![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Mincing words and using words as weapons sure has plagued this country. If Portland and Minneapolis are being wielded as Mostly Peaceful Protests then the equal treatment of this moment in time must be awarded. The only way to change this meaning is to literally go back in time and designate all Antifa and BLM riots as riots. It’s time we start providing equal treatment under the law. Visto Dalla Florida ( talk) 13:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Other than law enforcement, the only people I see documented to be carrying "plastic handcuffs" are a man and his mother—who found them abandoned inside the Capitol, presumably by police, who were photographed employing them. [3] [4] There's certainly no suggestion the man and his mom broke into the Capitol with a plan to "take hostages" or "kidnap" anyone. The references to them are pure hyperbole and far from NPOV—and must be removed, or at the very least, made accurate and NPOV. Ditto for the man supposedly arrested for 11 Molotov cocktails and an assault rifle. The only sources cited seem to reference and re-echo a single tweet claiming that Michael Sherwin, the acting US attorney, said this. I can find no confirmation or follow-up, which seems odd given this would be the most heavily armed person arrested, by a long shot. This article is far, far too breathless and it's proving to be embarrassingly POV and wildly hyperbolic. Elle Kpyros ( talk) 01:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2021 United States capitol protests § Requested move 20 January 2021.
Mt.FijiBoiz (
talk)
15:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It currently states "thousands of the crowd" in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. This is awkward phrasing but I can't think of how to fix it. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add external link Faces of the Riot. It is some sort of memorial. Maybe also some help for FBI. -- Chrxix ( talk) 14:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Insurrection Day. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Insurrection Day until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
A procedural detail: Since this page has several daughter pages, a move request for this page should be a {{ multi-move request}}. See WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages.
For example, there might soon be a request to move this page to 2021 United States Capitol attack. The wikitext for this request should look like this:
{{subst:Requested move|2021 United States Capitol attack|reason= ... |current2 = Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new2 = Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack |current3 = Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new3 = Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack |current4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack |current5 = International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new5 = International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack }}
(Note that I'm not suggesting that the current move request should be changed. It should have been a multi-move request, but we didn't think of it, and it's too late now. No big deal. We'll sort it out later if necessary.)
— Chrisahn ( talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that the Oath Keepers are mentioned in the section headed 'Prior intelligence and concerns of violence', and there fully referenced, expanding on the few words in the first paragraph of the lead, Some rioters had earlier planned aggressive action, is it necessary to repeat the references in the lead? Qexigator ( talk) 19:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Edits relevant to a discussion about this are
Qexigator ( talk) 21:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Qexigator ( talk) 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Qexigator ( talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Seeing that there are now sources beginning to describe this as a "coup attempt", I wanted to make an organized section discussing the situation. It also seems that some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt, but the forceful entry into the capitol was a coup attempt. Below I will make a few sections to organize this discussion.-- WMrapids ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
All of the media listed below promote a liberal, left and progressive viewpoints. There is no evidence that protesters were a united organized group that was actually attempting to take over the US Government with, I've read, 13 weapons found? Instead it looks as if it was a mixed group who invaded the building to disrupt the electoral college contest and make some messes. The behavior of some of the DC police is also puzzling. I would avoid hyberole and wait for some official DoD reports. The mainstream media is advocacy based. Here we aim to present different sides in a neutral way regardless of personal viewpoints. If you can't manage that attitude, edit non-political articles only. Lmlmss44 ( talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "coup attempt" or similar (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):
-- Removed "coup de force" French-language sources, as the French "coup de force" does not correspond at all to English "coup (d'état)". Alalch Emis ( talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware that screaming, breaking windows, looting stores and then leaving fell under the definition of "coup". TheKing'sMongrelSon ( talk) 21:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "insurrection" (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):
I'm seeing more & more stories on this event refer to it as a "breach". I personally don't think it is the best word to use, but feel with respect to the principle of NPOV this fact needs to be mentioned. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Its what it was, RS say it and it really is not all that loaded. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
However sources like this say people are bieng charged as rioters [ [24]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
A riot would be if a normal protest went out of control; there is evidence showing that this was at least partially planned out and the intention was to kill or kidnap several members of Congress and maybe the vice president which makes it an insurrection SRD625 ( talk) 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This was not a riot. This was a violent uprising against the legislators in order to stop them from performing the Constitutional requirement to count the electoral votes. This is the very definition of an insurrection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 ( talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with calling this a coup or insurrection. Media headlines often exaggerate things to attract the attention of the readers to the article.The words “coup” or “insurrection” are more likely to attract attention than simply stating the capitol was “stormed”. Based on the evidence, this was mob of people from a variety of groups. It doesn’t appear to have had an organized leadership, and had no intention of overthrowing the US government, simply to disrupt the vote count. The theft of labtops was probably by conspiracy theorists trying to confirm they were right. Many members of the mob seem to have just contented themselves with vandalism, with several pieces of artwork representing historical figures from both the left and the right targeted. This indicates the goal was general destruction rather than targeting paintings and statues of people associated with one side of the political spectrum. In any case, we cannot simply speculate or exaggerate details like the media. We need reliable, unbiased sources, which will presumably become available as time goes on and the investigation reveals its findings. Investigation is still underway, and it could be awhile before we get any concrete answers. I say we leave the title of the article as is for now. Anasaitis ( talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Somedifferentstuff: your proposal is worded using "domestic attack". This generally refers to domestic violence. It's an unfortunate coincidence. I don't think anyone but you has or would support including "domestic" for this reason, and for the reason of that exact phrase not being supported by reliable sources, and for not being concise either. What do you think about this assessment? — Alalch Emis 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In the sections above, "coup" is more widely used internationally. On the other hand, it seems that "insurrection" is more prominent in English sources and in use among US politicians. "Storm" does not appear to be more popular than the other two, though it appears frequently in German media.-- WMrapids ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.... an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Also, Biden used that term.
A coup is a quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.... a sudden violent or illegal seizure of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I really apologize if I'm in the wrong section, I'm really rarely contributing to Wikipedia as a whole, I just wanted to point out some thoughts on the naming convention for this article:
So the naming convention of the article I would support, one way or the other, would be simply something that is consistent with other articles that already exist LutherVinci ( talk) 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
European officials are now saying that Trump received assistance with establishing supporters within the Capitol. Security officials from Europe stated they train with US federal forces and that "it's obvious that large parts of any successful plan were just ignored". This is interesting as one argument regarding the definition of "coup" is that it requires assistance from armed branches of the government.-- WMrapids ( talk) 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
While the previous move was closed with the recommendation to wait about a week, we are now about three days after the event. After reviewing more recent sources, it seems that the term "insurrection" has been determined to be the most common term. CNN is even hosting a special titled "The Trump Insurrection". Any opinions on this?-- WMrapids ( talk) 12:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
What is an insurrection? "Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers." [26] How is the occupation of the capitol "violence against the state or its officers"? Certainly, it is the primary inflammatory term associated with the event. But is it accurate? Jrb1tx ( talk) 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It is very accurate.... many news used the word, "insurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F ( talk) 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, insurrection is the term most used by reliable sources. Only Fox news calls it a "storming" in attempts to romanticise the event and build support for a Trump pardon for the participants. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 13:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that the decision was to wait for a week to see what the event is to be referred as. Many reliable sources started using the word "insurrection" at the Capitol more consistency now. I assume at some point, the article will be moved to 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol, right? Here are just a few examples:
An important reliable source is from the the Congress. The Article of Impeachment describes the event as an insurrection which had 4 elements in it: [39] [40]
I think the word breaching is similar to the current word "storming" that is used as the title. That is just one element of the overall event in which it is known in the article as an insurrection. By leaving the title to just one element of the event, it may not capture the overall picture of what it is as many reliable sources now describe the overall event than just as the "storming" part of it. Z22 ( talk) 19:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The second Trump impeachment WAS for him "inciting an insurrection" and it is now in the history books. So how is this not the most appropriate description for what happened at the Capitol now? RobP ( talk) 07:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I am looking at this new article in CNN, Investigators looking into planning of Capitol riot. Indeed, it is highly probable that the planning and participation involved well prepared groups of rioters in all gear (they even brought restraints to capture the members of Congress, just as they wanted to capture the Michigan governor), some police (who did not stop the mob and allowed everyone to leave when the rioters realized that lawmakers are gone), possibly some Pentagon officials (who did not sent the guard even after the request by DC mayor), and possibly even Republican lawmakers and the president. There is a lot of chat about it, including even some analysis by Michael Moore and separately by Yuri Shvets who is definitely an expert ( here (Russian)). The purpose of the coup was to prevent the inauguration of new president. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a coup. When this was taking place, lots of names were used. Now, I don't see coup used a lot or at all. These leads me to believe that WP:RS reliable sources dictate we not use coup. The same thing with assassination. Now there's a news report that someone wrote on social media about assassinating AOC. Terrible. However, that does NOT mean this article should be retitled "2021 Assassination attempt on AOC in the Capitol".
Vowvo (
talk)
23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I am a native French speaker, and it seems that some French newspapers in the list above don't actually qualify this event as a coup, but as a « coup de force », which Wiktionary defines as “A suddent, violent act.” The word “coup” in English would be translated as « coup d’état » instead. The affected sources are Le monde diplomatique (both), BFM TV, Orange, Euronews, Ouest-France, and La Voix du Nord (which uses « coup d’état » in citations only). Also, I couldn’t verify the citation for the France Info article, “Pro-Trump coup” is just « États-Unis » in the title of the article on my computer. In fact, the article says that « Didier Combeau estime qu’il s’agit plus “d’une manifestation d’extrémistes peu nombreux” qu’une tentative [ sic] coup d’État » (“Didier Combeau believes that it is more “a menifestation of few extremists’ than a coup attempt.”) Nicolapps ( talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Please remember that news outlets use sensational words to describe an event in order to get the attention of the viewers. Those that were protesting wanted their voice to be heard. Just a portion of the people that attended the demonstration were violent. Most of if not all of the priceless works of art were untouched. There were many videos of people in the capital just mulling around like they were on a guided tour. Almost in awe of their surroundings. The love of their country and their freedoms brought them to the capital. Many did not heed the words of the president when he asked his supporters to be peaceful. If it was a coup, who was the one calling for it? If it was an insurrection where is the evidence. The news outlets use those terms, but they do not provide any proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBehaving ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
|
@WMrapids as your source says, mobilizing federal agents would be a coup, and I would agree, because again that would be actions by elite authorities (even if not technically military). As you pointed out, that is "almost" what happened on January 6, but ultimately federal agents were deployed to recapture the Capital and arrest the rioters, and therefore no elites were involved in the insurrection. LutherVinci ( talk) 18:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Time to change the headline
-- Caffoti ( talk) 23:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
One more important distinction, no one has been arrested and/or charged with the crime of treason, insurrection, or for a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.167.165 ( talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The unsigned comment above is simply not true. Famously, the president of the United States has been charged with the crime of "insurrection of the United States" when he was impeached by the US House of Representatives. Univremonster ( talk) 02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we keep the "2021" in the upcoming title "Insurrection at the United States Capitol" (i.e. it would be titled "2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol")?
BobTheBob45 ( talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the proposals to rename the page as the " 2021 insurrection of the United States Capitol. Most media outlets have now switched the term "insurrection" over "storming" and Congress has officially adopted the term in their articles of impeachment ("incitement of insurrection"). It would therefore make sense for Wikipedia to fall in line with this more accurate consistency. Golfpecks256 ( talk) 13:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
[43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 ( talk) 14:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to consider using list-defined references on this article. I've noticed a lot of references get orphaned due to editor error, and list-defined references mitigate this issue. Additionally, list-defined refs help make the Wikitext more readable. Any thoughts? Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This RFC is meant to gain consensus for a follow-on Wikipedia:RM. The current title was, per the closer, a temporary solution. Current discussion and a currently open move request concerns the use of riot, attack, or storming. I would ask that you vote on the following choices and, if you favor two or more, to rank your votes.
Second, a yes or no question:
There was a typo, has been fixed
|
---|
|
I think this RFC should be closed. We have a RM discussion above. Then someone added a table. Then someone closed the table. Then someone opened it again. This RFC asks the same question as the table, just in a different format. It will only make the discussion even less focused. — Chrisahn ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table is more easy to read, the RFC does not include "insurrection".... it should be added to Choice D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Should 2021 United States Capitol insurrection redirect here? They are both about the same topic anyways. - Cilabsuhsk ( talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Day of Broken Glass. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Day of Broken Glass until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
They are becoming a distraction. -- Robertiki ( talk) 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not a article page. I ask the editors to remove the collapse templates they put in. -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:00, 26 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: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss and displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind." [1]
to: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind." [2]
reason: The prior citation improperly stated that during the CNN broadcast Jim Acosta had stated that Trump's displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force was a reason why Trump was out of his mind according to a white house staffer. I have provided the citation to Jim Acosta's original broadcast on CNN to support the rest of the sentence. That broadcast does not include the white house staffer talking about Trump's supporters' attempt to overturn the election result. 65.130.60.135 ( talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Publius V Publicola ( talk) 05:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I see at least two 'excessive citation' tags in the infobox, neither of which follow a string of citations, so I'm curious if the tags still apply. Shall we remove? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Every media outlet has reported in a statement by the FBI that there is evidence the assault on Capital Hill on January 6th 2021 was pre-planned. Few actors have been revealed. It is misinformation on the part of Wikipedia to publish a blanket statement that this assault was carried out by an angry mob of Donald Trump supporters. One man, John Sullivan, who posted numerous videos on fb and twitter under his moniker "InsurrectionUSA" was instructional videos with specific details on what to do on January 6th. Time. What to wear. What to bring. When and where to meet. He was arrest and charged with inciting something that day, and released without bail. Jillnage ( talk) 18:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide a source? I read something similar on a Politico article but the FBI affidavit it uses as a source doesn't claim that. it says that the Proud Boys planned to attend the demonstration and that some were seen with what seemed to be communication devices (probably cellphones with earbuds). Their leader asked members to wear black according although it's unclear if they actually did. And John Sullivan is a left-wing activist who apparently came alone. His videos were taken at the Capitol not beforehand. TFD ( talk) 00:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead of this article is seven paragraphs. The general rule for lead lengths is no longer than four paragraphs. The main body of text, that is, the lead plus the sections minus the references takes up about 50% of the whole page. The lead is severely bloated compared to how much body there is. The lead is way larger than all the other subsections respectively. A correct size would probably be 2-3 paragraphs. Writing this much in the lead may be motivated by some editors to introduce as much bias as possible where most people (only) read. Lukan27 ( talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
With a subject this complex, I think having a lead that's a little longer than normal is probably ok. See the edit history of the article Brexit as an example. The brexit article at one time had a very long lead and over time was eventually shortened after continuous review and the article being broken out into sub articles. This article is similar and also deals with a complex subject and as such having a longer lead is necessary to properly address all the issues dealing with the event. Over time and as the article content is broken out into sub-articles or condensed then it will become clearer how to make the lead more concise. For now, the longer lead helps readers summarize the relevant issues raised by the article. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 22:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that a lead section slightly longer than 4 paragraphs is not necessarily an issue now. I'd like to point out, however, that the lead right now could likely be condensed into 4-5 paragraphs just by reorganizing and combining information into clearly delineated paragraphs. I've tried to do so in my suggestion below - I've done a few things including condensed/shortened some sentences, as well as reorganized it by topic. Please note I've removed references from this to enable it to be more easily viewed on this talkpage - they'd have to be worked in if my suggestion is considered good. The loose organization of my proposed lead is this: overall summary > specific events > response > reaction. The only information/sentences I intentionally left out of this "new lead" are duplication of information - such as the fact that the looting is discussed in three separate points. If I left out any other sentences/information in this reorganization, please feel free to add it or edit as you see fit. My point here is to show that the information in the lead can all be kept while reorganizing allows it to flow better and fit a four paragraph lead - which can be extended to five if people feel necessary. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, while the 117th United States Congress was meeting to certify the electoral college victory of President-elect Joe Biden. Part of a series of wider protests of the 2020 election results, the riot consisted of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president of thee United States, in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the election. Upon outside security being breached, Capitol Police evacuated the Senate and House of Representative chambers, and several other buildings in the complex were also evacuated or locked down. Rioters, who were called to action by Trump by claims the election had been "stolen" from him, stormed the building and occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. Many of the rioters became violent, assaulting Capitol Police officers and reporters, erecting a gallows on the grounds, and attempting to locate lawmakers (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) to take hostage and/or harm.
On the morning of January 6, thousands of Trump's supporters gathered in Washington D.C. for a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, where Trump repeated his false claims of election irregularities and encouraged the crowd to "fight like hell". Rioters, encouraged by Trump, walked to the Capitol in an attempt to encourage Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results of the Electoral College vote, which he lacked the constitutional authority to do. Rioters blamed Mike Pence for not attempting to override the Electoral College votes, and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" during the breach. Once inside the building, the empty Senate chamber was occupied by rioters, and federal law enforcement officers defended the evacuated House floor with handguns. Multiple improvised explosive devices were found near the Capitol grounds, in a nearby vehicle, as well as at the respective offices of the Democratic and Republican national committees. Multiple office spaces within the Capitol building were looted, including that of the House Speaker and other lawmakers. Five people died during the riot and occupation of the Capitol building, including 4 rioters and one police officer.
Trump initially resisted activating the D.C. National Guard to quell the mob of rioters, and in a Twitter video called the rioters "very special" and told them to "go home in peace" while repeating his false claims of a "stolen" election. After several hours, the Capitol was cleared of rioters by mid-evening, and the counting of electoral votes resumed and continued until its completion in the early morning hours of the next day. This was followed by Mike Pence declaring Biden the President-elect and Kamala Harris the Vice President-elect and affirming that the pair would assume office on January 20. After pressure from his administration, including the threat of removal from office and multiple resignations by his cabinet, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a televised statement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation later opened at least 170 investigations into participants in the events, and indicated that many more are likely to be initiated. Members of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government paramilitary group, were indicted on conspiracy charges for their allegedly planning the mission in advance. Dozens more who were involved have been found to be listed in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, most as suspected white supremacists.
The events were widely condemned by political leaders and organizations in the United States and internationally. Mitch McConnell (R–KY), Senate Majority Leader, called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" provoked by the president's "lies" and said that the Senate "will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation". Several social media and technology companies suspended or banned Trump's accounts from their platforms, and many business organizations cut ties with him. A week after the riot, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for "incitement of insurrection", making him the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. Opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans disapproved of the riot and storming, and of Trump's actions prior to, during, and following the event.
Collapsed: unproductive discussion
|
---|
|
A procedural detail: Since this page has several daughter pages, a move request for this page should be a {{ multi-move request}}. See WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages.
For example, if there is a request to move this page to 2021 United States Capitol XYZ, the wikitext for this request should look like this:
{{subst:Requested move|2021 United States Capitol XYZ|reason= ... |current2 = Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new2 = Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ |current3 = Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new3 = Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ |current4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ |current5 = International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new5 = International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ }}
— Chrisahn ( talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The far-right group Proud Boys have tried to downplay their role in the Capitol riot. The Proud Boys are a paramilitary group with ties to Trump operative Roger Stone. They have long been some of Trump’s most vocal, and violent, supporters, and he has returned the favor, telling them during one of the presidential debates to “stand back and stand by.” - Enrique Tarrio, Proud chairman, "standing by sir", close friend of Roger Stone, arrested by Washington, D.C. police on 4 January 2021
A WSJ Investigation shows that at many of the day’s key moments, "Proud Boys" were at the center and forefront. 7 of their members have been arrested. So far.
The rioting at the Capitol was a planned attack, involving Antifa, involving the Capitol police who were caught on camera directing the "rioters" and opening the fencing so they could enter. This was a planned attack to give the powers to be another fake reason to try and impeach President Donald J Trump. President Trump NEVER said to his supporters to storm the Capitol, that is a lie that he incited the riot. He instructed and asked for a peaceful march showing unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.46.247 ( talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Shortened overlong heading. Qexigator ( talk) 10:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Before the next more name change discussion gets going, we could recall that the current name was adopted in the first hours of intensive input to the article, from the time when the article was opened at 18:34 on 6 January as a one-liner: "On January 6, 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election."
Qexigator ( talk) 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) minor update edit 21:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Coup d'état#Post discussion comment.
Beneficii (
talk)
05:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a forum to share your views, theories, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article leaves out very important facts, such as the presence of antifa and the Capitol Police inviting people to enter the Capitol, all of which has been captured on video. Where are the sources to prove the allegations that President Trump "was initially pleased" by the breach? He never said that. He always said to remain peaceful. This article should never have been published without verification of information and fair coverage of ALL the facts. 97.124.193.59 ( talk) 01:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Please help me fix the please see template. I’m not sure what happened.— Beneficii ( talk) 05:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
As an effort to move this process forward, I would ask assistance from editors in making a move request on United States Capitol attack as strong as possible. Below is my draft. I think it is clear that attack has some support, and it is the most likely alternative. I suggest that we work together to make it a strong request and allow this exercise in consensus building to come to a close.
A note for whoever closes this move request. Many editors desire a moratorium on move requests. I would suggest this will short circuit the process to build consensus and is not needed. I intend to offer the move request below, with edits from other editors when the current move request closes. A moratorium simply delays the process of building a lasting consensus. Casprings ( talk) 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Draft Move Request for 2021 United States Capitol attack
Reasons to use the verb "attack." 1. Attack meets Wikipedia:COMMONNAME better than any other verb. Using a google news search and only looking at the titles, one can see that writers use the term attack in WP:RS news sources more than other words. One note on methodology, I think only searching in the title is the best means to understand what WP:RS are naming the event. · attack is used 193,000 times · Riot used 67,700 times · insurrection used 15,400 times · storming used 6,340 times 2. Attack is inherently a neutral word but captures the significance of the event. Attacks can be negative or positive, depending on the circumstances—for example, the Attack on Pearl Harbor versus Art Attack. In sum, attack best meets WP:NPV. Reasons not to use "storm." 1. As the results show, storm is a terrible choice for Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. 2. Storm is not the right choice for WP:NPV. First, I would note the connection of the word storm to QAnon. QAnon believed that the storm was coming. In that, they believed there would be a violent period of arrests of Democratic leaders. Given that, the use of a related word is out of place. Especially when QAnon supports were so involved in the event and seemed to attempt to capture or harm Congress members and the vice President. Second, I would note the links in the media between the event and Storming of the Bastille. For example, a quote from the New York Times, here.
Given the historical circumstances positive connections with the stroming of the Bastille, this is is not NPV. |
I agree that we should prepare the next move request together, but our focus must be on the process, not on particular arguments for certain outcomes. The current RM went off the rails because we kept changing the process during the discussion. Here are some quotes from the essay WP:Settle the process first:
I think the first part describes quite well what happened with the current RM, and the last sentence tells us what we have to do to avoid repeating this mess: agree on the process before we start the discussion. — Chrisahn ( talk) 01:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Casprings: I disagree that WP:NOYEAR applies here; I think that per WP:NCE the year should be included, at least until it is clear with historic perspective (something we don't have yet and will not for years) that this event has the lasting significance that some people think it will. But ultimately I think that boils down to a difference of opinion: I do not think there are strong policy arguments either way. What if you invited feedback on inclusion of the year in the draft RM rather than explicitly supporting either inclusion or exclusion of the year in the RM proposal? VQuakr ( talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Trying to make the move request "as strong as possible" by adding arguments to the initial text is unlikely to have the intended effect. All arguments have already been put forth in the previous move requests. If there is a new move request, it should simply indicate the requested title and link to the previous move requests Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021 and #Requested move 23 January 2021. I'm pretty sure most users who will comment on the move request have already seen all arguments. No need to repeat them. — Chrisahn ( talk) 05:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack". According to the consensus table, this was favoured even over the current title, both by ratio and raw "votes". There was also some fairly strong opinion against the current title from an argumentative perspective, and as such it would make sense to me to open another RM on the attack title, and let people voice their opinions on it directly. Before that happens, however, we should probably settle the question of whether to include the year in the proposal.
I continue to support including the year, for the title 2021 United States Capitol attack. To reiterate my argument above; "there have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE."
However, if there is going to be another RM, we should probably ensure that it is worded in the manner that the most editors agree on, so that we don't devolve into additional option wrangling, and the RM can proceed with the name change that is most agreeable and likely to succeed over the current article title. BlackholeWA ( talk) 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack".I actually did take this into account when I closed the RM, but still believe that there wasn't sufficient consensus to move forward with that suggested name. I was torn on whether or not to close the RM procedurally, as not moved, or as no consensus. The difference between any of those options is immaterial, in any case. One thing that I'll add is that this RM was procedurally flawed from the start. If there's a rough consensus for a name before another RM is opened on the topic (a straw poll would be helpful, in that respect), I think that it will have a much better chance at success. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Edited the above, per comments in this section. I also put the above close in move review. If there is consensus to post the above more request, lets do it. Move review takes forever. Casprings ( talk) 14:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Several hours ago, the RM was closed. Now it's opened again, but the date of the RM has changed. I can't follow what's going on, so I can only imagine how someone new to this page might feel. Could an admin provide some clarity to the chaos, perhaps in an obvious location? Moncrief ( talk) 16:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry for the delayed response. Internet has been out for the past day, so trying to work around that with
my IRL job has been an absolute nightmare to deal with that ate up all of my time yesterday and today. To answer some questions about this RM: I self-reverted my closure because I felt in hindsight that I may have acted in error and went against
WP:RMCI with my close, which wasn't my intention at all. When I relisted the RM, I accidentally forgot to change the date back to its original end date when I was trying to un-break the RM so the bot would list it. I seriously appreciate
Chrisahn fixing the header for me. Finally, I don't envy the next closer that's going to have to try to navigate this nightmare of an RM to find some semblance of consensus. Whoever wants to take that role on is definitely going to earn a barnstar from me (and a pint, if I were to run into them at a meetup).
OhKayeSierra (
talk)
01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should edit the page to show there have been 7 deaths from this event after a second Capitol Police officer died by suicide. It is a direct result of the event. What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slusho815 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Trump terrorist attack. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 29#Trump terrorist attack until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ―
Tartan357
Talk
02:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol – No year is necessary to disambiguate. Falls under WP:NOYEAR, while all the debate over what exactly the should be, we could at least attempt to get consensus on fixing the name to something that could work until consensus is reached. BigCheese76 ( talk) 14:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there any more information on those two suicides? As soon as it is known, it would be good to say what exactly the link is. I don't want to speculate, but I can think of three different ways that the event could conceivably lead to a suicide - and it is also possible that they killed themselves for quite unrelated reasons. It may have to wait for results of an inquest, but if possible the article should clarify. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 18:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories) which suggest that the inclusion of their otherwise private names in the article is not necessary or prudent at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Any reason why that was put away? I think it is still current, and had some good discussion around the phrasing of a new RM request. Chances are either the current RM will end in no consensus to move to the riot article - in which case the follow-on RM would be relevant - or the closer will want to move it to one of the table titles, in which case the discussion in the "follow-on" draft would also be relevant because it discussed the best phrasings. Maybe should be considered a part of the current RM discussion. BlackholeWA ( talk) 06:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This wikipedia article links to an intercept article - https://theintercept.com/2021/01/11/capitol-plot-andy-biggs-paul-gosar/
I would like another of Mr. Alexander's quoted statements added to the page from that article; he wanted to put "maximum pressure" on congress. A longer version of the quote is "putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting." He also uses the word "schemed," in describing his actions, which I find interesting and relevant to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCFMSTB ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
“The news” is now saying there were 40k people at the rally. Can we please get some facts on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
If I knew that I wouldn’t be on here trying to get real facts :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The domestic reactions talk page still has the same peen issues as the day it was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 15:10, 31 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. |
Not sure why the article states that the "The Associated Press attributed the extremism that fueled the 2021 riot to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns". That may be *an* underlying cause, but not the main reason that Trump supporters stormed the capitol. To attribute it to dissatisfaction over Covid lockdown is misleading.
The AP attributed the storming of the capitol as being "fervent Trump fans" ... "summoned by President Donald Trump to march on Washington in support of his false claim that the November election was stolen and to stop the congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden as the victor."
Source - AP News: [1]
An underlying cause might conceivably be the Covid pandemic lockdown dissatisfaction, but the main and foremost reason behind Trump extremists storming the capitol was (in their mind) "stopping the steal" - which was fueled and reiterated by Trump himself just a short while before he asked them to march to the capitol. He continues the stole election claim even now at this writing. Drlmstanton100 ( talk) 17:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Experts say it was the culmination of years of increasing radicalization and partisanship, combined with a growing fascination with paramilitary groups and a global pandemic.COVID has surely been a factor, but they wouldn't have shown up to the Capitol if not for years of radicalization, or if Trump had won the election. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
QUESTION: Is the following NYT News (01/31/2021) edit worth adding to the main article - or Not?
On January 31, 2021, a detailed overview of the attempt to subvert the election of the United States was published in The New York Times. [1] [2]
References
- ^ Rutenberg, Jim; Becker, Jo; Lipton, Eric; Haberman, Maggie; Martin, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Matthew; Schmidt, Michael S. (January 31, 2021). "77 Days: Trump's Campaign to Subvert the Election - Hours after the United States voted, the president declared the election a fraud — a lie that unleashed a movement that would shatter democratic norms and upend the peaceful transfer of power". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
- ^ Rosenberg, Matthew; Rutenberg, Jim (February 1, 2021). "Key Takeaways From Trump's Effort to Overturn the Election - A Times examination of the 77 days between election and inauguration shows how a lie the former president had been grooming for years overwhelmed the Republican Party and stoked the assault on the Capitol". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff I rewrote the 1st paragraph to include notability in the lead
WP:MOSLEAD, as it's not soon apparent from reading the long lead what is the significance of the event in broader context (
diff). Why don't you think it's an improvement? The biggest problem is the sentence: "The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and five deaths." It's a tautology, that isn't what the event led to – it's what the event was. It's an attempt to stick to the usual form of the first paragraph (the obligatory "the event led to ..."), while not addressing notability. The first paragraph doesn't even state that the attempt failed /it does now actually/. The other changes were more stylistic.
— Alalch Emis (
talk)
18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a detailed study of the people involved and may be a useful citation. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
EXCERPTS "Capitol Rioters...a mob of about 800 stormed the U.S. Capitol.... many people made quick assumptions regarding who the insurrectionists were... a number of the rioters prominently displayed symbols ...the attack on the Capitol was unmistakably an act of political violence, not merely an exercise in vandalism or trespassing amid a disorderly protest that had spiraled out of control. ... a large majority of suspects in the Capitol riot have no connection to existing...violent organizations...most of the insurrectionists do not come from deep-red strongholds. People familiar with America’s political geography might imagine the Capitol rioters as having marinated in places where they are unlikely to encounter anyone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Yet of those arrested for their role in the Capitol riot, more than half came from counties that Biden won; one-sixth came from counties that Trump won with less than 60 percent of the vote.... If you presumed that only the reddest parts of America produce potential insurrectionists, you would be incorrect....We found that 39 percent of suspected insurrectionists came from battleground counties, where Trump received 40 to 60 percent of the vote; 12 percent came from counties where less than 60 percent of the population is white. ... A third of suspected insurrectionists come from such counties; another quarter come from suburban counties of large metro areas...."
While perhaps not all readers will find documents filed in connection with the trial wholly convincing, the outcome of this or the next RM, or the text of the article, may be influenced by the wording used, such as in the House Trial Memorandum. [52]
'After storming through the barricades surrounding the building, rioters laid siege to the Capitol itself'
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Qexigator ( talk) 00:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The text states in the section about the Senate adjourning: "Several members of Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's staff carried the boxes of Electoral College votes and documentation out of the chamber to hidden safe rooms within the building" suggesting that the electoral college votes were being kept in the Senate chamber at that time. Then later in the section about the House adjourning: " Staff members removed boxes of sealed electoral vote certificates to prevent them from being damaged or stolen by rioters." suggesting that they were instead being kept in the House chamber.
These two statements are seemingly contradictory. What am I missing here? Were multiple sets being kept around? Were they moved from one chamber to the other? Were half kept in one chamber and half in the other? Or is one of the two mistaken? effeiets anders 08:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Mincing words and using words as weapons sure has plagued this country. If Portland and Minneapolis are being wielded as Mostly Peaceful Protests then the equal treatment of this moment in time must be awarded. The only way to change this meaning is to literally go back in time and designate all Antifa and BLM riots as riots. It’s time we start providing equal treatment under the law. Visto Dalla Florida ( talk) 13:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Other than law enforcement, the only people I see documented to be carrying "plastic handcuffs" are a man and his mother—who found them abandoned inside the Capitol, presumably by police, who were photographed employing them. [3] [4] There's certainly no suggestion the man and his mom broke into the Capitol with a plan to "take hostages" or "kidnap" anyone. The references to them are pure hyperbole and far from NPOV—and must be removed, or at the very least, made accurate and NPOV. Ditto for the man supposedly arrested for 11 Molotov cocktails and an assault rifle. The only sources cited seem to reference and re-echo a single tweet claiming that Michael Sherwin, the acting US attorney, said this. I can find no confirmation or follow-up, which seems odd given this would be the most heavily armed person arrested, by a long shot. This article is far, far too breathless and it's proving to be embarrassingly POV and wildly hyperbolic. Elle Kpyros ( talk) 01:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2021 United States capitol protests § Requested move 20 January 2021.
Mt.FijiBoiz (
talk)
15:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It currently states "thousands of the crowd" in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. This is awkward phrasing but I can't think of how to fix it. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add external link Faces of the Riot. It is some sort of memorial. Maybe also some help for FBI. -- Chrxix ( talk) 14:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Insurrection Day. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Insurrection Day until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
A procedural detail: Since this page has several daughter pages, a move request for this page should be a {{ multi-move request}}. See WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages.
For example, there might soon be a request to move this page to 2021 United States Capitol attack. The wikitext for this request should look like this:
{{subst:Requested move|2021 United States Capitol attack|reason= ... |current2 = Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new2 = Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack |current3 = Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new3 = Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack |current4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack |current5 = International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new5 = International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack }}
(Note that I'm not suggesting that the current move request should be changed. It should have been a multi-move request, but we didn't think of it, and it's too late now. No big deal. We'll sort it out later if necessary.)
— Chrisahn ( talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that the Oath Keepers are mentioned in the section headed 'Prior intelligence and concerns of violence', and there fully referenced, expanding on the few words in the first paragraph of the lead, Some rioters had earlier planned aggressive action, is it necessary to repeat the references in the lead? Qexigator ( talk) 19:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Edits relevant to a discussion about this are
Qexigator ( talk) 21:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Qexigator ( talk) 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Qexigator ( talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Seeing that there are now sources beginning to describe this as a "coup attempt", I wanted to make an organized section discussing the situation. It also seems that some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt, but the forceful entry into the capitol was a coup attempt. Below I will make a few sections to organize this discussion.-- WMrapids ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
All of the media listed below promote a liberal, left and progressive viewpoints. There is no evidence that protesters were a united organized group that was actually attempting to take over the US Government with, I've read, 13 weapons found? Instead it looks as if it was a mixed group who invaded the building to disrupt the electoral college contest and make some messes. The behavior of some of the DC police is also puzzling. I would avoid hyberole and wait for some official DoD reports. The mainstream media is advocacy based. Here we aim to present different sides in a neutral way regardless of personal viewpoints. If you can't manage that attitude, edit non-political articles only. Lmlmss44 ( talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "coup attempt" or similar (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):
-- Removed "coup de force" French-language sources, as the French "coup de force" does not correspond at all to English "coup (d'état)". Alalch Emis ( talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware that screaming, breaking windows, looting stores and then leaving fell under the definition of "coup". TheKing'sMongrelSon ( talk) 21:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "insurrection" (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):
I'm seeing more & more stories on this event refer to it as a "breach". I personally don't think it is the best word to use, but feel with respect to the principle of NPOV this fact needs to be mentioned. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Its what it was, RS say it and it really is not all that loaded. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
However sources like this say people are bieng charged as rioters [ [24]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
A riot would be if a normal protest went out of control; there is evidence showing that this was at least partially planned out and the intention was to kill or kidnap several members of Congress and maybe the vice president which makes it an insurrection SRD625 ( talk) 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This was not a riot. This was a violent uprising against the legislators in order to stop them from performing the Constitutional requirement to count the electoral votes. This is the very definition of an insurrection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 ( talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with calling this a coup or insurrection. Media headlines often exaggerate things to attract the attention of the readers to the article.The words “coup” or “insurrection” are more likely to attract attention than simply stating the capitol was “stormed”. Based on the evidence, this was mob of people from a variety of groups. It doesn’t appear to have had an organized leadership, and had no intention of overthrowing the US government, simply to disrupt the vote count. The theft of labtops was probably by conspiracy theorists trying to confirm they were right. Many members of the mob seem to have just contented themselves with vandalism, with several pieces of artwork representing historical figures from both the left and the right targeted. This indicates the goal was general destruction rather than targeting paintings and statues of people associated with one side of the political spectrum. In any case, we cannot simply speculate or exaggerate details like the media. We need reliable, unbiased sources, which will presumably become available as time goes on and the investigation reveals its findings. Investigation is still underway, and it could be awhile before we get any concrete answers. I say we leave the title of the article as is for now. Anasaitis ( talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Somedifferentstuff: your proposal is worded using "domestic attack". This generally refers to domestic violence. It's an unfortunate coincidence. I don't think anyone but you has or would support including "domestic" for this reason, and for the reason of that exact phrase not being supported by reliable sources, and for not being concise either. What do you think about this assessment? — Alalch Emis 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In the sections above, "coup" is more widely used internationally. On the other hand, it seems that "insurrection" is more prominent in English sources and in use among US politicians. "Storm" does not appear to be more popular than the other two, though it appears frequently in German media.-- WMrapids ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.... an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Also, Biden used that term.
A coup is a quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.... a sudden violent or illegal seizure of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I really apologize if I'm in the wrong section, I'm really rarely contributing to Wikipedia as a whole, I just wanted to point out some thoughts on the naming convention for this article:
So the naming convention of the article I would support, one way or the other, would be simply something that is consistent with other articles that already exist LutherVinci ( talk) 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
European officials are now saying that Trump received assistance with establishing supporters within the Capitol. Security officials from Europe stated they train with US federal forces and that "it's obvious that large parts of any successful plan were just ignored". This is interesting as one argument regarding the definition of "coup" is that it requires assistance from armed branches of the government.-- WMrapids ( talk) 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
While the previous move was closed with the recommendation to wait about a week, we are now about three days after the event. After reviewing more recent sources, it seems that the term "insurrection" has been determined to be the most common term. CNN is even hosting a special titled "The Trump Insurrection". Any opinions on this?-- WMrapids ( talk) 12:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
What is an insurrection? "Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers." [26] How is the occupation of the capitol "violence against the state or its officers"? Certainly, it is the primary inflammatory term associated with the event. But is it accurate? Jrb1tx ( talk) 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It is very accurate.... many news used the word, "insurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F ( talk) 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, insurrection is the term most used by reliable sources. Only Fox news calls it a "storming" in attempts to romanticise the event and build support for a Trump pardon for the participants. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 13:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that the decision was to wait for a week to see what the event is to be referred as. Many reliable sources started using the word "insurrection" at the Capitol more consistency now. I assume at some point, the article will be moved to 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol, right? Here are just a few examples:
An important reliable source is from the the Congress. The Article of Impeachment describes the event as an insurrection which had 4 elements in it: [39] [40]
I think the word breaching is similar to the current word "storming" that is used as the title. That is just one element of the overall event in which it is known in the article as an insurrection. By leaving the title to just one element of the event, it may not capture the overall picture of what it is as many reliable sources now describe the overall event than just as the "storming" part of it. Z22 ( talk) 19:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The second Trump impeachment WAS for him "inciting an insurrection" and it is now in the history books. So how is this not the most appropriate description for what happened at the Capitol now? RobP ( talk) 07:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I am looking at this new article in CNN, Investigators looking into planning of Capitol riot. Indeed, it is highly probable that the planning and participation involved well prepared groups of rioters in all gear (they even brought restraints to capture the members of Congress, just as they wanted to capture the Michigan governor), some police (who did not stop the mob and allowed everyone to leave when the rioters realized that lawmakers are gone), possibly some Pentagon officials (who did not sent the guard even after the request by DC mayor), and possibly even Republican lawmakers and the president. There is a lot of chat about it, including even some analysis by Michael Moore and separately by Yuri Shvets who is definitely an expert ( here (Russian)). The purpose of the coup was to prevent the inauguration of new president. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a coup. When this was taking place, lots of names were used. Now, I don't see coup used a lot or at all. These leads me to believe that WP:RS reliable sources dictate we not use coup. The same thing with assassination. Now there's a news report that someone wrote on social media about assassinating AOC. Terrible. However, that does NOT mean this article should be retitled "2021 Assassination attempt on AOC in the Capitol".
Vowvo (
talk)
23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I am a native French speaker, and it seems that some French newspapers in the list above don't actually qualify this event as a coup, but as a « coup de force », which Wiktionary defines as “A suddent, violent act.” The word “coup” in English would be translated as « coup d’état » instead. The affected sources are Le monde diplomatique (both), BFM TV, Orange, Euronews, Ouest-France, and La Voix du Nord (which uses « coup d’état » in citations only). Also, I couldn’t verify the citation for the France Info article, “Pro-Trump coup” is just « États-Unis » in the title of the article on my computer. In fact, the article says that « Didier Combeau estime qu’il s’agit plus “d’une manifestation d’extrémistes peu nombreux” qu’une tentative [ sic] coup d’État » (“Didier Combeau believes that it is more “a menifestation of few extremists’ than a coup attempt.”) Nicolapps ( talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Please remember that news outlets use sensational words to describe an event in order to get the attention of the viewers. Those that were protesting wanted their voice to be heard. Just a portion of the people that attended the demonstration were violent. Most of if not all of the priceless works of art were untouched. There were many videos of people in the capital just mulling around like they were on a guided tour. Almost in awe of their surroundings. The love of their country and their freedoms brought them to the capital. Many did not heed the words of the president when he asked his supporters to be peaceful. If it was a coup, who was the one calling for it? If it was an insurrection where is the evidence. The news outlets use those terms, but they do not provide any proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBehaving ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
|
@WMrapids as your source says, mobilizing federal agents would be a coup, and I would agree, because again that would be actions by elite authorities (even if not technically military). As you pointed out, that is "almost" what happened on January 6, but ultimately federal agents were deployed to recapture the Capital and arrest the rioters, and therefore no elites were involved in the insurrection. LutherVinci ( talk) 18:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Time to change the headline
-- Caffoti ( talk) 23:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
One more important distinction, no one has been arrested and/or charged with the crime of treason, insurrection, or for a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.167.165 ( talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The unsigned comment above is simply not true. Famously, the president of the United States has been charged with the crime of "insurrection of the United States" when he was impeached by the US House of Representatives. Univremonster ( talk) 02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we keep the "2021" in the upcoming title "Insurrection at the United States Capitol" (i.e. it would be titled "2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol")?
BobTheBob45 ( talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the proposals to rename the page as the " 2021 insurrection of the United States Capitol. Most media outlets have now switched the term "insurrection" over "storming" and Congress has officially adopted the term in their articles of impeachment ("incitement of insurrection"). It would therefore make sense for Wikipedia to fall in line with this more accurate consistency. Golfpecks256 ( talk) 13:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
[43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 ( talk) 14:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to consider using list-defined references on this article. I've noticed a lot of references get orphaned due to editor error, and list-defined references mitigate this issue. Additionally, list-defined refs help make the Wikitext more readable. Any thoughts? Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This RFC is meant to gain consensus for a follow-on Wikipedia:RM. The current title was, per the closer, a temporary solution. Current discussion and a currently open move request concerns the use of riot, attack, or storming. I would ask that you vote on the following choices and, if you favor two or more, to rank your votes.
Second, a yes or no question:
There was a typo, has been fixed
|
---|
|
I think this RFC should be closed. We have a RM discussion above. Then someone added a table. Then someone closed the table. Then someone opened it again. This RFC asks the same question as the table, just in a different format. It will only make the discussion even less focused. — Chrisahn ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table is more easy to read, the RFC does not include "insurrection".... it should be added to Choice D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Should 2021 United States Capitol insurrection redirect here? They are both about the same topic anyways. - Cilabsuhsk ( talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Day of Broken Glass. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Day of Broken Glass until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
They are becoming a distraction. -- Robertiki ( talk) 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not a article page. I ask the editors to remove the collapse templates they put in. -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:00, 26 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: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss and displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind." [1]
to: Staffers reported that Trump had been "impossible to talk to throughout the day", and that his inability to deal with his election loss had, according to one staffer, made Trump "out of his mind." [2]
reason: The prior citation improperly stated that during the CNN broadcast Jim Acosta had stated that Trump's displeasure that his supporters were unsuccessful in overturning the result by force was a reason why Trump was out of his mind according to a white house staffer. I have provided the citation to Jim Acosta's original broadcast on CNN to support the rest of the sentence. That broadcast does not include the white house staffer talking about Trump's supporters' attempt to overturn the election result. 65.130.60.135 ( talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Publius V Publicola ( talk) 05:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I see at least two 'excessive citation' tags in the infobox, neither of which follow a string of citations, so I'm curious if the tags still apply. Shall we remove? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Every media outlet has reported in a statement by the FBI that there is evidence the assault on Capital Hill on January 6th 2021 was pre-planned. Few actors have been revealed. It is misinformation on the part of Wikipedia to publish a blanket statement that this assault was carried out by an angry mob of Donald Trump supporters. One man, John Sullivan, who posted numerous videos on fb and twitter under his moniker "InsurrectionUSA" was instructional videos with specific details on what to do on January 6th. Time. What to wear. What to bring. When and where to meet. He was arrest and charged with inciting something that day, and released without bail. Jillnage ( talk) 18:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide a source? I read something similar on a Politico article but the FBI affidavit it uses as a source doesn't claim that. it says that the Proud Boys planned to attend the demonstration and that some were seen with what seemed to be communication devices (probably cellphones with earbuds). Their leader asked members to wear black according although it's unclear if they actually did. And John Sullivan is a left-wing activist who apparently came alone. His videos were taken at the Capitol not beforehand. TFD ( talk) 00:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead of this article is seven paragraphs. The general rule for lead lengths is no longer than four paragraphs. The main body of text, that is, the lead plus the sections minus the references takes up about 50% of the whole page. The lead is severely bloated compared to how much body there is. The lead is way larger than all the other subsections respectively. A correct size would probably be 2-3 paragraphs. Writing this much in the lead may be motivated by some editors to introduce as much bias as possible where most people (only) read. Lukan27 ( talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
With a subject this complex, I think having a lead that's a little longer than normal is probably ok. See the edit history of the article Brexit as an example. The brexit article at one time had a very long lead and over time was eventually shortened after continuous review and the article being broken out into sub articles. This article is similar and also deals with a complex subject and as such having a longer lead is necessary to properly address all the issues dealing with the event. Over time and as the article content is broken out into sub-articles or condensed then it will become clearer how to make the lead more concise. For now, the longer lead helps readers summarize the relevant issues raised by the article. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 22:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that a lead section slightly longer than 4 paragraphs is not necessarily an issue now. I'd like to point out, however, that the lead right now could likely be condensed into 4-5 paragraphs just by reorganizing and combining information into clearly delineated paragraphs. I've tried to do so in my suggestion below - I've done a few things including condensed/shortened some sentences, as well as reorganized it by topic. Please note I've removed references from this to enable it to be more easily viewed on this talkpage - they'd have to be worked in if my suggestion is considered good. The loose organization of my proposed lead is this: overall summary > specific events > response > reaction. The only information/sentences I intentionally left out of this "new lead" are duplication of information - such as the fact that the looting is discussed in three separate points. If I left out any other sentences/information in this reorganization, please feel free to add it or edit as you see fit. My point here is to show that the information in the lead can all be kept while reorganizing allows it to flow better and fit a four paragraph lead - which can be extended to five if people feel necessary. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, while the 117th United States Congress was meeting to certify the electoral college victory of President-elect Joe Biden. Part of a series of wider protests of the 2020 election results, the riot consisted of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president of thee United States, in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the election. Upon outside security being breached, Capitol Police evacuated the Senate and House of Representative chambers, and several other buildings in the complex were also evacuated or locked down. Rioters, who were called to action by Trump by claims the election had been "stolen" from him, stormed the building and occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours. Many of the rioters became violent, assaulting Capitol Police officers and reporters, erecting a gallows on the grounds, and attempting to locate lawmakers (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) to take hostage and/or harm.
On the morning of January 6, thousands of Trump's supporters gathered in Washington D.C. for a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, where Trump repeated his false claims of election irregularities and encouraged the crowd to "fight like hell". Rioters, encouraged by Trump, walked to the Capitol in an attempt to encourage Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results of the Electoral College vote, which he lacked the constitutional authority to do. Rioters blamed Mike Pence for not attempting to override the Electoral College votes, and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" during the breach. Once inside the building, the empty Senate chamber was occupied by rioters, and federal law enforcement officers defended the evacuated House floor with handguns. Multiple improvised explosive devices were found near the Capitol grounds, in a nearby vehicle, as well as at the respective offices of the Democratic and Republican national committees. Multiple office spaces within the Capitol building were looted, including that of the House Speaker and other lawmakers. Five people died during the riot and occupation of the Capitol building, including 4 rioters and one police officer.
Trump initially resisted activating the D.C. National Guard to quell the mob of rioters, and in a Twitter video called the rioters "very special" and told them to "go home in peace" while repeating his false claims of a "stolen" election. After several hours, the Capitol was cleared of rioters by mid-evening, and the counting of electoral votes resumed and continued until its completion in the early morning hours of the next day. This was followed by Mike Pence declaring Biden the President-elect and Kamala Harris the Vice President-elect and affirming that the pair would assume office on January 20. After pressure from his administration, including the threat of removal from office and multiple resignations by his cabinet, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a televised statement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation later opened at least 170 investigations into participants in the events, and indicated that many more are likely to be initiated. Members of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government paramilitary group, were indicted on conspiracy charges for their allegedly planning the mission in advance. Dozens more who were involved have been found to be listed in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, most as suspected white supremacists.
The events were widely condemned by political leaders and organizations in the United States and internationally. Mitch McConnell (R–KY), Senate Majority Leader, called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection" provoked by the president's "lies" and said that the Senate "will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation". Several social media and technology companies suspended or banned Trump's accounts from their platforms, and many business organizations cut ties with him. A week after the riot, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for "incitement of insurrection", making him the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. Opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans disapproved of the riot and storming, and of Trump's actions prior to, during, and following the event.
Collapsed: unproductive discussion
|
---|
|
A procedural detail: Since this page has several daughter pages, a move request for this page should be a {{ multi-move request}}. See WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages.
For example, if there is a request to move this page to 2021 United States Capitol XYZ, the wikitext for this request should look like this:
{{subst:Requested move|2021 United States Capitol XYZ|reason= ... |current2 = Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new2 = Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ |current3 = Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new3 = Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ |current4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new4 = Domestic reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ |current5 = International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol |new5 = International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol XYZ }}
— Chrisahn ( talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The far-right group Proud Boys have tried to downplay their role in the Capitol riot. The Proud Boys are a paramilitary group with ties to Trump operative Roger Stone. They have long been some of Trump’s most vocal, and violent, supporters, and he has returned the favor, telling them during one of the presidential debates to “stand back and stand by.” - Enrique Tarrio, Proud chairman, "standing by sir", close friend of Roger Stone, arrested by Washington, D.C. police on 4 January 2021
A WSJ Investigation shows that at many of the day’s key moments, "Proud Boys" were at the center and forefront. 7 of their members have been arrested. So far.
The rioting at the Capitol was a planned attack, involving Antifa, involving the Capitol police who were caught on camera directing the "rioters" and opening the fencing so they could enter. This was a planned attack to give the powers to be another fake reason to try and impeach President Donald J Trump. President Trump NEVER said to his supporters to storm the Capitol, that is a lie that he incited the riot. He instructed and asked for a peaceful march showing unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.46.247 ( talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Shortened overlong heading. Qexigator ( talk) 10:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Before the next more name change discussion gets going, we could recall that the current name was adopted in the first hours of intensive input to the article, from the time when the article was opened at 18:34 on 6 January as a one-liner: "On January 6, 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election."
Qexigator ( talk) 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) minor update edit 21:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Coup d'état#Post discussion comment.
Beneficii (
talk)
05:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a forum to share your views, theories, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article leaves out very important facts, such as the presence of antifa and the Capitol Police inviting people to enter the Capitol, all of which has been captured on video. Where are the sources to prove the allegations that President Trump "was initially pleased" by the breach? He never said that. He always said to remain peaceful. This article should never have been published without verification of information and fair coverage of ALL the facts. 97.124.193.59 ( talk) 01:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Please help me fix the please see template. I’m not sure what happened.— Beneficii ( talk) 05:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
As an effort to move this process forward, I would ask assistance from editors in making a move request on United States Capitol attack as strong as possible. Below is my draft. I think it is clear that attack has some support, and it is the most likely alternative. I suggest that we work together to make it a strong request and allow this exercise in consensus building to come to a close.
A note for whoever closes this move request. Many editors desire a moratorium on move requests. I would suggest this will short circuit the process to build consensus and is not needed. I intend to offer the move request below, with edits from other editors when the current move request closes. A moratorium simply delays the process of building a lasting consensus. Casprings ( talk) 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Draft Move Request for 2021 United States Capitol attack
Reasons to use the verb "attack." 1. Attack meets Wikipedia:COMMONNAME better than any other verb. Using a google news search and only looking at the titles, one can see that writers use the term attack in WP:RS news sources more than other words. One note on methodology, I think only searching in the title is the best means to understand what WP:RS are naming the event. · attack is used 193,000 times · Riot used 67,700 times · insurrection used 15,400 times · storming used 6,340 times 2. Attack is inherently a neutral word but captures the significance of the event. Attacks can be negative or positive, depending on the circumstances—for example, the Attack on Pearl Harbor versus Art Attack. In sum, attack best meets WP:NPV. Reasons not to use "storm." 1. As the results show, storm is a terrible choice for Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. 2. Storm is not the right choice for WP:NPV. First, I would note the connection of the word storm to QAnon. QAnon believed that the storm was coming. In that, they believed there would be a violent period of arrests of Democratic leaders. Given that, the use of a related word is out of place. Especially when QAnon supports were so involved in the event and seemed to attempt to capture or harm Congress members and the vice President. Second, I would note the links in the media between the event and Storming of the Bastille. For example, a quote from the New York Times, here.
Given the historical circumstances positive connections with the stroming of the Bastille, this is is not NPV. |
I agree that we should prepare the next move request together, but our focus must be on the process, not on particular arguments for certain outcomes. The current RM went off the rails because we kept changing the process during the discussion. Here are some quotes from the essay WP:Settle the process first:
I think the first part describes quite well what happened with the current RM, and the last sentence tells us what we have to do to avoid repeating this mess: agree on the process before we start the discussion. — Chrisahn ( talk) 01:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Casprings: I disagree that WP:NOYEAR applies here; I think that per WP:NCE the year should be included, at least until it is clear with historic perspective (something we don't have yet and will not for years) that this event has the lasting significance that some people think it will. But ultimately I think that boils down to a difference of opinion: I do not think there are strong policy arguments either way. What if you invited feedback on inclusion of the year in the draft RM rather than explicitly supporting either inclusion or exclusion of the year in the RM proposal? VQuakr ( talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Trying to make the move request "as strong as possible" by adding arguments to the initial text is unlikely to have the intended effect. All arguments have already been put forth in the previous move requests. If there is a new move request, it should simply indicate the requested title and link to the previous move requests Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11#Requested move 16 January 2021 and #Requested move 23 January 2021. I'm pretty sure most users who will comment on the move request have already seen all arguments. No need to repeat them. — Chrisahn ( talk) 05:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack". According to the consensus table, this was favoured even over the current title, both by ratio and raw "votes". There was also some fairly strong opinion against the current title from an argumentative perspective, and as such it would make sense to me to open another RM on the attack title, and let people voice their opinions on it directly. Before that happens, however, we should probably settle the question of whether to include the year in the proposal.
I continue to support including the year, for the title 2021 United States Capitol attack. To reiterate my argument above; "there have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE."
However, if there is going to be another RM, we should probably ensure that it is worded in the manner that the most editors agree on, so that we don't devolve into additional option wrangling, and the RM can proceed with the name change that is most agreeable and likely to succeed over the current article title. BlackholeWA ( talk) 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was sudden, and the closer didn't take into account any of the alternative names or arguments. But it was a messy process anyway. One thing is clear though; the alternative name that got the most support was "[2021] United States Capitol attack".I actually did take this into account when I closed the RM, but still believe that there wasn't sufficient consensus to move forward with that suggested name. I was torn on whether or not to close the RM procedurally, as not moved, or as no consensus. The difference between any of those options is immaterial, in any case. One thing that I'll add is that this RM was procedurally flawed from the start. If there's a rough consensus for a name before another RM is opened on the topic (a straw poll would be helpful, in that respect), I think that it will have a much better chance at success. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Edited the above, per comments in this section. I also put the above close in move review. If there is consensus to post the above more request, lets do it. Move review takes forever. Casprings ( talk) 14:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Several hours ago, the RM was closed. Now it's opened again, but the date of the RM has changed. I can't follow what's going on, so I can only imagine how someone new to this page might feel. Could an admin provide some clarity to the chaos, perhaps in an obvious location? Moncrief ( talk) 16:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry for the delayed response. Internet has been out for the past day, so trying to work around that with
my IRL job has been an absolute nightmare to deal with that ate up all of my time yesterday and today. To answer some questions about this RM: I self-reverted my closure because I felt in hindsight that I may have acted in error and went against
WP:RMCI with my close, which wasn't my intention at all. When I relisted the RM, I accidentally forgot to change the date back to its original end date when I was trying to un-break the RM so the bot would list it. I seriously appreciate
Chrisahn fixing the header for me. Finally, I don't envy the next closer that's going to have to try to navigate this nightmare of an RM to find some semblance of consensus. Whoever wants to take that role on is definitely going to earn a barnstar from me (and a pint, if I were to run into them at a meetup).
OhKayeSierra (
talk)
01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should edit the page to show there have been 7 deaths from this event after a second Capitol Police officer died by suicide. It is a direct result of the event. What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slusho815 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Trump terrorist attack. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 29#Trump terrorist attack until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ―
Tartan357
Talk
02:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol – No year is necessary to disambiguate. Falls under WP:NOYEAR, while all the debate over what exactly the should be, we could at least attempt to get consensus on fixing the name to something that could work until consensus is reached. BigCheese76 ( talk) 14:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there any more information on those two suicides? As soon as it is known, it would be good to say what exactly the link is. I don't want to speculate, but I can think of three different ways that the event could conceivably lead to a suicide - and it is also possible that they killed themselves for quite unrelated reasons. It may have to wait for results of an inquest, but if possible the article should clarify. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 18:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories) which suggest that the inclusion of their otherwise private names in the article is not necessary or prudent at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Any reason why that was put away? I think it is still current, and had some good discussion around the phrasing of a new RM request. Chances are either the current RM will end in no consensus to move to the riot article - in which case the follow-on RM would be relevant - or the closer will want to move it to one of the table titles, in which case the discussion in the "follow-on" draft would also be relevant because it discussed the best phrasings. Maybe should be considered a part of the current RM discussion. BlackholeWA ( talk) 06:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This wikipedia article links to an intercept article - https://theintercept.com/2021/01/11/capitol-plot-andy-biggs-paul-gosar/
I would like another of Mr. Alexander's quoted statements added to the page from that article; he wanted to put "maximum pressure" on congress. A longer version of the quote is "putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting." He also uses the word "schemed," in describing his actions, which I find interesting and relevant to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCFMSTB ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
“The news” is now saying there were 40k people at the rally. Can we please get some facts on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
If I knew that I wouldn’t be on here trying to get real facts :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The domestic reactions talk page still has the same peen issues as the day it was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 15:10, 31 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. |
Not sure why the article states that the "The Associated Press attributed the extremism that fueled the 2021 riot to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns". That may be *an* underlying cause, but not the main reason that Trump supporters stormed the capitol. To attribute it to dissatisfaction over Covid lockdown is misleading.
The AP attributed the storming of the capitol as being "fervent Trump fans" ... "summoned by President Donald Trump to march on Washington in support of his false claim that the November election was stolen and to stop the congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden as the victor."
Source - AP News: [1]
An underlying cause might conceivably be the Covid pandemic lockdown dissatisfaction, but the main and foremost reason behind Trump extremists storming the capitol was (in their mind) "stopping the steal" - which was fueled and reiterated by Trump himself just a short while before he asked them to march to the capitol. He continues the stole election claim even now at this writing. Drlmstanton100 ( talk) 17:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Experts say it was the culmination of years of increasing radicalization and partisanship, combined with a growing fascination with paramilitary groups and a global pandemic.COVID has surely been a factor, but they wouldn't have shown up to the Capitol if not for years of radicalization, or if Trump had won the election. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
QUESTION: Is the following NYT News (01/31/2021) edit worth adding to the main article - or Not?
On January 31, 2021, a detailed overview of the attempt to subvert the election of the United States was published in The New York Times. [1] [2]
References
- ^ Rutenberg, Jim; Becker, Jo; Lipton, Eric; Haberman, Maggie; Martin, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Matthew; Schmidt, Michael S. (January 31, 2021). "77 Days: Trump's Campaign to Subvert the Election - Hours after the United States voted, the president declared the election a fraud — a lie that unleashed a movement that would shatter democratic norms and upend the peaceful transfer of power". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
- ^ Rosenberg, Matthew; Rutenberg, Jim (February 1, 2021). "Key Takeaways From Trump's Effort to Overturn the Election - A Times examination of the 77 days between election and inauguration shows how a lie the former president had been grooming for years overwhelmed the Republican Party and stoked the assault on the Capitol". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff I rewrote the 1st paragraph to include notability in the lead
WP:MOSLEAD, as it's not soon apparent from reading the long lead what is the significance of the event in broader context (
diff). Why don't you think it's an improvement? The biggest problem is the sentence: "The riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and five deaths." It's a tautology, that isn't what the event led to – it's what the event was. It's an attempt to stick to the usual form of the first paragraph (the obligatory "the event led to ..."), while not addressing notability. The first paragraph doesn't even state that the attempt failed /it does now actually/. The other changes were more stylistic.
— Alalch Emis (
talk)
18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a detailed study of the people involved and may be a useful citation. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
EXCERPTS "Capitol Rioters...a mob of about 800 stormed the U.S. Capitol.... many people made quick assumptions regarding who the insurrectionists were... a number of the rioters prominently displayed symbols ...the attack on the Capitol was unmistakably an act of political violence, not merely an exercise in vandalism or trespassing amid a disorderly protest that had spiraled out of control. ... a large majority of suspects in the Capitol riot have no connection to existing...violent organizations...most of the insurrectionists do not come from deep-red strongholds. People familiar with America’s political geography might imagine the Capitol rioters as having marinated in places where they are unlikely to encounter anyone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Yet of those arrested for their role in the Capitol riot, more than half came from counties that Biden won; one-sixth came from counties that Trump won with less than 60 percent of the vote.... If you presumed that only the reddest parts of America produce potential insurrectionists, you would be incorrect....We found that 39 percent of suspected insurrectionists came from battleground counties, where Trump received 40 to 60 percent of the vote; 12 percent came from counties where less than 60 percent of the population is white. ... A third of suspected insurrectionists come from such counties; another quarter come from suburban counties of large metro areas...."
While perhaps not all readers will find documents filed in connection with the trial wholly convincing, the outcome of this or the next RM, or the text of the article, may be influenced by the wording used, such as in the House Trial Memorandum. [52]
'After storming through the barricades surrounding the building, rioters laid siege to the Capitol itself'
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Qexigator ( talk) 00:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The text states in the section about the Senate adjourning: "Several members of Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's staff carried the boxes of Electoral College votes and documentation out of the chamber to hidden safe rooms within the building" suggesting that the electoral college votes were being kept in the Senate chamber at that time. Then later in the section about the House adjourning: " Staff members removed boxes of sealed electoral vote certificates to prevent them from being damaged or stolen by rioters." suggesting that they were instead being kept in the House chamber.
These two statements are seemingly contradictory. What am I missing here? Were multiple sets being kept around? Were they moved from one chamber to the other? Were half kept in one chamber and half in the other? Or is one of the two mistaken? effeiets anders 08:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)