of London is a bit of a special case because he's widely cited internationally, IIRC. It may be a somewhat different case than the mayor of any other major city. Tamwin (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could just remove the section as a whole and create a new section titled 'International reactions' which summarises? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's very premature.--Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in making cuts to a section before it becomes long. --Calthinus (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely the point in order to save editors time and effort. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And get into unnecessary dispute about who "matters" when we don't (yet?) need to? Nah. --Calthinus (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The President of the European Commission has also issued an official statement.
Move - It is getting too long. Move to a new page Sherenk1 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

MOS:FLAG is clear here: stop adding flag icons all over the article. In particular, flags for subnational entities or supranational organisations are particularly frowned upon. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS or not, flags are usually used for international reactions in cases of civil uhh episodes. And there's a reason why. They are particularly useful to help navigation -- I find them very useful as a reader, and the section is going to grow. I'd vote to keep.--Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second Calthinus. I'm sure I've seen them in international reaction sections before, and they're helpful. Keep. Tamwin (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They just add clutter and don't help the reader. The reader can read that's why they're called a reader meaning they can read the country and don't need a flag. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Community consensus as expressed in the manual of style is that flag icons are generally not helpful. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override that. Bondegezou (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we have flags all over the place on other crucial and well established pages like Second_Libyan_Civil_War#Reactions; this really challenges the idea that this interpretation of MOS:FLAG is something that one needs to "override".--Calthinus (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF: we have a manual of style. We're meant to follow it. Bondegezou (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncritically -- we also have WP:IAR. If there are clear arguments in favor of navigational assistance and no counterarguments, this interpretation of MOS:FLAG may be naught but a hindrance.--Calthinus (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only "clear arguments in favor of navigational assistance" is you and another editor saying you like them. The broader community have thought about the issue at length and came to a consensus, which concluded that flag icons are actually a hindrance. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Calthinus basically on everything they've said in this section. I'll add the fact that MOS:FLAG doesn't even seem to particularly disagree with us here? If you read it closely, it's saying that flags should only be used in the case of someone who officially represents a body and where that body is specifically and directly relevant. Clearly, for instance, NATO is specifically and directly relevant when the NATO Secretary General is the one speaking, though it would not be relevant if a NATO member country was speaking. By my reading, MOS:FLAG is fine with us including the flags. Can you point me to a specific portion that clearly disagrees with this reading? Tamwin (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: @Bondegezou: Tamwin (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Calthinus. But flags for subnational and supranational organisations is too much. So partial keep. Randam (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Randam I could agree to remove subnational flags. The navigation benefit is already had if they are lodged under their national bullet points, so it's not necessary to have the Scottish flag really.--Calthinus (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove flags from the international reactions section, and subnational from everywhere else. FlalfTalk 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we should keep flags in both the International section and the Supernational Organizations section. I just took a look, I think they make the article look nice, and are useful to the reader. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove As noted it goes against the MOS, and considering the name of the country is right there, it's redundant to have both. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership

Donald Trump should be added in the "leadership" section on the insurrection side in the infobox given that he blatantly incited the attack on Capitol and that the entire faction looks to him as their leader. Not listing him and painting this as a movement without leadership is blatantly whitewashing Trump of his part in the affair. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He did not tell them to attack the Capitol. He in fact eventually told them to leave the Capitol. I don't think he is really leading the protesters/rioters in any meaningful sense. Tamwin (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I removed it as he has publicly called for peace and wants them to stop. End of. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's tepid message to the insurrectionists doesn't change the fact that he'd spent months inciting exactly this kind of action. There is also no question that the groups involved in the insurrection look to him as a leader/figurehead -- they have directly acknowledged his orders before, notably when obeying his now-infamous "stand back and stand by" comments last year. Even if one takes his backing down as genuine, he was blatantly the inciting figure and leader of the movement at the start of the attack on Capitol. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do reliable sources describe him as the leader? Tamwin (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TKSnaevarr, no. President Trump has not explicitly told anyone to storm the Capitol building, he asked them in a Tweet to stop the violence, and then in another to leave. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't he essentially giving orders? In various videos he's released condemning them, he uses the first person plural ("they stole the election from us"), identifying himself with the protestors and the rioters, and then talks about "the other side". He's aware that these people see him as their leader, and rather than dismissing them, he continues trying to appeal to them, telling them gently, "you have to go home now". You could say he's taking advantage of the fact that they see him as their leader to try and order them to leave peaceably and get them to dispel the violence. But he's not exactly distancing himself from them. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I changed the short description from "Storming of the Capitol Building in January 2021" to "Protests inside and around the Capitol Building in January 2021" since there is no consensus to support "storming" as of yet. Putting this in the talk page since I could not add an edit description in shortdesc helper. lovkal (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear this is a storming [25][26], to name just a couple. I'll happily see what others think though. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of us agrees that this is not an ordinary protest, and a storming at minimum. However, there's an ongoing move discussion on this page above that is, as of yet, unresolved. The short description should match the article title, so until the discussion is resolved, "storming" is not warranted. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be easier if this was "is this a protest, yes or no?" to which I think most would say that sources seem to indicate "no, it's something else", but is that something else a ... storming? A coup? A riot? An insurrection? That will take longer time to agree on. In the meanwhile, the description should match the article. /Julle (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's agreement that this is a protest, which includes violent protest. The question is whether that's the most appropriate, balanced title for the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I think we should wait for the renaming discussions to end and then change the short description accordingly. lovkal (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

America First/Groypers and neo-confederates

@Saxones288: The only sentence in the Times of Israel source related to Groypers/America First is "Wednesday’s event is being touted on social media by a string of far-right extremists, from the Proud Boys to right-wing militias to Nick Fuentes, head of the white supremacist Groyper Army." This does not support that America First was a "side" in the conflict. Please stop warring it back in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of why I think we should scrap that whole section of the infobox. It's just going to be endless stuff like this until things settle down. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Snopes says that someone raised a Confederate flag and some folks were waving them around. It does not say that neo-confederates were a prominent group in the events today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am scrapping the 2 groups/associations. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neo confederates were present, so were "QAnons" all sources describe this extensively. I am not sure if "Groypers" were present. If sources could be provided for this it would good. I think there is a difference between Groypers being present and them organizing into blocks, I mean you could most likely found an immense amount of wacky ideologies present that does not mean they were organized. Neo-Confederates and "Qs" were extensively present. Des Vallee (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we just get rid of that entire, ugly, half-sourced flagwank "Parties" infobox (well, box)? It looks completely amateur. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on scrapping the box. This does not live up to Wikipedia's standards. I doubt we will be able to discover whether each of the protestors is associated with a group, and whether those groups coordinated it. This is not the same as "France" and "Netherlands" in American Revolutionary War where there is clear attribution.
Support ditching the cluttered, confused, confusing lower part of the infobox. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/* In case this hasn't been seen, 2021 United States coup d'état attempt */ new section

Doug Weller talk 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I've redirected the page to this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Off to bed now, I suppose I won't be able to sleep through the night without checking the news! Doug Weller talk 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confusingly though, we now have 2021 United States coup d'état attempt pointing to one article and 2020 United States coup d'état attempt to another. Would a hatnote – 2021 United States coup d'état attempt redirects here. It is not to be confused with 2020 United States coup d'état attempt – seem flippant? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arms & Hearts, I have corrected the aforementioned redirect. It now points to this article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: But this event didn't happen in 2020. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arms & Hearts, you are correct. However, if people are mistakenly typing it often looking for this article, then it is a good redirect. Unless it was referring to a different incident? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but it's worth revisiting in a week or so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll take a look at the view count then and see if it is necessary or not. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543, your edit to 2020 United States coup d'état attempt has now been reverted by P,TO 19104 to point back to Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Description_as_an_attempted_coup. Seagull123 Φ 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seagull123, yes. The redirect was indeed supposed to point to a different article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caused By

Since a major cause of the protest was President Trump's claims of election fraud, should that be added to the infobox in the "Caused By" section? Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reliable source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/953616207/diehard-trump-supporters-gather-in-the-nations-capital-to-protest-election-resul "President Trump himself addressed the crowd and urged them to protest what he falsely claims was a rigged election before marching to the Capitol and pushing past security barriers there."Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare Trump's claims being the cause was quoted by CNN in its live session. Will that be considered a reliable source? 180.151.224.189 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll need to demonstrate that this is the mainstream view among reliable sources, which to my observation it is not. He certainly helped to incite the protest, as did quite a few other people, but I don't think it should go in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for NAM denunciation.

The following claim lacks sources: "The National Association of Manufacturers has also called for Trump's immediate removal from office, calling on Vice President Mike Pence to act."

These should do, if anyone with editing permissions wants to add them:

NAM: https://www.nam.org/manufacturers-call-on-armed-thugs-to-cease-violence-at-capitol-11628/?stream=series-press-releases

Reporting: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/532573-manufacturing-trade-group-condemns-gop-push-to-overturn-biden-victory https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/business/capitol-hill-violence-business-leaders/index.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/national-association-of-manufacturers-calls-dc-protests-sedition.html

69.172.176.96 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal's reaction to the protests

On Twitter, the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs was the first to reacte to the protests expressing "deep concern with today's events in Washington" and Portugal "are confident that American democracy, the respect for the institutions and the rule of law will prevail". Augusto Santos Silva finish his reaction saying that Portugal "trust the US and its institutions to ensure a peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration".[3] Minutes later, the Prime Minister António Costa, also on Twitter, saying that he is "following developments in Washington with concern" qualifying the protests as "disturbing scenes". Costa finish his reaction declaring that "the outcome of the elections must be respected, with a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. I have trust in the strength of the democratic institutions in the USA".[4] 2001:8A0:F9B9:FB01:88E4:F85:9C0F:33B7 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.rferl.org/a/protesters-storm-armenian-parliament/30940248.html
  2. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/electoral-college-certification-updates-n1252864/ncrd1253177#liveBlogHeader
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/nestrangeiro_pt/status/1346945299818823682
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/antoniocostapm/status/1346946770694127621

Oregon, for the "Outside the District of Columbia" section

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that the BBC (and others) have live *text* coverage

For all the minute-by-minute updates that will need to be reflected on in a day, week, month, e.g. BBC livefeed. Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not tabloidistic. We need to be neutral, we are not the news. A part of that is stepping back and waiting to see how things play out. We don't want an all you can eat gauge fest of controversies, we want a neutral encyclopedia. Especially with new events it can be easy to swept in a tide of tabloidism. Still this event is utterly crazy so it can be hard to even comprehend the general situation. Des Vallee (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why I mentioned it - it's a record of all the coverage, so we don't need to continuously update in the minute, we can reflect and the info will still be there. Or did I not say that already? Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This article has gotten very heated. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

In the fatalities ref in the Infobox, change January 6, 2021 to 2021-01-06 two times, in date= and access=date= --Nomentz (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Nomentz (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my bad. Will fix in a second. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I see no purpose in doing this; CS1 treats them the same. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Erledigt @AleatoryPonderings and Nomentz: Most other refs are using that YYYY-MM-DD format, best to keep consistency. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia's reaction

https://twitter.com/IvanDuque/status/1346929338923450368?s=19 We reject the acts of violence presented today during the act of counting the vote of the electoral college in the United States Congress and I express my solidarity and support to the honorable members of Congress and to all institutions.--190.140.168.165 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarily, comments from the Swedish as well as German foreign ministers were mentioned in the article on the Swedish PM's reaction KnightofFaerië (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)-[reply]

"Media and commentators" section

Perhaps I'm a bit premature here, but for as long as just one commentator's opinion is present (seemingly to politically disparage against her, at that), this section will be pointless. Who would some names that might validate this section be? I can only think of prominent academics, but that's already a matter of conjecture. Perhaps we should remove it altogether. puggo (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time Standards

There are currently several different standards for recording time within sections. Just under reactions there are a variety of styles including 2:38 p.m. EST, 3:35 p.m., and 4:11 EST. At some point the article should be cleaned up and standardized using MOS:TIME. Majorberg (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EST and UTC should be used, at least in the first instance of time. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done with my understanding of what should be done. As an aside: my God it's impossible to submit edits puggo (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International responses

Do we need a sub-national entity like Scotland in there? Taken to the extreme, it could result in a very long list if that level of polity is acceptable. Arcturus (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could restrict to statements by heads of state? Arbitrary, but so would any criterion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be better. Maybe remove Scotland in due course, unless there are objections. Arcturus (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to remove the entire section and flatten it into a list in a runon sentence that completely demolishes understanding of the differences between different state entities -- which is of high relevance for international relations.--Calthinus (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the page in fact equates the stance of Ireland (Trump is guilty of incitement) with that of Russia (some comment about Maidan). That's pretty misleading. [major RS recognize the relevance of the international response]. [This is currently the second-at-the-top story on Reuters -- and surprise surprise, it's on the international response from Reuters too.] I'll be reverting if there is no discussion or improvement in 30 min. --Calthinus (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gronk Oz you have removed the international reactions again and equated Ireland to Russia. Judging by your edit summary which said nothing on the matter, was this an error? --Calthinus (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diff : [27]. --Calthinus (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: WHAT? I just changed one word, in a different section - where did all that come from? There was an edit conflict the first time I tried, so I cancelled that edit and started again from scratch. I certainly did not intend to change anything about the international responses. And now it won't let me undo my edit because of clash with subsequent edits. But looking at the article History to try and clarify that, there are almost a hundred edits since. If somebody can make sense of what should be there, please put it back like it should be, and accept my apologies for whatever I did wrong.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gronk Oz. No worries all good, I'm a klutz myself :) --Calthinus (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move - It is getting too long. Move to a new page Sherenk1 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be trimmed immensely. We really don't need to include every tweet expressing shock and outrage about what happened, even if they are from heads of state. Something shocking happened, people were shocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note of Appreciation to Wikipedia contributors

May I on behalf of all readers express enormous gratitude for the contributions & editing here. A hugely impressive page on an ongoing event. Wikipedians at their best. I really hesitate to clutter this page even with this note, so feel free to remove :) Perhaps there is space in the wiki model for an additional tab to allow readers to express gratitude. Thank you all contributers for your dilligent work. A European reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.66.189 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you to say, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Wie ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Wie --- N2e (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Wie All of the contributors should be commended, and by that I mean those contributing in good-faith, which is the majority. I'd also like to say that I'm particularly impressed with GorillaWarfare's fair and extended engagement with various editors on the talk page, as well as their quick handling of some minor bits of disruption. I was going to leave something saying as much on their talk page, but I might as well leave it here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am more mixed on this. There have been far too many edit conflicts, and clearly there is need for a type of protection that has a higher requirement than 500 edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, This was a note of appreciation to editors, not praise for the Wikipedia backend. Just say thanks! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I left my own note to editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, Fair enough, I'm just giving you a hard time. Happy editing! (I'll give another thanks to editors who've helped out as well!) ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too am mightily impressed by the work of my peers. I have started several breaking news articles during my 200 years on Wikipedia and know how frustrating and exhilarating it can be. Brilliant efforts all round today. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think page protection is an appropriate solution to edit conflicts. If more protection is needed to avoid edit wars, sure, but this would be unnecessary otherwise. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The edit conflicts are frustrating, but page protection is for preventing intentional disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If edit wars aren't considered disruptive, then I disagree. There have been silent edit wars on this article, where the same content has been added, removed and re-added multiple times. This is allowed due to the significant amount of edits being made, which makes community enforcement of WP:BRD impossible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then just... enforce it? Ping the people relevant to the war on the talk page. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought I’d see the day (besides Olympus Has Fallen in real life) that people genuinely appreciated Wikipedia. This is why we do what we do, at the end of the day. Trillfendi (talk)

New page for efforts to remove Trump via 25th Amendment or Impeachment.

Should we start a new page dedicated to the efforts to remove Donald Trump? Even if these efforts are unsuccessful, articles of impeachment are already being drawn up by Ilhan Omar, and I would say it would be likely they will be voted on tonight, which would warrant a separate page. A vast number of Democratic members have said he should be removed via 25th amendment or impeachment, tonight. So I think we should make a page now, and if it turns out to not happen we can just merge it back into this page as its not really that notable (members have called for trumps impeachment and removal 100s of times, not really that notable unless at least there is a vote).

I would make it myself, but it would likely get deleted or by the time I was finished writing it there would already be another page lol.MarkiPoli (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got Impeachment of Donald Trump which largely describes the late 2019/early 2020 impeachment, but it could perhaps be added to that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That page (along with Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump, which covers the house investigation before the vote, and Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump, which covers the Senate trial) only covers the 2019-20 impeachment. Other efforts are at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, so it would be added to that. There will need to be a new page though, if he is impeached again by the house (even if he isn't removed by the senate). MarkiPoli (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support you to write a draft, but only publish it until the articles of impeachment are official. It should be named Second Impeachment of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is far too premature to create a new page until actions are taken toward impeachment beyond just an introduction of a resolution. This should be a new section at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump for now. Reywas92Talk 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's tweets

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter safety: https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970432017031178 ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "2021 United States Capitol attack"?

This renaming would be in line with other articles in the category Category:Attacks on legislatures, such as 2017 Venezuelan National Assembly attack.--Beneficii (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the alternative names presented, this honestly would be the only one I'd be in favor of. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the extensive page move discussions above on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did see them. That section is for discussions that have been closed, and none of them involved using the word "attack" in the name.--Beneficii (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the "attack" renaming, per the example cited by Beneficii.Gonzalo84 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support it here, as well. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some footage that could be migrated

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the section titles as NPOV as possible in these early hours of fast edits

Let's try to keep the section titles as NPOV as possible in these early hours of fast edits. One of the truly great benefits of coming to this Wikipedia article is to get a good descriptive summary of what went down in these events, without all the breathlessness and click-bait headlines of many media outlets.

For example, the subsection on events at the US Capitol covers many things that happened at the Capitol They include that the Capitol was breached, that riotous behavior took place, including rioters doing some things, and Capitol staff and legislators doing others, and someone was shot, etc. etc.

I'd suggest, as several editors have edited in the past couple hours, that the section simply be titled Capitol buildingrather than the more WP:POV approach of "Shooting in Capitol building" or "Rioters break into Capitol building" or "Shots fired in Capitol building" or, as it is now, "Rioters break into Capitol Building"

Then, we just let the sourced prose of the section describe all the events; and the title need not necessarily set the framing in these early hours. N2e (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DC National guard statement

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2464427/statement-by-acting-secretary-miller-on-full-activation-of-dc-national-guard/ Victor Grigas (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to inform everyone of a move discussion I started at Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Requested move 7 January 2021. I am proposing moving the article to 2020—2021 United States coup d'état attempt.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PolitiFact

I recently added a citation of a PolitiFact article claiming that what occurred can be reasonably considered a coup, but this citation was removed in another edit by another user. The removal was unexplained by the user, and I think the source (including the quotation) should still be there. AndrewOne (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably an edit conflict—I've had a handful of my edits mysteriously go missing just because the page is so heavily-edited. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fact not based on sources regarding shooter

The article states "An unarmed protestor was shot by a law enforcement officer within the Capitol, and later died from her injuries." but I don't see any fact in the references state the shot was from a LEO. The shooter seems to be unknown at this time. Trippledot (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue anymore. Fixed now. Trippledot (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trippledot: I had the same concern earlier today, but discovered that the Washington Post source does point to a LEO as the shooter: "A Capitol Police officer shouted from a higher stairway at the intruders, yelling at them to stop, but when they didn’t, the officer fired at a man coming at him, two law enforcement officials said. Amid shouts and people rushing to get away from the sound of gunfire, protesters saw a woman in their group collapse. Police believe she was unarmed, a law enforcement official said, but the officer who shot her didn’t know that." GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insurrection

Not many Minutes ago, Mitch McConnel named the events as an "Incurrection." He is the leading Republican Figure in the United States Senate and is on the same political side as the protesters. Due to this, I suggest that it be named an Insurrection. I know the discussion has closed, but new evenst call for another discussion. The Radioactive Box (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been informed that Chuck Schumer, The leading Democratic figure in the United States Senate has also referred to the protest as an insurrection. I feel that this strenghtens my case. The Radioactive Box (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could perhaps add in the introduction that both party leaders in the Senate have declared it an insurrection, but perhaps don't change any titles just yet. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am watching the Joint Session now, which resumed after the assault on the Capital. Every Dem is calling it an insurrection, and laying blame on Trump. The Repubs are (mostly) attempting to downplay the severity, but what did I expect? The Washington Post, siding with the Dems, said this: "The insurrection came just as many top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) were finally denouncing Mr. Trump’s anti-democratic campaign to overturn the election results." and the Post said the President needed to be removed NOW. RobP (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch McConnell said that "the President needed to be removed NOW"? I find that hard to believe. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDG 543, it is indeed somewhat difficult to parse Rp2006's comment, but I believe they were saying that the Washington Post had said as much, not Mitch McConnell. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hearing "insurrection" on mainstream TV news programs. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - here is the WP link: here. And (Repub) Pres GW Bush used the I word too. RobP (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's statement.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor --121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NZ's Response

"Democracy - the right of people to exercise a vote, have their voice heard and then have that decision upheld peacefully should never be undone by a mob. Our thoughts are with everyone who is as devastated as we are by the events of today. I have no doubt democracy will prevail."

"Like so many others, I’ve been watching what’s happening in the United States. I share the sentiment of friends in the US - what is happening is wrong."

-Jacinda Ardern. I feel perhaps that these should be added.

https://twitter.com/jacindaardern?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor--121.99.126.230

(talk) 01:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added  Nixinova   T   C   01:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed at Impeachment of Donald Trump

Attention is needed at Impeachment of Donald Trump, where a person is repeatedly attempting to insert content into the lead about a second impeachment that violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LEAD etc. The content is given a single sentence in the body. Higher levels of disruption to this page is likely to begin to take place by many people in the short future. — Bilorv (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more photos from the rally today

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dannielleblumenthal/albums/72157717754531516 Victor Grigas (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add one to the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Nice photos. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event

Is this event still ongoing? Cwater1 (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Capitol has been cleared, but there are still protestors in DC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is PD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8YVqgFsrdM Victor Grigas (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Title Change: The Capitol Insurrection of 2021

I propose the title of this event is changed to "The Capitol Insurrection of 2021". NJB (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can show that that is the common name among reliable sources, I don't think you'll get much traction with this proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Public Domain?

https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1346938705932648451 Victor Grigas (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright would be a better place to ask, but I'm pretty sure {{PD-USGov-Congress}} would apply. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think, although be careful as it’s speculation —Bam.zander (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Evans

Derrick Evans, a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, was among those that stormed the Capitol.[1] Thriley (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/derrick-evans-west-virginia-capitol.html
Other sources do confirm this: [28] [29] [30] Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this public domain?

It was made by an employee of the US Government: https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10157480675146857 Victor Grigas (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New draft regarding possible impeachment and removal, or removal via 25th amendment

I made a draft at User:MarkiPoli/2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. There isn't much there as of now so please edit it if you want and add to it. I believe an article is now necessary considering there are members of the cabinet talking about the 25th amendment in earnest, and 36 House democrats (at least) have said Trump should be removed, either via impeachment or 25th amendment. If anyone wants to make the article in mainspace after its cleaned up a little, go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkiPoli (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is some reporting on this, it's just a conversation that is ongoing and it has been a subject of discussion for four years now. The guy has just 14 days left in office, this is more of a symbolic gesture. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CBS News has reported itMarkiPoli (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Capitol Police in the early entrance to the Capitol building

Having seen serious reporting on the role of (some) Capitol police in hindering, or not hindering and possibly aiding, entrance to the Capitol, am a bit curious why it is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that it was the ease of entrance, facilitated by (some) of these armed security force ppl, is why a number of persons (see the lede paragraph) are calling it a coup. Would be helpful to gather articles and references and explicate the situation, to see if their is a consensus verifiable view on these alleged actions. N2e (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mind sharing this serious reporting you've seen? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't come across any 'serious' reports so far, but Tyrese Gibson has been posting a lot of videos on his Instagram. One of them also shows a 'protestor' carrying the disputed flag. Not sure about the credibility or sources though. example

180.151.224.189 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India's reaction

PM Modi condemned the US capitol attacks and called for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. PM modi twitted "Distressed to see news about rioting and violence in Washington DC. Orderly and peaceful transfer of power must continue. The democratic process cannot be allowed to be subverted through unlawful protests."

https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1347009724789653508?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347009724789653508%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiatvnews.com%2Fnews%2Findia%2Fpm-modi-tweet-statement-us-capitol-attack-donald-trump-supporters-america-violence-676532

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smaran Nagaraj (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riot

As much as I love snark, this is not a serious comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shouldn't this be called 2021 United States Capitol Riot? After all, these were violent Trump supporters, not peaceful Black Lives Matter and Antifa. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See #Requested move 6 January 2021 for various proposed names, including "riot". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Change title of page to January 6th Terrorist Attack on the U.S. Capitol 2600:6C58:627F:A047:568:A352:7BB:F40 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see discussions on renaming above. FlalfTalk 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unified definitions of 'rally', 'protest', 'coup d'état' and 'riot'

I have noticed that there are many conversations in the talk section that are debating to change the title of this page. Some of these arguments have almost devolved into the minutiae of what the words 'protest' or 'rally' even mean. In order to avoid the endless pit of argument, I propose that Wikipedia use a standardized definition. I recommend using a source that is NOT Wikitionary, since that can be freely edited and the arguing will start again.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot

This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia in any way, so please forgive any errors in protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:5300:6:9159:1518:3906:67cc (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Won't happen but here is the most apt title.

'2021 United States Capitol Hill Putsch' Warlightyahoo (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See #Requested move 6 January 2021 GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since literally nobody is calling it a putsch, we won't use it as a title. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest; 'Un(?)organized group of rowdy people who are doing VERY naughty things and should all go home and have a beer or something before this gets more out of hand'

New York Post names gunshot fatality

At https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/protester-killed-in-capitol-was-air-force-vet-from-california/

How many other outlets need to run with these details before we include them here? WakandaQT (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia declared a state of emergency to assist DC

I believe this should be added to the article. Per VA Gov. Northam’s tweet: “I am also issuing a State of Emergency in Virginia, so we can continue to respond.”


https://www.nbc12.com/2021/01/06/northam-va-national-guard-members-troopers-being-sent-dc/ Penguinian96 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the dates

The dates here should be clarified: the storming of the building was today, the sixth, not the fifth as it is never explicitly said. Thanks—Bam.zander (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made New article regarding 25th amendment or possible impeachment

2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. Multiple, credible sources (CNN, CBS) have reported both Trump's cabinet and multiple senior Republicans are calling for his removal. So I've put my draft in the main space. Put the link in the main article if you want to.MarkiPoli (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=998815774"