![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I noticed some Large Deletes, between now and a couple of days ago, that should be reviewed:
How many deaths occurred during the storming? I believe it to be 5 (3 of natural causes, 1 rioter shot, and 1 officer), however it is saying 6. SuperHeight ( talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It's worth noting and considering when and where the deaths occurred. If there is a distinction between the "protest" phase and the "riot" phase, 3 deaths occurred for medical/health reasons with little to do with "storming the capitol building".
Should this be categorized under Category:Attempted coups d'état and Category:Fascist revolts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8800:2110:1902:5481:BEA8:CC8B ( talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding back an infobox of civil parties to the conflict. Now that there is general consensus that this was an insurrection/coup, there should be civil parties. Other insurrections like the Beer Hall Putsch have infoboxes. Arandomguy12345 ( talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
My changes to the infobox was reverted an older reversion by another editor for unknown reasons and stated I should get consensus. IMO, the way I had it was better looking than what the person changed it back to. Hopefully it can be put back in place. 1989 ( talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to this? Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Was the intention of the "Save America March" to march, as the title suggests, to the Capitol? Or was it just to hear Trump and others speak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personnongratia ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
While all other sub-sections in the Reactions section report what leading politicians said about the riots, the sub-section Secretary of State Pompeo reports what he did after the riots. To be consisent, we should mainly report what he said, and, since it was newsworthy, how his diplomats reacted. Here are a few sources that may be useful:
— Chrisahn ( talk) 04:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Given how contentious the article is, I believe the typical guidance of WP:LEAD in allowing uncited statements on the top and in the infobox to be insufficient. While this would be acceptable for a typical article, this isn't a typical article. This is probably going to be one of the most controversial events of the decade. My attempts at tagging things with CN templates was reverted by EvergreenFir. So I'd like to get other input on this. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Surely the article should state early on that elected Republican Party officials were among the attackers? I don't see mention of it in the lead at present. I also think the bombings should be mentioned in the first paragraph. GPinkerton ( talk) 05:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's important to be careful with these descriptors because it's not clear who was a rioter, while they are all protestors. I like the suggestion of Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) above, but it's sadly more complicated than that. People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory, while people who had the barriers opened for them, later, at another point on the perimeter may not be guilty of anything. It's going to be interesting to see the legal outcomes, there are probably two killings, and yet we are told someone is going to be prosecuted for stealing an envelope. Until then we can only follow reliable sources on fact, and NPOV on tone. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
To suggest that actions outside the capitol did not include rioting is absurd. They were attacking the officers outside (the officer who was murdered was killed outside), they were smashing windows outside, they scaled the walls and vandalized outside. RSes call the entire event around the Capitol a riot. The doors are not a magic barrier that changes the characterization of those who enter them. Reywas92 Talk 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Protestors" is a weasel word that makes these treasonous insurrectionists appear to be roughly equivalent to BLM protestors (who actually protested). This story is about the attempted coup and the terrorist infiltration of the Capitol. They weren't protestors, they were terrorists, I even think "rioters" is weasel wording. This seems like whitewashing that we'd find in Conservapedia. Disgusting. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
To summarize, the consensus is protestors outside, rioters inside. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree not all the protesters were rioting. Many tried to stop the ones rioting. Those breaking into the Capitol building were rioting. The gates around the Capitol were opened up by the police in some instances. MissBehaving ( talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this was mostly a peaceful protest except for a few clashes with police. The looting should not be considered violence. Given that, using the words "violent attack" in this sentence is unfounded as this produces the image of widespread violence. While there was some extreme violence, it seems like less than 5% of participants were violent, no? So replacing "a riot and violent attack" with "a mostly peaceful protest" would more accurately describe the footage. メガヒロ ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Lede first sentence now reads (at Special:PermaLink/999625334):
Was there consensus for this change? Language was much, much weaker when I last checked. Not necessarily opposed, but I think this deserves some discussion. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it.
The previous lede was way too long, it has to be a brief description. For example on 9/11 page the first sentence reads "The September 11 attacks, often referred to as 9/11,[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Wahhabi[3] terrorist group Al-Qaeda[4][5][6] against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001" rather than fully describe the event in the first sentence,
The first sentence of this page should read The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was ___________ on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. You can fill in the blank how you see fit.
If you have a problem with the description, change the description, but don't remove the bolded event title and date name. Before my edit, the bolded event title wasn't present
Anyhow, I don't see any problem with the current lede though. I just used language that was most common by US reliable sources. Was it not an insurrection? Did it not fail? Was it not carried out by Trump supporters? Yeungkahchun ( talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it.This is not true, see MOS:BOLDLEAD and WP:BOLDITIS. There has also been significant discussion on this talk page about the wording "insurrection", without a clear resolution in favor. I recommend a revert to the previous version. — Goszei ( talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The bold title is back. [14] Do we maybe need a hidden comment explaining that it is a descriptive title and shouldn't really be bolded? -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe it's worth mentioning that the House has introduced articles of impeachment literally entitled "Incitement of Insurrection". I'd support having the lead include it at this point. Jdphenix ( talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure the opening statement is not judgmental. It seems like whoever wrote it was very angry. Mad1532 ( talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that over the course of the past 24 hours, the first sentence of this article has alternated between two forms.
Option A (current version):
The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress on January 6, 2021, carried out by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.
Option B (version before today):
On January 6, 2021, supporters of United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the November 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.
Which version do we prefer? Personally, I'm partial to Option B. Per
MOS:AVOIDBOLD, If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy.
Mz7 (
talk)
23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it gonna be added? Because if you watch the speech this is what he said
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully" But its probably not going to be mentioned here because it doesn't fit the narrative. 2600:8805:C880:3D7:CC56:215A:4424:FF6F ( talk) 02:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Considering that the rioters were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," while they assaulted the building and killed a security officer, should we label this as an assassination attempt against the vice president? Necropolis Hill ( talk) 08:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Instigated by Trump to help him overturn the election result, a crowd marched down Pennsylvania Avenue after the rally and advanced on the Capitol, where a separate crowd had gathered.
I haven't dug into all the news sourcing, but is it worth noting that the march from the Ellipse to the Capitol included several axises (axes)? I was present as a photographer and opted for the National Mall approach due to less chance of crushing. I can upload photos of that portion of the crowd approaching if it would be useful. TapTheForwardAssist ( talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the accusation that president Trump incited the riot or provide the direct quote that proves your claim 209.62.211.69 ( talk) 10:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section "Potential spread of COVID-19" is listed that members should take a precautionary "PT-PCR test". It should be "RT-PCR test". Change PT-PCR test to RT-PCR test Sinistral Snail ( talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, it says "Hang Pence". This does not make sense. Mike is Republican, like Trump. 180.150.115.177 ( talk) 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Pleae read wp:forum, and wp:blp. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lede in Special:PermaLink/999522346 says:
This sentence reads quite oddly to me. I can see one attempting to overturn a result (as Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election puts it), but I can't see one attempting to overturn a defeat. Perhaps better would be:
Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturning a defeat = imposition Tortillovsky ( talk) 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
News is circulating that an off-duty capitol police officer, Howard Liebengood, has committed suicide following the events detailed in this article. Should this be included in the article? The fact that he died is confirmed, but the suicide doesn't seem to be official yet. [15] [16] Thanks, EDG 543 ( message me) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It was not immediately clear what spurred the act." I'd also prefer a better quality source than these. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
@ Czello: can you explain why you oppose even the mention of Capitol Police Officer Liebengood's suicide on this page despite corroboration in multiple RS such as WaPo and CBS News? AlexEng( TALK) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
He was arrested with three others in GA for unlawful entry and curfew violation, and he killed himself on Saturday. See here: [1] I think suicides are an important consequence of this event and should be reported, as long as the suicides are reported by RS in the context of the story. Dcs002 ( talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the above discussion, some people in the past few days have tried to count Liebengood's suicide as a casualty and, consequently, changed the infobox to list 2 police officer deaths (so 6 in total). The above debate seems to be focussed on whether suicide should be mentioned in the body of the article, but isn't addressing the infobox. I suspect that, if we decide to mention Liebengood in the body, some editors will try to re-add this to the infobox. I want to make sure we're all on the same page that it shouldn't be counted as a casualty given that it didn't take place during the event or as a result owing to injuries sustained during the event. — Czello 09:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I think
this addition, adding "peacefully", is WP:UNDUE for the lead. The fact that Trump once mentioned the word "peacefully" during an hour-long speech at a rally filled with "trial by combat", "total war" and "fight like hell" rhetoric, and explicit calls for a coup and false claims about a "stolen election," doesn't mean that his use of that particular word is important enough to be highlighted to such a degree in the lead, given the overall context, which also includes the rhetoric by himself and his associates in the planning of the rally. It's simply not representative of his overall message at the rally or in the post-election period. As
Jonah Goldberg pointed out, Trump’s praetorians ludicrously claim that the word “peacefully” lets the president off the hook for the violence that followed. First, the whole protest was premised on a mountain of lies about the election being stolen. Convincing people they need to prevent a coup when no such coup exists is a recipe for violence
.
[18] We can discuss his speech in more detail, including the one time he mentioned "peacefully", in more detail below instead. --
Tataral (
talk)
01:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Using the word "peacefully" is the only explicit call to action provided by Trump, therefore it invalidates any suspicions of a call to violence. And this edit shouldn't have been made before consensus was reached. メガヒロ ( talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This needs to be properly cited or removed. WP:NOTFALSE The reference cited contains one sentence of hearsay regarding an unsourced relative opinion. This is a relative opinion: "Pleased" needs premise of which is not present. Unsourced material has no merit: references needs credibility. Additionally, the opinion is inconsistent with the words and actions of every single public statement of every single political figure, Trump included. The reason this is unsourced in this reference is because it actually refers to hearsay of hearsay or heasay where it was reported that this information comes from one individual who says they heard this from a Congress member who claimed they heard from an unsourced and unquoted "Official" something that he interpreted as "Pleased", which is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay and an interpretation of hearsay on top of that (this is referenced in the following couple sentences). This needs better citations or removal due to the weight of the allegation. OnePercent ( talk) 08:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Article currently reads: "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Pence did.[241]" This seems POV and unencylopedic, more like gossip than information. Would suggest something like "Vice President Pence offered condolences to Sicknick's family on behalf of the White House." The reader can read into it what he wishes. 198.161.4.68 ( talk) 18:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The edits aren't an improvement. It comes off as childish finger-pointing. "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Biden, Pence and Pelosi each did." Is it a contest to see who is sorrier? If there is some significance to Trump not offering condolences, there needs to be an explanation of why, that isn't original research but coming from a reliable source. As it is, it's just trivia in an already too-long article. 174.0.48.147 ( talk) 02:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this currently noted in the article?
From WaPo [20]
"After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution."
I find Wikipedia to be invaluable, and deeper analysis of this event would be invaluable to readers. Here's a start [21] (Scroll down within the article)
-- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Now, the rioters, mostly white men, they left many clues, the video and photos that they posted of themselves while they were at the Capitol or afterwards.[24]
The Capitol was more heavily guarded for recent Black Lives Matter protests than Wednesday’s demonstration, where Trump supporters were mostly white men.[25] — Chrisahn ( talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there hasn't been any discussion or precedent set about whether or not "Washington, D.C." should be abbreviated to "DC" or "D.C." Both abbreviations are used throughout the article. Personally, I'm in favor of "D.C." as it corresponds more with the full name and would possibly prevent confusion. Sewageboy ( talk) 09:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't listen to Trump's complete speech, but I suspect that that language is probably too strong. The source says "incited". -- ExperiencedArticleFixer ( talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The media tried to paint that flag waver as a Hindu nationalist but it turned out he was a Catholic man from Kerala. Tharoor, without knowing the name of the person tweeted and that thing is added here. It turns out that man is a BJP hater and Congress and Tharoor supporter but it is not mentioned here. No mention of the guy's name either and surprisingly, stuff are added to show that Hindus support Trump. Is this not false information and gaslighting of a community? How is this allowed on Wikipedia? Krish | Talk To Me 11:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
OK can we have three RS about this so we can asses what they say? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't know if this info has been covered, or should be, but putting the source link here.
Army investigating officer who led group to Washington rally
— Maile ( talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a simple request. I would like to know how many people attended the Trump "Save America" Rally prior to walking on the capital. I would also be interested to know how many people lay siege to the Capital building and enter the building.
I have Googled these question and the only information that comes up is in regard to the organizers of the rally increasing the permit from 10K to 30K a day or so prior. Thank you. 109.76.159.210 ( talk) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the section labeled "Suspensions of other social media accounts", add paragraph:
On January 11, Ron Paul, a former presidential candidate, indicated via Twitter (@RonPaul) that Facebook had begun preventing him from managing his own page. Paul's post read "With no explanation other than 'repeatedly going against our community standards,' @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.'"
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ron-paul-blocked-from-accessing-facebook-page-over-violating-community-standards/ar-BB1cEZwR Freedom20082020 ( talk) 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Other recent stormings of legislatures:
Historical stormings:
both seem unsatisfactory, any comments? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
From a visual standpoint, the article, and the infobox in particular, do not provide a comprehensive overview of what took place.
The events that took place inside are what give this event most of its significance, so I'd like to understand why the infobox only shows the rally and rioters outside the building. To someone with no prior knowledge of the event, the current infobox pictures make it seem as if the 'storming' was basically of the outside stairs/balconies, and do not convey that the rioters penetrated all the way to the Senate chamber.
I believe that at least one of the following three pictures should be added to the infobox: rioter in the Senate chamber holding zip-ties (to convey what some rioters' intentions were); lawmakers crouched for safety (to convey the imminent danger they faced); mass of rioters charging through the building (to convey the magnitude of the breach inside). These need to be included in the infobox and not relegated to halfway down the article. Z117 ( talk) 22:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the third paragraph of Domestic reactions, the excerpt: "In another unusual move, Milley and all of the other Joint Chiefs[a] issued a statement on January 12 condemning the storming of the Capitol" should be changed to: "In another unusual move, Mark Milley and all of the other Joint Chiefs[a] issued a statement on January 12 condemning the storming of the Capitol" since there is no mention of Mark Milley before this point in the article. Cgoods94 ( talk) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Summary execution of Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being added to the Infobox without clear sources there has been no attempt on the life of either of them hence it needs to be removed.It lacks reliable sources this is very serious charge.Only one person lost his life due to the rioters a police officer this will be UNDUE to add it. Galesburg777 ( talk) 04:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently the infobox lists the causes of the storming as:
It reads as though there were no causes before the November election which doesn't seem to be accurate. Any suggestions?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The causes section lists "Lack of law-enforcement caused by George Floyd Protests." I think that could be worded better. It makes it sound as if the George Floyd protests limited the number of law-enforcement available to respond, however the source describes reluctancy to deploy law-enforcement in the aftermath of the George Floyd Protests. StylishJumpsuit ( talk) 11:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No where in this article do I see any mention of the numbers in attendance. In fact, I've found that very difficult info to come by. How many people attended the White House Rally? How many left White House and headed to the Capitol? Total attendance at Capitol protest? Number who breached the perimeter barricade? Number who actually entered the Capitol building? Number who actually entered the House Chamber?
This is a very heavily edited article at the moment, and I'm not very well versed in the subject, so I'm not going to fix it right now, but the lede is far too long. Maybe I'll summon the strength to hack at it over the weekend, though. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change title to "Storming of the United States Capitol". The US Capitol has never been stormed before (burned once, yes), so the year is not relevant. Hopefully, the new title would stick through the years. 64.190.226.125 ( talk) 02:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's important to be careful with these descriptors because it's not clear who was a rioter, while they are all protestors. I like the suggestion of Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) above, but it's sadly more complicated than that. People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory, while people who had the barriers opened for them, later, at another point on the perimeter may not be guilty of anything. It's going to be interesting to see the legal outcomes, there are probably two killings, and yet we are told someone is going to be prosecuted for stealing an envelope. Until then we can only follow reliable sources on fact, and NPOV on tone. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
To suggest that actions outside the capitol did not include rioting is absurd. They were attacking the officers outside (the officer who was murdered was killed outside), they were smashing windows outside, they scaled the walls and vandalized outside. RSes call the entire event around the Capitol a riot. The doors are not a magic barrier that changes the characterization of those who enter them. Reywas92 Talk 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Protestors" is a weasel word that makes these treasonous insurrectionists appear to be roughly equivalent to BLM protestors (who actually protested). This story is about the attempted coup and the terrorist infiltration of the Capitol. They weren't protestors, they were terrorists, I even think "rioters" is weasel wording. This seems like whitewashing that we'd find in Conservapedia. Disgusting. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
To summarize, the consensus is protestors outside, rioters inside. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree not all the protesters were rioting. Many tried to stop the ones rioting. Those breaking into the Capitol building were rioting. The gates around the Capitol were opened up by the police in some instances. MissBehaving ( talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this was mostly a peaceful protest except for a few clashes with police. The looting should not be considered violence. Given that, using the words "violent attack" in this sentence is unfounded as this produces the image of widespread violence. While there was some extreme violence, it seems like less than 5% of participants were violent, no? So replacing "a riot and violent attack" with "a mostly peaceful protest" would more accurately describe the footage. メガヒロ ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not an RfC (so stop the !voting), just brainstorming. What about a better title?
This identifies the inspiration, location, and action. At present, it shouldn't need to include the year, but if necessary, one could add 2021. What think ye? -- Valjean ( talk) 23:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
That is the best title I have seen. Casprings ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to play with this. We need a better title that includes some of those words, and possibly others. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a very valid point which should be considered when re-titling is brought up again, as I'm sure it will be. In any event, these suggestions are terrible. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a “storming” of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a “Storm” in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January “the Storming of the Capitol.”
Storming the US Capitol would be more accurate title. Trump encouraged peaceful protests. There is no evidence that he called for a riot or violence. A portion of the protesters acted on their own accord when they broke into the Capitol. Many of Trumps supporters were trying to keep people from breaking in, other areas had the doors opened for the protestors and still other instances rioters busted in the windows and crawled in. MissBehaving ( talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Under the headline for "Casualties", it states that Officer Sicknick was "injured while physically engaging with protesters".
It continues on to say "Law enforcement officials told The New York Times that he had been struck in the head with a fire extinguisher." and "Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,"
However later in that section it then states
There were calls for Trump to be prosecuted for inciting the violence that led to the five deaths, although it is not clear that the medical emergencies were due to violence.
Isn't this contradicting itself? On one part it states, clearly, that a death was due to a violent act, and on the other part it says "not clear"...
-- 203.213.224.63 ( talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It's worse than just a contradiction. The "mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher" part is likely false. From https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol :
While some news reports had said an unnamed officer was in critical condition after being bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher, family members did not have details of his injuries. They say Sicknick had texted them Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed, he was in good spirits. The text arrived hours after a mob’s assault on the Capitol had left more than 50 officers injured and five people dead.
“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”
But the day after that text exchange, the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke; a ventilator was keeping him alive.
-- Stefantalpalaru ( talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no contradiction here. He is not counted as one of the "medical emergencies". He died of head injuries that resulted in a blood clot to his brain; another word for that is a stroke. Or the head injuries caused a subdural hematoma, another word for bleeding into the brain. It's not uncommon for the person to think he is OK for a while, and symptoms develop after hours or days. The blow to his head killed him. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My suggested change would be how in the first few paragraphs, it states that the United States President, Donald Trump's claims of election fraud are false. Whilst most likely to be true, I believe that this would breach Wikipedia's non-bias. I would ask that it be changed to 'false claim' to 'claim'. LoveBearMarco ( talk) 04:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Time to change the headline
-- Caffoti ( talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This articles lead is ridiculous. It outright accuses a sitting US President of a federal felony crime in stating that Trump "incited" violence. This is in the sentence beginning with "Incited by President Donald Trump to overturn his ..." and elsewhere in the article. Stating he in anyway "urged", "incited", "solicited", "motivated", or any other synonym indicating intentional or unintentional responsibility of violence is making an accusation of a federal crime and WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NEUTRAL.
Federal law at 18 U.S. Code § 373 states that anyone "... with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct" is commiting a federal felony.
This is exactly what this articles lead is alledging and insinuated elsewhere in the article.
Federal law enforcement, lawmakers, and multiple media outlets agree that this crime was not committed and the DOJ has announced that no charges will be filed on any speakers at the event, much less Trump himself who would be included in that statement. See ABC News Article, Speakers won't be charged in Capital siege
The wording, and accusation thereof, is WP:LIBEL and a relative opinion contradictory to other opinions which are supported by facts surrounding the event. See Wall Street Journal Article - Trump not guilty of incitement
This is additionally evidenced by Trump's call for protests to be peaceful prior to the event, during the event, after the event, and further condemned the event as has every single other politician and by the hundreds of times in 2020 he has requested "peaceful" protests and "law and order", including on January 6th.
I did not change anything yet (there are better authors for that), but this should be changed and this article in general should present the information of this event accuarately, factually, and neutrally and free of opinion, defamation, and federal felony accusations. OnePercent ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has grown to absurd size. It is significantly bigger than the article on WW2, or Jesus Christ, or ... pretty much anything. I suggest perhaps that the long rambling parts containing opinions of everyone be moved off to their own articles, probably at lest the aftermath and reaction sections at the very least. Thoughts? Dacium ( talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There have been a few attempts to remove, or to water down, the statement:
Trump's speech, replete with misrepresentations and lies, inflamed the crowd
For example, this was recently changed to:
CNN wrote that Trump's speech was "filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd".
But this is improper. It is a fact, reflected in many reliable sources, that Trump's speech contained lies and falsehoods and inflamed the crowd. It is improper to give in-text attribution in this context, because it inaccurately suggests that this is just one view, rather than an accepted reality that the sources unanimously agree on:
Trump, who has repeatedly refused to concede the election, on Wednesday egged on his supporters who would later breach the US Capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from counting the electoral votes cast in the 2020 presidential election. ... After a speech filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd, Trump returned to the White House to watch a violent crescendo to his constant spreading of misinformation about the electoral process
At the rally, Trump delivered the same inflammatory rhetoric and false claims that have characterized his entire presidency. For most of an hour, the reiterated claims that the election had been stolen – claims which have been rejected as unfounded by at least 59 courts, including many headed by Trump-appointed judges....Trump also repeatedly intimated that his followers should take action. Near the beginning of his speech, Trump even made what appeared to be an indirect threat to Vice President Mike Pence, who, Trump incorrectly told his supporters, had the power to overturn the Nov. 3 election results....As the speech continued, Trump edged ever closer to calling for direct action by his supporters.
Trump made a fiery last stand and incited his supporters to storm and sack the U.S. Capitol as part of an attempted coup...At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, meanwhile, Trump addressed his rally crowd at the Ellipse, with the White House as his grand backdrop. He began with a lie, declaring that there were hundreds of thousands of people there; attendance was far smaller. Then another: 'They rigged an election, they rigged it like they've never rigged an election before. ... We won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.' In fact, Biden won with 306 electoral college votes to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by 7 million votes, or a 4.5 percentage point margin. As he concocted his fantasy about the election, ticking through one baseless or debunked claim of fraud after another, Trump vowed, 'We will never concede.'
Prior to the violence that disrupted Congress' counting of the electoral votes, President Donald Trump gave an indignant speech filled with falsehoods about the presidential election he lost two months ago to Democrat Joe Biden.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)During his speech, Trump reiterated multiple falsehoods, claiming the election was rigged and that Democrats had committed voter fraud.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)We have an obligation to state facts as facts. Our official policy is that "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice" and that we reject false balance, presenting context its its "proper context" as governed by the "beliefs of the wider world." -- Neutrality talk 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I found a grammar error in the article.
Under "Damage, theft, and impact":
"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces was tracked into several hallways."
It should be:
"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces were tracked into several hallways."
I would appreciate someone with edit permission making this correction. Thank you! :)
There have been several accounts in the press of Melania's staff pleading with her to talk to Trump during the rioting and her ignoring them. Immediately following the events her chief of staff resigned. Can someone get some of this detail into this! The section seems so bland as it is that it feels like something that should be edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:5CA6:C093:537:EEB6 ( talk) 01:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This article could be split in 4 parts:
That would result in more readable, and more easily editable parts.-- Robertiki ( talk) 02:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
We should have this conversation later after the chaos dies down and the frequency of new additions to this article decreases drastically SRD625 ( talk) 03:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
At the end of the second paragraph, the following is stated: "and attempted to locate lawmakers to take hostage and harm, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Pence, the latter for refusing to illegally overturn Trump's electoral loss." While an explanation is given as to why the mob would want to harm Pence, there is no explanation for why Pelosi would be a target of their ire. When I click on the biographical article about Pelosi, it does not mention that she is a particular target of alt-right vitriol. Is there something we are not explaining here? Or perhaps the mob simply targeted these two individuals in their capacities as the presiding officer of each house?-- Bhuck ( talk) 13:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
As regards the factual veracity of your statement, I agree, and of course I noticed it—but I think it odd to suppress facts instead of stating them because they are deemed to be „silliness.“ The one-sided explanation giving reasons only for Pence, but implying that it is perfectly natural to want to harm Pelosi, still seems to need explicit justification.— Bhuck ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Please excuse my disturbing of your discussion, but I think the last part of this sentence is wrong: Speaking in Congress immediately following their return to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" and affirmed that Trump's claims of election fraud were false. At the time of me writing it is this version: Old ID = 999985687. I just saw McConnells speech in its unedited form on C-SPANs original YouTube-channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PWnyvYVVI Or could you point to the precise position in this video where McConnell "affirms that Trump's claims of election fraud were false"? Thank you! 77.118.162.133 ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I want to say to the American people the United States senate will not be intimidated. We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs, or threats. We will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation. We are back at our posts. We will discharge our duty under the constitution and for our nation. And we're going to do it tonight. This afternoon, congress began the process of honoring the will of the American people and counting the Electoral College votes. We have fulfilled the solemn duty every four years for more than two centuries. Whether our nation has been at war or at peace, under all manner of threats, even during an ongoing armed rebellion and the civil war, the clock work of our democracy has carried on. The United States and the United States Congress have faced down much greater threats than the unhinged crowd we saw today. We've never been deterred before, and we will be not deterred today. They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the congress. This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation. Not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will. Now, we assembled this afternoon to count our citizens' votes and to formalize their choice of the next president. Now we're going to finish exactly what we started. We'll complete the process the right way by the book. We'll follow our precedents, our laws, and our constitution to the letter. And we will certify the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Criminal behavior will never dominate the United States Congress. This institution is resilient. Our democratic republic is strong. The American people deserve nothing less.
— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 2
We're debating a step that has never been taken in American history. Whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a presidential election. I've served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I've ever cast. President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. I supported the President's right to use the legal system, dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms all across our country, but over and over, the courts rejected these claims, including all-star judges whom the President himself has nominated. Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity, and of course, that's unacceptable. I support strong state-led voting reforms. Last year's bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm. But my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election. Nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence. The constitution gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a National Board of Elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the states have all spoken. They've all spoken. If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. This election actually was not unusually close. Just in recent history, 1976, 2000, and 2004 were all closer than this one. The Electoral College margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We would never see the whole nation accept an election again. Every four years would be a scramble for power at any cost. The Electoral College, which most of us on this side have been defending for years, would cease to exist. Leaving many of our states with no real say at all in choosing a president. The effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. Self-government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground rules of our system. We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes with a separate set of facts and separate realities. With nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share. Every time, every time in the last 30 years that Democrats have lost a presidential race, they have tried to challenge just like this. After 2000, after 2004, after 2016. After 2004, a senator joined and forced the same debate, and believe it or not, Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Hillary Clinton praised, praised and applauded the stunt. Republicans condemned those baseless efforts back then, and we just spent four years condemning Democrats' shameful attacks on the validity of President Trump's own election. So look, there can be no double standard. The media that is outraged today spent four years aiding and abetting Democrats' attacks on our institutions after they lost. But we must not imitate and escalate what we repudiate. Our duty is to govern for the public good. The United States Senate has a higher calling than an endless spiral of partisan vengeance. Congress will either override the voters, overrule them, the voters, the states, and the courts for the first time ever, or honor the people's decision. We'll either guarantee Democrats' delegitimizing efforts after 2016 become a permanent new routine for both sides or declare that our nation deserves a lot better than this. We'll either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of an election actually accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic courage that our forebears showed not only in victory but in defeat. The framers built the Senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our Republic. So I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the states on this extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it.
— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 1
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the lede there is a phrase "assaulted and killed Capitol Police police officers". This implies that the rioters both assaulted and killed multiple police officers. I think that this should be rephrased to avoid giving people the impression that more than one officer died, which is false. The text can be rephrased to either:
or
There is another issue that may have to be rectified in the same paragraph. The phrase "a gallows" may have to be rephrased to avoid confusing non-native English readers (though I have no idea how we can rephrase the text without making it awkward). 45.251.33.25 ( talk) 07:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) last rephrased at 07:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The FBI issued a dire internal warning on the day before the Capitol riots that violent extremists were planning an armed uprising.
Contradicting earlier statements that they were caught off guard.-- 87.170.207.193 ( talk) 11:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Death of secret service or Metro Police officer or Capital Hill officer? 180.150.115.177 ( talk) 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I've created the redirect 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but should this point to a specific section or display links to the domestic and international pages (serving as a sort of disambiguation page)? Another thing to consider: should we merge the domestic and international reaction pages into this one? Food for thought. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Ayanna Pressley has made a public statement that panic buttons that were installed in her office in 2019 were removed before the storming of the capitol. Thoughts on inclusion?
Potential draft - in section "Damage, theft, and impact", after first sentence "into several hallways."
Jdphenix ( talk) 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are some references for this:
John Cummings ( talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Background: I read Trump's January 6 speech to see to what degree he incited the riot of the congressional building. I then went to Wikipedia to see what it said. The following sentence in the second paragraph is incorrect:
Trump told them to "fight like hell" to "take back our country",[50][51] encouraging them to march over to the Capitol.[38]
Trump did use the phrases "fight like hell" and "take back our country" in his speech but in different contexts. He did not tell supporters to "fight like hell" or to "take back our country".
The part of the speech "fight like hell" is: "Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." Trump was talking about the situation at 9:00pm on the election night.
The part of Trump's speech with "take back out country" is "We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." Trump was saying that the Republican congressman needed to take back the country.
Also, not emphasized in the first two paragraphs of this page is the number of claims of voter fraud and election irregularities that Trump told them, which could have an influence on the behavior of his followers. In order not to make the replacement sentence sound too positive, I recommend also including this in the replacement sentence.
I recommend that the above sentence be replaced with: After claiming countless instances of voter fraud and election irregularities, Trump told his followers that they would be marching to the Capitol building peacefully and patriotically but it was a time to show strength and be strong.[New Citation = https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6]
References [50][51] should be removed.
The following are all the parts of Trump's speech in which he encourages followers to walk to the Capitol building:
"After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country."
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."
Stuartsamuel123 ( talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
From where I sit, in the past 3+ days a preponderance of reliable sources and authoritative individuals/organizations have come to characterize the incident as an “insurgency,” including the January 5 internal FBI document characterizing the incipient incident as “war,” and I propose we reconsider the title of this article accordingly. I ask for another editor to second this and call for a vote. soibangla ( talk) 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
To classify a mostly peaceful protest as an insurgency sounds like a thinly veiled way to justify the murders of american citizens. Strongly oppose. W33KeNdr ( talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
As this article gets longer and longer, I'm starting to think about the possibility of spinning off some of this content into related sub-articles, or at the very least removing some of the excess information. What does everyone else think? Love of Corey ( talk) 08:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Gwennie-nyan, Animalparty, Tuckerlieberman, Love of Corey, Neutrality, OnePercent, Another Believer, and Tataral: The article has now been split at Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Further improvements should be made there and here. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has a very POV tone. None of us like Trump, but this type of POV feeds his followers. For example
Could be better written as just his claim, with a following sentence explaining why this claim is dubious. It is very important not to feed Trump supporter's paranoia. Tuntable ( talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Per a Guardian report. We have:
These are discussed in two sections above, but can we discuss if it's reasonable to include until there's been some trial on this and these facts are truly proven. I am all for stating the facts per the RS, but in this case we would be asserting that certain Republicans planned the insurrection and then got the mob to do it... and we might want some overwhelming consensus on that first. Kingsif ( talk) 23:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
QAnon is mentioned multiple times throughout this article and has been discussed in WP:RS. This is a fast moving article but anytime I wikilink to QAnon it gets removed. I find this strange as linking to other articles is commonplace here. Anyways, would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this; it is currently linked to 1 time in the article [31] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Reading the last two sentences of the first paragraph about the results of the storming, this appears to be about the results of the riot. This is not currently a complete summary of results as summarised in the infobox 'Resulted in' section. It currently reads
Breaching police perimeters, rioters then occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. The assault led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, as well as five deaths.
The other results are not discussed until the fifth paragraph. Can I suggest that a very short summary of the other impacts is added to the second sentence to make it a more complete list, so it would read something like:
Breaching police perimeters, rioters then
occupied,
vandalized, and
looted parts of the building for several hours. The assault led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, as well as five deaths and later the second impeachment of Trump for "incitement of insurrection", higher security including national guard and resignations of administration officials and Capitol security officials.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 00:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The entire section on the Capitol police conduct has been moved to Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I don't think this is entirely appropriate, as this section went into detail about conduct and actions of the Capitol police *during* the storming, and not just how this was addressed in the aftermath. I think that a (perhaps abridged) version of this content should be re-added to the main article. Similar may apply to some of the other "aftermath" sections that discussed retrospective analysis of events that took place during the incident. BlackholeWA ( talk) 02:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I saw mention of Latinos for Trump was removed (and perhaps added back?) for being non-notable. This prompted me to create a stub for the group, which was ver quickly nominated for merging. Article improvements and/or discussion comments welcome. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Under the Section Deaths and Injuries, it states: "Many police officers were attacked with bear spray, a highly concentrated form of OC spray (tear gas) stronger than that carried by officers."
OC (Oleoresin capsicum) is not tear gas, it is pepper spray. Tear gas is CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile). While used for somewhat similar purposes, they are distinctively different in the effects they have on people and are not equitable. Can someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonDays0 ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Was there a consensus to remove big chunks of content, including reactions from various individuals/groups and the antifa false flag allegations? soibangla ( talk) 00:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead is already 6 paragraphs long. Instead of adding unnecessary detail, especially multiple times in different paragraphs, we should be trying to summarize the events in a concise manner to potentially make it shorter. For example, the first paragraph says "there were five deaths". The third paragraph says rioters "killed Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick". Then the fourth paragraph says "Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died". Another example is mentioning Trump's impeachment twice. I'm trying to improve the article make distilling multiple instances of the same info into one, concise mention. So why are my edits being reverted? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 05:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This article currently makes extensive use of abbreviations for politicians' parties and states after their names ("(D-CA)", "(R-GA)" etc.) I've removed them at least a couple of times but clearly at least one person thinks they're appropriate; I'd be interested to know why. In my view they're meaningless to readers who aren't familiar with states' postal abbreviations and/or who don't follow the minutiae of U.S. politics (i.e. most of the world). Per WP:EASTER this applies even when the states are linked; information conveyed only behind a piped link is as good as no information at all. We're not going to run out of page space or bytes, so if someone's party or state is relevant (the former might often be, the latter rarely will be) it can be conveyed using words. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
These aren't needed. We have articles on each of these politicians which people can refer to, to find out whatever they want (well, whatever they reasonably want). All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
Every other Wikipedia article does this so why should this one be different? SRD625 ( talk) 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
We have a section waaaay down there about capitol protesters being "mostly white men".
This seems kinda basic Who stuff. Second paragraph stuff.
We say what they did, and what they wore. We say what flags they waved. We say what they yelled. But we don't say until waaaay later that mostly white men did this.
If mentioning this much sooner is contentious, why? Mcfnord ( talk) 06:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Previous discussion for reference / "The article needs to state who was there: mostly White men"
|
---|
Is this currently noted in the article? From WaPo [32] "After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution." I find Wikipedia to be invaluable, and deeper analysis of this event would be invaluable to readers. Here's a start [33] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
|
One of the sentences state "Boyland's sister also said she" her sister's name is Lonna Cave so should we change it to "Boyland's sister, Lonna Cave, also said she" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin James Loibl ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it worth adding in somewhere that two people have taken their own lives due to the events... 1 Police officer 1 Assailant who was going to be prosecuted Darce98 ( talk) 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see the death of Officer Howard Liebengood who is alleged to have committed suicide after responding to the breaching of the Capitol mentioned in the original text.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-police-howard-liebengood-dies.html?searchResultPosition=1
BethLynette (
talk)
11:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Previous versions of this article used "Save America" more often, now I'm seeing "March To Save America" in the body but the lead has not been updated. Was there a discussion I missed re: "Save America" vs. "March To Save America"? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"[Pence] for refusing to overturn the electoral vote count."
This is not a power he had. So I'm not sure what to say here. Refusing to try overturning the electoral vote count? I do wonder what it would look like had he tried. Pence concluded that he doesn't have this power. I think it's of some importance to explain where Trump "left the paved roads" as he did here. Mcfnord ( talk) 07:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently the first paragraph does not convey the fact that deaths occurred as a result of this event. The second paragraph includes some details about deaths, but I think the first paragraph should at least convey that deaths occurred, with specific detail provided later on.
As such, I suggest changing “The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol” to “The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and resulted in deaths among rioters and Capitol police” (or something along these lines). Z117 ( talk) 15:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I found this interesting informztion but I don't really know where to put it if anyone could do it that would be nice thank you ! https://twitter.com/Rosemvmt/status/1349334945009831941
-- Maxime12346 ( talk) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDNiNdsPHNA Victor Grigas ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It's too early for another move discussion, but it looks like "Capitol riot" is becoming the common name: " Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned". St Anselm ( talk) 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The ADL commissioned a survey by YouGov showing that among a representative sample of Americans, up to 40% believed antifa was significantly or somewhat responsible for the violence at the Capitol.
Should we have a section on these patterns of spreading disinformation (as this idea has been spread by the President and Alex Jones, among others)? Note: I work with the ADL. OceanicFeeling123 ( talk) 20:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a specific concern with the word "storming" in the title. This is a loaded term, especially among white supremacists and militia types. I have little doubt it would be their preferred term, given the name of one far-right neo-Nazi publication, "The Daily Stormer," which is a reference to the original Nazi-party paper, "Der Stürmer." I'm not the first to worry about this name catching on for this event; here Jill Lapore's writing in the New Yorker: "A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a 'storming' of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a 'Storm' in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January 'the Storming of the Capitol.'" [1] I prefer something less loaded, like "attack." Even "insurrection" is preferable, I think. The fact that the term "insurrection" sounds archaic to my ear is perhaps because it's been so long since we've had to apply it. Chadwalk ( talk) 13:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Can we replace all instances of the Capitol being "stormed" by Trump supporters with "raided"?
Golfpecks256 ( talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The definition of storm fits the act of overtaking the Capitol. storm - a direct and violent assault on a stronghold MissBehaving ( talk) 02:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Strong support for referring to it as a "breaching" or a "raid", or even more neutrally/simply, an "attack"; while many notable news sources use the term "storming", they also use terms like "Capitol attack" and "Capitol siege" as shorthand (offhand example: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/fbi-warns-of-plans-for-nationwide-armed-protests-next-week/); there is so much variation that picking a less loaded & more neutrally descriptive term like "attack" or "breach" would probably be more appropriate Neonpixii ( talk) 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I noticed some Large Deletes, between now and a couple of days ago, that should be reviewed:
How many deaths occurred during the storming? I believe it to be 5 (3 of natural causes, 1 rioter shot, and 1 officer), however it is saying 6. SuperHeight ( talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It's worth noting and considering when and where the deaths occurred. If there is a distinction between the "protest" phase and the "riot" phase, 3 deaths occurred for medical/health reasons with little to do with "storming the capitol building".
Should this be categorized under Category:Attempted coups d'état and Category:Fascist revolts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8800:2110:1902:5481:BEA8:CC8B ( talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding back an infobox of civil parties to the conflict. Now that there is general consensus that this was an insurrection/coup, there should be civil parties. Other insurrections like the Beer Hall Putsch have infoboxes. Arandomguy12345 ( talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
My changes to the infobox was reverted an older reversion by another editor for unknown reasons and stated I should get consensus. IMO, the way I had it was better looking than what the person changed it back to. Hopefully it can be put back in place. 1989 ( talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to this? Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Was the intention of the "Save America March" to march, as the title suggests, to the Capitol? Or was it just to hear Trump and others speak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personnongratia ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
While all other sub-sections in the Reactions section report what leading politicians said about the riots, the sub-section Secretary of State Pompeo reports what he did after the riots. To be consisent, we should mainly report what he said, and, since it was newsworthy, how his diplomats reacted. Here are a few sources that may be useful:
— Chrisahn ( talk) 04:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Given how contentious the article is, I believe the typical guidance of WP:LEAD in allowing uncited statements on the top and in the infobox to be insufficient. While this would be acceptable for a typical article, this isn't a typical article. This is probably going to be one of the most controversial events of the decade. My attempts at tagging things with CN templates was reverted by EvergreenFir. So I'd like to get other input on this. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Surely the article should state early on that elected Republican Party officials were among the attackers? I don't see mention of it in the lead at present. I also think the bombings should be mentioned in the first paragraph. GPinkerton ( talk) 05:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's important to be careful with these descriptors because it's not clear who was a rioter, while they are all protestors. I like the suggestion of Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) above, but it's sadly more complicated than that. People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory, while people who had the barriers opened for them, later, at another point on the perimeter may not be guilty of anything. It's going to be interesting to see the legal outcomes, there are probably two killings, and yet we are told someone is going to be prosecuted for stealing an envelope. Until then we can only follow reliable sources on fact, and NPOV on tone. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
To suggest that actions outside the capitol did not include rioting is absurd. They were attacking the officers outside (the officer who was murdered was killed outside), they were smashing windows outside, they scaled the walls and vandalized outside. RSes call the entire event around the Capitol a riot. The doors are not a magic barrier that changes the characterization of those who enter them. Reywas92 Talk 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Protestors" is a weasel word that makes these treasonous insurrectionists appear to be roughly equivalent to BLM protestors (who actually protested). This story is about the attempted coup and the terrorist infiltration of the Capitol. They weren't protestors, they were terrorists, I even think "rioters" is weasel wording. This seems like whitewashing that we'd find in Conservapedia. Disgusting. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
To summarize, the consensus is protestors outside, rioters inside. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree not all the protesters were rioting. Many tried to stop the ones rioting. Those breaking into the Capitol building were rioting. The gates around the Capitol were opened up by the police in some instances. MissBehaving ( talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this was mostly a peaceful protest except for a few clashes with police. The looting should not be considered violence. Given that, using the words "violent attack" in this sentence is unfounded as this produces the image of widespread violence. While there was some extreme violence, it seems like less than 5% of participants were violent, no? So replacing "a riot and violent attack" with "a mostly peaceful protest" would more accurately describe the footage. メガヒロ ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Lede first sentence now reads (at Special:PermaLink/999625334):
Was there consensus for this change? Language was much, much weaker when I last checked. Not necessarily opposed, but I think this deserves some discussion. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it.
The previous lede was way too long, it has to be a brief description. For example on 9/11 page the first sentence reads "The September 11 attacks, often referred to as 9/11,[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Wahhabi[3] terrorist group Al-Qaeda[4][5][6] against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001" rather than fully describe the event in the first sentence,
The first sentence of this page should read The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was ___________ on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. You can fill in the blank how you see fit.
If you have a problem with the description, change the description, but don't remove the bolded event title and date name. Before my edit, the bolded event title wasn't present
Anyhow, I don't see any problem with the current lede though. I just used language that was most common by US reliable sources. Was it not an insurrection? Did it not fail? Was it not carried out by Trump supporters? Yeungkahchun ( talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
All wikipedia events begin with a basic summary description of the event with the event title bolded and the event date. Before my edit, this page didn't have it.This is not true, see MOS:BOLDLEAD and WP:BOLDITIS. There has also been significant discussion on this talk page about the wording "insurrection", without a clear resolution in favor. I recommend a revert to the previous version. — Goszei ( talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The bold title is back. [14] Do we maybe need a hidden comment explaining that it is a descriptive title and shouldn't really be bolded? -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe it's worth mentioning that the House has introduced articles of impeachment literally entitled "Incitement of Insurrection". I'd support having the lead include it at this point. Jdphenix ( talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure the opening statement is not judgmental. It seems like whoever wrote it was very angry. Mad1532 ( talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that over the course of the past 24 hours, the first sentence of this article has alternated between two forms.
Option A (current version):
The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress on January 6, 2021, carried out by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.
Option B (version before today):
On January 6, 2021, supporters of United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the November 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol.
Which version do we prefer? Personally, I'm partial to Option B. Per
MOS:AVOIDBOLD, If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy.
Mz7 (
talk)
23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it gonna be added? Because if you watch the speech this is what he said
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully" But its probably not going to be mentioned here because it doesn't fit the narrative. 2600:8805:C880:3D7:CC56:215A:4424:FF6F ( talk) 02:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Considering that the rioters were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," while they assaulted the building and killed a security officer, should we label this as an assassination attempt against the vice president? Necropolis Hill ( talk) 08:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Instigated by Trump to help him overturn the election result, a crowd marched down Pennsylvania Avenue after the rally and advanced on the Capitol, where a separate crowd had gathered.
I haven't dug into all the news sourcing, but is it worth noting that the march from the Ellipse to the Capitol included several axises (axes)? I was present as a photographer and opted for the National Mall approach due to less chance of crushing. I can upload photos of that portion of the crowd approaching if it would be useful. TapTheForwardAssist ( talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the accusation that president Trump incited the riot or provide the direct quote that proves your claim 209.62.211.69 ( talk) 10:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section "Potential spread of COVID-19" is listed that members should take a precautionary "PT-PCR test". It should be "RT-PCR test". Change PT-PCR test to RT-PCR test Sinistral Snail ( talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, it says "Hang Pence". This does not make sense. Mike is Republican, like Trump. 180.150.115.177 ( talk) 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Pleae read wp:forum, and wp:blp. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lede in Special:PermaLink/999522346 says:
This sentence reads quite oddly to me. I can see one attempting to overturn a result (as Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election puts it), but I can't see one attempting to overturn a defeat. Perhaps better would be:
Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturning a defeat = imposition Tortillovsky ( talk) 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
News is circulating that an off-duty capitol police officer, Howard Liebengood, has committed suicide following the events detailed in this article. Should this be included in the article? The fact that he died is confirmed, but the suicide doesn't seem to be official yet. [15] [16] Thanks, EDG 543 ( message me) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It was not immediately clear what spurred the act." I'd also prefer a better quality source than these. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
@ Czello: can you explain why you oppose even the mention of Capitol Police Officer Liebengood's suicide on this page despite corroboration in multiple RS such as WaPo and CBS News? AlexEng( TALK) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
He was arrested with three others in GA for unlawful entry and curfew violation, and he killed himself on Saturday. See here: [1] I think suicides are an important consequence of this event and should be reported, as long as the suicides are reported by RS in the context of the story. Dcs002 ( talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the above discussion, some people in the past few days have tried to count Liebengood's suicide as a casualty and, consequently, changed the infobox to list 2 police officer deaths (so 6 in total). The above debate seems to be focussed on whether suicide should be mentioned in the body of the article, but isn't addressing the infobox. I suspect that, if we decide to mention Liebengood in the body, some editors will try to re-add this to the infobox. I want to make sure we're all on the same page that it shouldn't be counted as a casualty given that it didn't take place during the event or as a result owing to injuries sustained during the event. — Czello 09:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I think
this addition, adding "peacefully", is WP:UNDUE for the lead. The fact that Trump once mentioned the word "peacefully" during an hour-long speech at a rally filled with "trial by combat", "total war" and "fight like hell" rhetoric, and explicit calls for a coup and false claims about a "stolen election," doesn't mean that his use of that particular word is important enough to be highlighted to such a degree in the lead, given the overall context, which also includes the rhetoric by himself and his associates in the planning of the rally. It's simply not representative of his overall message at the rally or in the post-election period. As
Jonah Goldberg pointed out, Trump’s praetorians ludicrously claim that the word “peacefully” lets the president off the hook for the violence that followed. First, the whole protest was premised on a mountain of lies about the election being stolen. Convincing people they need to prevent a coup when no such coup exists is a recipe for violence
.
[18] We can discuss his speech in more detail, including the one time he mentioned "peacefully", in more detail below instead. --
Tataral (
talk)
01:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Using the word "peacefully" is the only explicit call to action provided by Trump, therefore it invalidates any suspicions of a call to violence. And this edit shouldn't have been made before consensus was reached. メガヒロ ( talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This needs to be properly cited or removed. WP:NOTFALSE The reference cited contains one sentence of hearsay regarding an unsourced relative opinion. This is a relative opinion: "Pleased" needs premise of which is not present. Unsourced material has no merit: references needs credibility. Additionally, the opinion is inconsistent with the words and actions of every single public statement of every single political figure, Trump included. The reason this is unsourced in this reference is because it actually refers to hearsay of hearsay or heasay where it was reported that this information comes from one individual who says they heard this from a Congress member who claimed they heard from an unsourced and unquoted "Official" something that he interpreted as "Pleased", which is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay and an interpretation of hearsay on top of that (this is referenced in the following couple sentences). This needs better citations or removal due to the weight of the allegation. OnePercent ( talk) 08:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Article currently reads: "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Pence did.[241]" This seems POV and unencylopedic, more like gossip than information. Would suggest something like "Vice President Pence offered condolences to Sicknick's family on behalf of the White House." The reader can read into it what he wishes. 198.161.4.68 ( talk) 18:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The edits aren't an improvement. It comes off as childish finger-pointing. "Trump did not offer condolences to Sicknick's family, but Biden, Pence and Pelosi each did." Is it a contest to see who is sorrier? If there is some significance to Trump not offering condolences, there needs to be an explanation of why, that isn't original research but coming from a reliable source. As it is, it's just trivia in an already too-long article. 174.0.48.147 ( talk) 02:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this currently noted in the article?
From WaPo [20]
"After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution."
I find Wikipedia to be invaluable, and deeper analysis of this event would be invaluable to readers. Here's a start [21] (Scroll down within the article)
-- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Now, the rioters, mostly white men, they left many clues, the video and photos that they posted of themselves while they were at the Capitol or afterwards.[24]
The Capitol was more heavily guarded for recent Black Lives Matter protests than Wednesday’s demonstration, where Trump supporters were mostly white men.[25] — Chrisahn ( talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there hasn't been any discussion or precedent set about whether or not "Washington, D.C." should be abbreviated to "DC" or "D.C." Both abbreviations are used throughout the article. Personally, I'm in favor of "D.C." as it corresponds more with the full name and would possibly prevent confusion. Sewageboy ( talk) 09:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't listen to Trump's complete speech, but I suspect that that language is probably too strong. The source says "incited". -- ExperiencedArticleFixer ( talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The media tried to paint that flag waver as a Hindu nationalist but it turned out he was a Catholic man from Kerala. Tharoor, without knowing the name of the person tweeted and that thing is added here. It turns out that man is a BJP hater and Congress and Tharoor supporter but it is not mentioned here. No mention of the guy's name either and surprisingly, stuff are added to show that Hindus support Trump. Is this not false information and gaslighting of a community? How is this allowed on Wikipedia? Krish | Talk To Me 11:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
OK can we have three RS about this so we can asses what they say? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't know if this info has been covered, or should be, but putting the source link here.
Army investigating officer who led group to Washington rally
— Maile ( talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a simple request. I would like to know how many people attended the Trump "Save America" Rally prior to walking on the capital. I would also be interested to know how many people lay siege to the Capital building and enter the building.
I have Googled these question and the only information that comes up is in regard to the organizers of the rally increasing the permit from 10K to 30K a day or so prior. Thank you. 109.76.159.210 ( talk) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the section labeled "Suspensions of other social media accounts", add paragraph:
On January 11, Ron Paul, a former presidential candidate, indicated via Twitter (@RonPaul) that Facebook had begun preventing him from managing his own page. Paul's post read "With no explanation other than 'repeatedly going against our community standards,' @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.'"
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ron-paul-blocked-from-accessing-facebook-page-over-violating-community-standards/ar-BB1cEZwR Freedom20082020 ( talk) 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Other recent stormings of legislatures:
Historical stormings:
both seem unsatisfactory, any comments? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
From a visual standpoint, the article, and the infobox in particular, do not provide a comprehensive overview of what took place.
The events that took place inside are what give this event most of its significance, so I'd like to understand why the infobox only shows the rally and rioters outside the building. To someone with no prior knowledge of the event, the current infobox pictures make it seem as if the 'storming' was basically of the outside stairs/balconies, and do not convey that the rioters penetrated all the way to the Senate chamber.
I believe that at least one of the following three pictures should be added to the infobox: rioter in the Senate chamber holding zip-ties (to convey what some rioters' intentions were); lawmakers crouched for safety (to convey the imminent danger they faced); mass of rioters charging through the building (to convey the magnitude of the breach inside). These need to be included in the infobox and not relegated to halfway down the article. Z117 ( talk) 22:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the third paragraph of Domestic reactions, the excerpt: "In another unusual move, Milley and all of the other Joint Chiefs[a] issued a statement on January 12 condemning the storming of the Capitol" should be changed to: "In another unusual move, Mark Milley and all of the other Joint Chiefs[a] issued a statement on January 12 condemning the storming of the Capitol" since there is no mention of Mark Milley before this point in the article. Cgoods94 ( talk) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Summary execution of Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being added to the Infobox without clear sources there has been no attempt on the life of either of them hence it needs to be removed.It lacks reliable sources this is very serious charge.Only one person lost his life due to the rioters a police officer this will be UNDUE to add it. Galesburg777 ( talk) 04:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently the infobox lists the causes of the storming as:
It reads as though there were no causes before the November election which doesn't seem to be accurate. Any suggestions?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The causes section lists "Lack of law-enforcement caused by George Floyd Protests." I think that could be worded better. It makes it sound as if the George Floyd protests limited the number of law-enforcement available to respond, however the source describes reluctancy to deploy law-enforcement in the aftermath of the George Floyd Protests. StylishJumpsuit ( talk) 11:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No where in this article do I see any mention of the numbers in attendance. In fact, I've found that very difficult info to come by. How many people attended the White House Rally? How many left White House and headed to the Capitol? Total attendance at Capitol protest? Number who breached the perimeter barricade? Number who actually entered the Capitol building? Number who actually entered the House Chamber?
This is a very heavily edited article at the moment, and I'm not very well versed in the subject, so I'm not going to fix it right now, but the lede is far too long. Maybe I'll summon the strength to hack at it over the weekend, though. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change title to "Storming of the United States Capitol". The US Capitol has never been stormed before (burned once, yes), so the year is not relevant. Hopefully, the new title would stick through the years. 64.190.226.125 ( talk) 02:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Somehow it's become "protesters" instead of "rioters"—was there a consensus on this? Given that we've changed the name from "protests" to "storming", this seems an inappropriate term. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In U.S. politics, riot and protest have come to mean roughly the same thing except that (a) a riot can sometimes be non-political (b) they carry very different connotations and implied judgements. See AP Stylebook change. Most situations where one is applied, the other can as well depending on one's opinion about the value of the protests/riots. Media outlets are very sensitive to these, with usage often falling along party lines. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's important to be careful with these descriptors because it's not clear who was a rioter, while they are all protestors. I like the suggestion of Rioters (in capitol) and Protestors (Outside capitol) above, but it's sadly more complicated than that. People who pushed down the fences are in rioter territory, while people who had the barriers opened for them, later, at another point on the perimeter may not be guilty of anything. It's going to be interesting to see the legal outcomes, there are probably two killings, and yet we are told someone is going to be prosecuted for stealing an envelope. Until then we can only follow reliable sources on fact, and NPOV on tone. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
To suggest that actions outside the capitol did not include rioting is absurd. They were attacking the officers outside (the officer who was murdered was killed outside), they were smashing windows outside, they scaled the walls and vandalized outside. RSes call the entire event around the Capitol a riot. The doors are not a magic barrier that changes the characterization of those who enter them. Reywas92 Talk 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Protestors" is a weasel word that makes these treasonous insurrectionists appear to be roughly equivalent to BLM protestors (who actually protested). This story is about the attempted coup and the terrorist infiltration of the Capitol. They weren't protestors, they were terrorists, I even think "rioters" is weasel wording. This seems like whitewashing that we'd find in Conservapedia. Disgusting. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
To summarize, the consensus is protestors outside, rioters inside. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree not all the protesters were rioting. Many tried to stop the ones rioting. Those breaking into the Capitol building were rioting. The gates around the Capitol were opened up by the police in some instances. MissBehaving ( talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this was mostly a peaceful protest except for a few clashes with police. The looting should not be considered violence. Given that, using the words "violent attack" in this sentence is unfounded as this produces the image of widespread violence. While there was some extreme violence, it seems like less than 5% of participants were violent, no? So replacing "a riot and violent attack" with "a mostly peaceful protest" would more accurately describe the footage. メガヒロ ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not an RfC (so stop the !voting), just brainstorming. What about a better title?
This identifies the inspiration, location, and action. At present, it shouldn't need to include the year, but if necessary, one could add 2021. What think ye? -- Valjean ( talk) 23:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
That is the best title I have seen. Casprings ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to play with this. We need a better title that includes some of those words, and possibly others. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a very valid point which should be considered when re-titling is brought up again, as I'm sure it will be. In any event, these suggestions are terrible. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a “storming” of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a “Storm” in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January “the Storming of the Capitol.”
Storming the US Capitol would be more accurate title. Trump encouraged peaceful protests. There is no evidence that he called for a riot or violence. A portion of the protesters acted on their own accord when they broke into the Capitol. Many of Trumps supporters were trying to keep people from breaking in, other areas had the doors opened for the protestors and still other instances rioters busted in the windows and crawled in. MissBehaving ( talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Under the headline for "Casualties", it states that Officer Sicknick was "injured while physically engaging with protesters".
It continues on to say "Law enforcement officials told The New York Times that he had been struck in the head with a fire extinguisher." and "Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered a thromboembolic stroke after sustaining head injuries,"
However later in that section it then states
There were calls for Trump to be prosecuted for inciting the violence that led to the five deaths, although it is not clear that the medical emergencies were due to violence.
Isn't this contradicting itself? On one part it states, clearly, that a death was due to a violent act, and on the other part it says "not clear"...
-- 203.213.224.63 ( talk) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It's worse than just a contradiction. The "mortally wounded by a rioter who hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher" part is likely false. From https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol :
While some news reports had said an unnamed officer was in critical condition after being bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher, family members did not have details of his injuries. They say Sicknick had texted them Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed, he was in good spirits. The text arrived hours after a mob’s assault on the Capitol had left more than 50 officers injured and five people dead.
“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”
But the day after that text exchange, the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke; a ventilator was keeping him alive.
-- Stefantalpalaru ( talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no contradiction here. He is not counted as one of the "medical emergencies". He died of head injuries that resulted in a blood clot to his brain; another word for that is a stroke. Or the head injuries caused a subdural hematoma, another word for bleeding into the brain. It's not uncommon for the person to think he is OK for a while, and symptoms develop after hours or days. The blow to his head killed him. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My suggested change would be how in the first few paragraphs, it states that the United States President, Donald Trump's claims of election fraud are false. Whilst most likely to be true, I believe that this would breach Wikipedia's non-bias. I would ask that it be changed to 'false claim' to 'claim'. LoveBearMarco ( talk) 04:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Time to change the headline
-- Caffoti ( talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This articles lead is ridiculous. It outright accuses a sitting US President of a federal felony crime in stating that Trump "incited" violence. This is in the sentence beginning with "Incited by President Donald Trump to overturn his ..." and elsewhere in the article. Stating he in anyway "urged", "incited", "solicited", "motivated", or any other synonym indicating intentional or unintentional responsibility of violence is making an accusation of a federal crime and WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NEUTRAL.
Federal law at 18 U.S. Code § 373 states that anyone "... with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct" is commiting a federal felony.
This is exactly what this articles lead is alledging and insinuated elsewhere in the article.
Federal law enforcement, lawmakers, and multiple media outlets agree that this crime was not committed and the DOJ has announced that no charges will be filed on any speakers at the event, much less Trump himself who would be included in that statement. See ABC News Article, Speakers won't be charged in Capital siege
The wording, and accusation thereof, is WP:LIBEL and a relative opinion contradictory to other opinions which are supported by facts surrounding the event. See Wall Street Journal Article - Trump not guilty of incitement
This is additionally evidenced by Trump's call for protests to be peaceful prior to the event, during the event, after the event, and further condemned the event as has every single other politician and by the hundreds of times in 2020 he has requested "peaceful" protests and "law and order", including on January 6th.
I did not change anything yet (there are better authors for that), but this should be changed and this article in general should present the information of this event accuarately, factually, and neutrally and free of opinion, defamation, and federal felony accusations. OnePercent ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has grown to absurd size. It is significantly bigger than the article on WW2, or Jesus Christ, or ... pretty much anything. I suggest perhaps that the long rambling parts containing opinions of everyone be moved off to their own articles, probably at lest the aftermath and reaction sections at the very least. Thoughts? Dacium ( talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There have been a few attempts to remove, or to water down, the statement:
Trump's speech, replete with misrepresentations and lies, inflamed the crowd
For example, this was recently changed to:
CNN wrote that Trump's speech was "filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd".
But this is improper. It is a fact, reflected in many reliable sources, that Trump's speech contained lies and falsehoods and inflamed the crowd. It is improper to give in-text attribution in this context, because it inaccurately suggests that this is just one view, rather than an accepted reality that the sources unanimously agree on:
Trump, who has repeatedly refused to concede the election, on Wednesday egged on his supporters who would later breach the US Capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from counting the electoral votes cast in the 2020 presidential election. ... After a speech filled with lies and misrepresentations that incensed the crowd, Trump returned to the White House to watch a violent crescendo to his constant spreading of misinformation about the electoral process
At the rally, Trump delivered the same inflammatory rhetoric and false claims that have characterized his entire presidency. For most of an hour, the reiterated claims that the election had been stolen – claims which have been rejected as unfounded by at least 59 courts, including many headed by Trump-appointed judges....Trump also repeatedly intimated that his followers should take action. Near the beginning of his speech, Trump even made what appeared to be an indirect threat to Vice President Mike Pence, who, Trump incorrectly told his supporters, had the power to overturn the Nov. 3 election results....As the speech continued, Trump edged ever closer to calling for direct action by his supporters.
Trump made a fiery last stand and incited his supporters to storm and sack the U.S. Capitol as part of an attempted coup...At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, meanwhile, Trump addressed his rally crowd at the Ellipse, with the White House as his grand backdrop. He began with a lie, declaring that there were hundreds of thousands of people there; attendance was far smaller. Then another: 'They rigged an election, they rigged it like they've never rigged an election before. ... We won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.' In fact, Biden won with 306 electoral college votes to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by 7 million votes, or a 4.5 percentage point margin. As he concocted his fantasy about the election, ticking through one baseless or debunked claim of fraud after another, Trump vowed, 'We will never concede.'
Prior to the violence that disrupted Congress' counting of the electoral votes, President Donald Trump gave an indignant speech filled with falsehoods about the presidential election he lost two months ago to Democrat Joe Biden.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)During his speech, Trump reiterated multiple falsehoods, claiming the election was rigged and that Democrats had committed voter fraud.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)We have an obligation to state facts as facts. Our official policy is that "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice" and that we reject false balance, presenting context its its "proper context" as governed by the "beliefs of the wider world." -- Neutrality talk 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I found a grammar error in the article.
Under "Damage, theft, and impact":
"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces was tracked into several hallways."
It should be:
"Rioters stormed the offices of Nancy Pelosi, flipping tables and ripping photos from walls;[204][205] the office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked;[180] art was looted;[1] and feces were tracked into several hallways."
I would appreciate someone with edit permission making this correction. Thank you! :)
There have been several accounts in the press of Melania's staff pleading with her to talk to Trump during the rioting and her ignoring them. Immediately following the events her chief of staff resigned. Can someone get some of this detail into this! The section seems so bland as it is that it feels like something that should be edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:5CA6:C093:537:EEB6 ( talk) 01:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This article could be split in 4 parts:
That would result in more readable, and more easily editable parts.-- Robertiki ( talk) 02:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
We should have this conversation later after the chaos dies down and the frequency of new additions to this article decreases drastically SRD625 ( talk) 03:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
At the end of the second paragraph, the following is stated: "and attempted to locate lawmakers to take hostage and harm, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Pence, the latter for refusing to illegally overturn Trump's electoral loss." While an explanation is given as to why the mob would want to harm Pence, there is no explanation for why Pelosi would be a target of their ire. When I click on the biographical article about Pelosi, it does not mention that she is a particular target of alt-right vitriol. Is there something we are not explaining here? Or perhaps the mob simply targeted these two individuals in their capacities as the presiding officer of each house?-- Bhuck ( talk) 13:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
As regards the factual veracity of your statement, I agree, and of course I noticed it—but I think it odd to suppress facts instead of stating them because they are deemed to be „silliness.“ The one-sided explanation giving reasons only for Pence, but implying that it is perfectly natural to want to harm Pelosi, still seems to need explicit justification.— Bhuck ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Please excuse my disturbing of your discussion, but I think the last part of this sentence is wrong: Speaking in Congress immediately following their return to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" and affirmed that Trump's claims of election fraud were false. At the time of me writing it is this version: Old ID = 999985687. I just saw McConnells speech in its unedited form on C-SPANs original YouTube-channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PWnyvYVVI Or could you point to the precise position in this video where McConnell "affirms that Trump's claims of election fraud were false"? Thank you! 77.118.162.133 ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I want to say to the American people the United States senate will not be intimidated. We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs, or threats. We will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation. We are back at our posts. We will discharge our duty under the constitution and for our nation. And we're going to do it tonight. This afternoon, congress began the process of honoring the will of the American people and counting the Electoral College votes. We have fulfilled the solemn duty every four years for more than two centuries. Whether our nation has been at war or at peace, under all manner of threats, even during an ongoing armed rebellion and the civil war, the clock work of our democracy has carried on. The United States and the United States Congress have faced down much greater threats than the unhinged crowd we saw today. We've never been deterred before, and we will be not deterred today. They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the congress. This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation. Not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will. Now, we assembled this afternoon to count our citizens' votes and to formalize their choice of the next president. Now we're going to finish exactly what we started. We'll complete the process the right way by the book. We'll follow our precedents, our laws, and our constitution to the letter. And we will certify the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Criminal behavior will never dominate the United States Congress. This institution is resilient. Our democratic republic is strong. The American people deserve nothing less.
— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 2
We're debating a step that has never been taken in American history. Whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a presidential election. I've served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I've ever cast. President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. I supported the President's right to use the legal system, dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms all across our country, but over and over, the courts rejected these claims, including all-star judges whom the President himself has nominated. Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity, and of course, that's unacceptable. I support strong state-led voting reforms. Last year's bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm. But my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election. Nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence. The constitution gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a National Board of Elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the states have all spoken. They've all spoken. If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. This election actually was not unusually close. Just in recent history, 1976, 2000, and 2004 were all closer than this one. The Electoral College margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We would never see the whole nation accept an election again. Every four years would be a scramble for power at any cost. The Electoral College, which most of us on this side have been defending for years, would cease to exist. Leaving many of our states with no real say at all in choosing a president. The effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. Self-government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground rules of our system. We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes with a separate set of facts and separate realities. With nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share. Every time, every time in the last 30 years that Democrats have lost a presidential race, they have tried to challenge just like this. After 2000, after 2004, after 2016. After 2004, a senator joined and forced the same debate, and believe it or not, Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Hillary Clinton praised, praised and applauded the stunt. Republicans condemned those baseless efforts back then, and we just spent four years condemning Democrats' shameful attacks on the validity of President Trump's own election. So look, there can be no double standard. The media that is outraged today spent four years aiding and abetting Democrats' attacks on our institutions after they lost. But we must not imitate and escalate what we repudiate. Our duty is to govern for the public good. The United States Senate has a higher calling than an endless spiral of partisan vengeance. Congress will either override the voters, overrule them, the voters, the states, and the courts for the first time ever, or honor the people's decision. We'll either guarantee Democrats' delegitimizing efforts after 2016 become a permanent new routine for both sides or declare that our nation deserves a lot better than this. We'll either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of an election actually accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic courage that our forebears showed not only in victory but in defeat. The framers built the Senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our Republic. So I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the states on this extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it.
— Mitch McConnell, CSPAN - Senate Debate on Arizona Electoral College Vote Challenge, Part 1
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the lede there is a phrase "assaulted and killed Capitol Police police officers". This implies that the rioters both assaulted and killed multiple police officers. I think that this should be rephrased to avoid giving people the impression that more than one officer died, which is false. The text can be rephrased to either:
or
There is another issue that may have to be rectified in the same paragraph. The phrase "a gallows" may have to be rephrased to avoid confusing non-native English readers (though I have no idea how we can rephrase the text without making it awkward). 45.251.33.25 ( talk) 07:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) last rephrased at 07:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The FBI issued a dire internal warning on the day before the Capitol riots that violent extremists were planning an armed uprising.
Contradicting earlier statements that they were caught off guard.-- 87.170.207.193 ( talk) 11:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Death of secret service or Metro Police officer or Capital Hill officer? 180.150.115.177 ( talk) 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I've created the redirect 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but should this point to a specific section or display links to the domestic and international pages (serving as a sort of disambiguation page)? Another thing to consider: should we merge the domestic and international reaction pages into this one? Food for thought. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Ayanna Pressley has made a public statement that panic buttons that were installed in her office in 2019 were removed before the storming of the capitol. Thoughts on inclusion?
Potential draft - in section "Damage, theft, and impact", after first sentence "into several hallways."
Jdphenix ( talk) 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are some references for this:
John Cummings ( talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Background: I read Trump's January 6 speech to see to what degree he incited the riot of the congressional building. I then went to Wikipedia to see what it said. The following sentence in the second paragraph is incorrect:
Trump told them to "fight like hell" to "take back our country",[50][51] encouraging them to march over to the Capitol.[38]
Trump did use the phrases "fight like hell" and "take back our country" in his speech but in different contexts. He did not tell supporters to "fight like hell" or to "take back our country".
The part of the speech "fight like hell" is: "Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." Trump was talking about the situation at 9:00pm on the election night.
The part of Trump's speech with "take back out country" is "We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." Trump was saying that the Republican congressman needed to take back the country.
Also, not emphasized in the first two paragraphs of this page is the number of claims of voter fraud and election irregularities that Trump told them, which could have an influence on the behavior of his followers. In order not to make the replacement sentence sound too positive, I recommend also including this in the replacement sentence.
I recommend that the above sentence be replaced with: After claiming countless instances of voter fraud and election irregularities, Trump told his followers that they would be marching to the Capitol building peacefully and patriotically but it was a time to show strength and be strong.[New Citation = https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6]
References [50][51] should be removed.
The following are all the parts of Trump's speech in which he encourages followers to walk to the Capitol building:
"After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country."
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."
Stuartsamuel123 ( talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
From where I sit, in the past 3+ days a preponderance of reliable sources and authoritative individuals/organizations have come to characterize the incident as an “insurgency,” including the January 5 internal FBI document characterizing the incipient incident as “war,” and I propose we reconsider the title of this article accordingly. I ask for another editor to second this and call for a vote. soibangla ( talk) 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
To classify a mostly peaceful protest as an insurgency sounds like a thinly veiled way to justify the murders of american citizens. Strongly oppose. W33KeNdr ( talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
As this article gets longer and longer, I'm starting to think about the possibility of spinning off some of this content into related sub-articles, or at the very least removing some of the excess information. What does everyone else think? Love of Corey ( talk) 08:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Gwennie-nyan, Animalparty, Tuckerlieberman, Love of Corey, Neutrality, OnePercent, Another Believer, and Tataral: The article has now been split at Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Further improvements should be made there and here. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has a very POV tone. None of us like Trump, but this type of POV feeds his followers. For example
Could be better written as just his claim, with a following sentence explaining why this claim is dubious. It is very important not to feed Trump supporter's paranoia. Tuntable ( talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Per a Guardian report. We have:
These are discussed in two sections above, but can we discuss if it's reasonable to include until there's been some trial on this and these facts are truly proven. I am all for stating the facts per the RS, but in this case we would be asserting that certain Republicans planned the insurrection and then got the mob to do it... and we might want some overwhelming consensus on that first. Kingsif ( talk) 23:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
QAnon is mentioned multiple times throughout this article and has been discussed in WP:RS. This is a fast moving article but anytime I wikilink to QAnon it gets removed. I find this strange as linking to other articles is commonplace here. Anyways, would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this; it is currently linked to 1 time in the article [31] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Reading the last two sentences of the first paragraph about the results of the storming, this appears to be about the results of the riot. This is not currently a complete summary of results as summarised in the infobox 'Resulted in' section. It currently reads
Breaching police perimeters, rioters then occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. The assault led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, as well as five deaths.
The other results are not discussed until the fifth paragraph. Can I suggest that a very short summary of the other impacts is added to the second sentence to make it a more complete list, so it would read something like:
Breaching police perimeters, rioters then
occupied,
vandalized, and
looted parts of the building for several hours. The assault led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, as well as five deaths and later the second impeachment of Trump for "incitement of insurrection", higher security including national guard and resignations of administration officials and Capitol security officials.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 00:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The entire section on the Capitol police conduct has been moved to Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I don't think this is entirely appropriate, as this section went into detail about conduct and actions of the Capitol police *during* the storming, and not just how this was addressed in the aftermath. I think that a (perhaps abridged) version of this content should be re-added to the main article. Similar may apply to some of the other "aftermath" sections that discussed retrospective analysis of events that took place during the incident. BlackholeWA ( talk) 02:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I saw mention of Latinos for Trump was removed (and perhaps added back?) for being non-notable. This prompted me to create a stub for the group, which was ver quickly nominated for merging. Article improvements and/or discussion comments welcome. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Under the Section Deaths and Injuries, it states: "Many police officers were attacked with bear spray, a highly concentrated form of OC spray (tear gas) stronger than that carried by officers."
OC (Oleoresin capsicum) is not tear gas, it is pepper spray. Tear gas is CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile). While used for somewhat similar purposes, they are distinctively different in the effects they have on people and are not equitable. Can someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonDays0 ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Was there a consensus to remove big chunks of content, including reactions from various individuals/groups and the antifa false flag allegations? soibangla ( talk) 00:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead is already 6 paragraphs long. Instead of adding unnecessary detail, especially multiple times in different paragraphs, we should be trying to summarize the events in a concise manner to potentially make it shorter. For example, the first paragraph says "there were five deaths". The third paragraph says rioters "killed Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick". Then the fourth paragraph says "Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died". Another example is mentioning Trump's impeachment twice. I'm trying to improve the article make distilling multiple instances of the same info into one, concise mention. So why are my edits being reverted? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 05:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This article currently makes extensive use of abbreviations for politicians' parties and states after their names ("(D-CA)", "(R-GA)" etc.) I've removed them at least a couple of times but clearly at least one person thinks they're appropriate; I'd be interested to know why. In my view they're meaningless to readers who aren't familiar with states' postal abbreviations and/or who don't follow the minutiae of U.S. politics (i.e. most of the world). Per WP:EASTER this applies even when the states are linked; information conveyed only behind a piped link is as good as no information at all. We're not going to run out of page space or bytes, so if someone's party or state is relevant (the former might often be, the latter rarely will be) it can be conveyed using words. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
These aren't needed. We have articles on each of these politicians which people can refer to, to find out whatever they want (well, whatever they reasonably want). All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
Every other Wikipedia article does this so why should this one be different? SRD625 ( talk) 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
We have a section waaaay down there about capitol protesters being "mostly white men".
This seems kinda basic Who stuff. Second paragraph stuff.
We say what they did, and what they wore. We say what flags they waved. We say what they yelled. But we don't say until waaaay later that mostly white men did this.
If mentioning this much sooner is contentious, why? Mcfnord ( talk) 06:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Previous discussion for reference / "The article needs to state who was there: mostly White men"
|
---|
Is this currently noted in the article? From WaPo [32] "After each volley, the rioters, who were mostly White men, would cluster around the doors again, yelling, arguing, pledging revolution." I find Wikipedia to be invaluable, and deeper analysis of this event would be invaluable to readers. Here's a start [33] (Scroll down within the article) -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
|
One of the sentences state "Boyland's sister also said she" her sister's name is Lonna Cave so should we change it to "Boyland's sister, Lonna Cave, also said she" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin James Loibl ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it worth adding in somewhere that two people have taken their own lives due to the events... 1 Police officer 1 Assailant who was going to be prosecuted Darce98 ( talk) 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see the death of Officer Howard Liebengood who is alleged to have committed suicide after responding to the breaching of the Capitol mentioned in the original text.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-police-howard-liebengood-dies.html?searchResultPosition=1
BethLynette (
talk)
11:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Previous versions of this article used "Save America" more often, now I'm seeing "March To Save America" in the body but the lead has not been updated. Was there a discussion I missed re: "Save America" vs. "March To Save America"? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"[Pence] for refusing to overturn the electoral vote count."
This is not a power he had. So I'm not sure what to say here. Refusing to try overturning the electoral vote count? I do wonder what it would look like had he tried. Pence concluded that he doesn't have this power. I think it's of some importance to explain where Trump "left the paved roads" as he did here. Mcfnord ( talk) 07:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently the first paragraph does not convey the fact that deaths occurred as a result of this event. The second paragraph includes some details about deaths, but I think the first paragraph should at least convey that deaths occurred, with specific detail provided later on.
As such, I suggest changing “The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol” to “The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and resulted in deaths among rioters and Capitol police” (or something along these lines). Z117 ( talk) 15:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I found this interesting informztion but I don't really know where to put it if anyone could do it that would be nice thank you ! https://twitter.com/Rosemvmt/status/1349334945009831941
-- Maxime12346 ( talk) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDNiNdsPHNA Victor Grigas ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It's too early for another move discussion, but it looks like "Capitol riot" is becoming the common name: " Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned". St Anselm ( talk) 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The ADL commissioned a survey by YouGov showing that among a representative sample of Americans, up to 40% believed antifa was significantly or somewhat responsible for the violence at the Capitol.
Should we have a section on these patterns of spreading disinformation (as this idea has been spread by the President and Alex Jones, among others)? Note: I work with the ADL. OceanicFeeling123 ( talk) 20:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a specific concern with the word "storming" in the title. This is a loaded term, especially among white supremacists and militia types. I have little doubt it would be their preferred term, given the name of one far-right neo-Nazi publication, "The Daily Stormer," which is a reference to the original Nazi-party paper, "Der Stürmer." I'm not the first to worry about this name catching on for this event; here Jill Lapore's writing in the New Yorker: "A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a 'storming' of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a 'Storm' in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January 'the Storming of the Capitol.'" [1] I prefer something less loaded, like "attack." Even "insurrection" is preferable, I think. The fact that the term "insurrection" sounds archaic to my ear is perhaps because it's been so long since we've had to apply it. Chadwalk ( talk) 13:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Can we replace all instances of the Capitol being "stormed" by Trump supporters with "raided"?
Golfpecks256 ( talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The definition of storm fits the act of overtaking the Capitol. storm - a direct and violent assault on a stronghold MissBehaving ( talk) 02:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Strong support for referring to it as a "breaching" or a "raid", or even more neutrally/simply, an "attack"; while many notable news sources use the term "storming", they also use terms like "Capitol attack" and "Capitol siege" as shorthand (offhand example: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/fbi-warns-of-plans-for-nationwide-armed-protests-next-week/); there is so much variation that picking a less loaded & more neutrally descriptive term like "attack" or "breach" would probably be more appropriate Neonpixii ( talk) 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
References