![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() | 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 "s" to "S" in the article title RELEASEtheRHYS ( talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
2021 storming of the United States Capitol → The Trump insurrection – This was not a "storming", or a "protest" or even a "riot", but an armed insurrection. Several news outlets are now referring to this incident as "The Trump insurrection". I think it's a more descriptive and historical title to the event, for historys sake. This is particularly true given that the participants erected a gallows outside the capital with clear intent to lynch someone. Several of the participants carried zip cuffs with clear intent to take hostages, possibly with the intent to lynch someone outside the building. The proposed title is more accurate of the event and is more concise and historical of this event Octoberwoodland ( talk) 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In this article (compliments to all the editors) it states that the fatality ..."was shot by law enforcement "... whilst in the specific article Ashli Babbitt it says ...It is unclear who shot her.... with both being referenced. Until it is clear who shot the woman should this article read that it is unclear. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 09:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
hello, I'm not good at editing the page or I would try. I hav an issue with the "tally marks" section. the death is listed under United States government. it is noted that the loss is a former U.S.A.F. member, which would make her part of the us government, BUT she was also shot because she was part of the "storm" which would make her casualty on the left side of the "tally marks" section. I wish I had better vocabulary, but as a donator to this site, I'd like to think it is accurately portrayed. I use it for information, and falsely labeled information causes a loss in faith. 32ashu ( talk) 14:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)32ashu
WP needs to (for obvious reasons) be superhumanly careful with these three words. They may fit, but they could quickly be editorialized and get out of hand. Whereas, I, a regular "dude" may find them appropriate; WP may (and some users) take odds or offense with their inclusion. But, let's face facts, if "coup" or "attempted coup" and "insurrection" are proper terms, we can only assume the "treason" and "sedition" may equally work as well. I'm not saying this because the words are used heavily (or at all) in the main article; I'm saying this because I want WP to simply "be careful, and let calmer editors prevail." The dust must settle, fuller perspectives will shine through like a beacon, and the truth will win the day.
America will rebound from these events. The Union is stronger than a rabble storming a building, after all. Thank you for reading this. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion might be of interest to the editors of this page: Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States § Attack on the United States Capitol (2021). -- MarioGom ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
They are no protestors neither terrorists. They were far-right crowd that attempted to make a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As I can't touch modern American political articles, I ask someone else correct this purely physical error. Article says she was shot by "law enforcement officers" (those who drew handguns are also called "guards"), later died of "injuries". Sources generally say she was only injured once by a single US Capitol Police officer, per Chief Robert J. Contee III in at least one of nine existing citations. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
( talk) 09:52 8 January 2021 (EST)
Please include if anyone sees fit:
Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Nazi sympathizers and terrorist would be more in order. weapons and bombs found? need more proof? 37.188.243.3 ( talk) 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, some rioters were neo-nazis. Some were also neo-confederates. Some were "proud boys". Some were neither of those three and just generic Trump supporters. The fact that neo-nazis were present should be in the article, but in a list of the types of participants, rather than as an adjective describing them all. If the facts and reliable sources show that some, yet not all, of the rioters were neo-nazis, then that is what this article should say. Caleb M1 ( talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"Top to bottom, left to right: Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to supporters at the "Save America" rally, protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza"
Was there a Black Lives Matter protest occuring at the same time as the events described in this article? Can someone tell me why the Black Lives Matter image and caption have been included? It's incongruous and genuinely confusing; it gives the impression the storming of the Capitol and Black Lives Matter protests are somehow connected. Thanks. Anotheranothername ( talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Doh, reading comprehension failure. Thanks for the reply. Anotheranothername ( talk) 21:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/ Zhould be incorporated into the sources. 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:48DB:C29A:9C27:7E77 ( talk) 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the following:
The Proud Boys posted messages boasting and taking credit for causing "absolute terror". [1]
The source says:
… the Proud Boys openly supported the Capitol insurrection. "Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots."
Support for is not "taking credit for".
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified
— Telegram
Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots.
— Parler
Being in the UK, I don't plan to edit this article directly, but I'd like to raise a key omissions as I see it. It relates to Trump's clear encouragement of the rally-goers (rioters-to-be) to march on the Capitol buildings, and was in videos of his speech in the earlier rally that day. The key section, which evidences how they were incited to leave the rally and 'progress' to the government buildings, seems to be: "After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol,... and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.” [1] [2] Perhaps the second part isn't so essential, but the first part seems highly relevant to the background to the rioting. (and just commenting that Trump did not go with them, but returned to the White House, I believe, to watch events unfold on TV). Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
References
"Multiple European security officials told Insider that President Donald Trump appeared to have tacit support among US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex in Wednesday's coup attempt."
Count Iblis ( talk) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I oppose these additions. Those are very, very serious allegations to make, which could border on libel. I say we need to have confirmation from many reliable sources (which Business Insider is not) to add this allegation. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) ( talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@ EEng: No, certainly not joking. This is an article about an event; photographs of people in which everything but the face and upper body is cropped out – leaving no contextual information, no sense of where or when the photographs were taken, nor who these people are or what role they played – plainly tell the reader nothing useful. They're also a clear WP:BLPCRIME violation, explicitly linking low-profile living people who have not been convicted of crimes to criminal activity. It's such an obvious point that WP:NOT doesn't cover it, but Wikipedia is not for aiding the police in their investigations (even if it appears they could do with all the help they can get!). – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
One thing that feels missing to me from this article is an explanation of the very visible iconography used by rioters to help explain who they were, which groups they belong to and speak to their motivations. E.g blue lives matter flags, people dressed as vikings (white supremacists who want 'racial purity', a whites only America), the use of the 6MWE slogan (6 million wasn't enough, referring to the wish for a second holocaust) and QAnon signs.
Can anyone suggest a structure for a section like this or any iconography that should be included? Here are some references
Vikings
6WME
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone agree that “2021 storming of the US Capitol” is quite a mouthful for a article title? I propose naming it to
“2021 US Capitol Siege”
thoughts? Bruhmoney77 ( talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
United States Capitol Insurrection. Straightforward, fits the dictionary definition better than any alternative, is supported by sources. Adding a date not required (for now). Macktheknifeau ( talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose that we revise the following line which implies a conclusion drawn on inadequate evidence (specifically the word "allowing" is an interpretation that has not been substantiated):
Footage emerged on social media of police allowing rioters through barricades into the Capitol, and one officer was filmed taking a "selfie" with a rioter inside the building.
Per nbcnews:
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said he wants to give police "the benefit of the doubt" and hopes they were attempting to de-escalate Wednesday's event when they appeared to let pro-Trump rioters inside the legislative building.
"Sometimes when you don't have enough personnel, you can't stand and fight a large crowd like that," he said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, noting that there were not enough law enforcement personnel on scene.
Furthermore, per Politifact:
We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim.
Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”
Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat. 8.45.132.4 ( talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The "methods" section in the infobox lists murder, citing a New York Post article about the death of the policeman who was struck with a fire extinguisher. However, the article does not mention murder specifically, and the New York Post is considered to be an unreliable source per here. As such I believe murder should be removed from the infobox. Spengouli ( talk) 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Worth adding?
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM6h9elyTY Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed a grid of "Persons sought by police and the FBI in connection with the attack" and a "Photo of the suspected pipe bomber" per WP:BLPCRIME. We absolutely should not be publishing these photos until the people have at least been charged with crimes, if not convicted. Does no one remember what happened with the Boston Marathon bombing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Have there been any reports that have given details about who it was that hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher? Like a description of the attacker? WakandaQT ( talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021
![]() | 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. |
Trump is a very bad man but in an encyclopedia we have to be entirely factual. No court judgment have been made stating claims were false. Instead, they were sometimes deemed unsubstantiated and sometimes dismissed without judicial comment. A false claim would be if the judge heard a case then Trump was found guilty of perjury for stating a false claim.
Current version, lede, 2nd paragraph Following several months of false claims by Trump about voting fraud in the November 2020 election, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to protest the certified election results and demand
Suggested, encyclopedia version Following several months of unsubstantiated claims by Trump about voting fraud Vanny089 ( talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Rewritten: despite the current status, users have edited over one another. The consensus is that the rate of editing should be decreased (see comments about "waiting until the dust has settled") rather than increased. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The section "Identification of rioters" has severe problems. I have already removed a reference to someone being there when the source said "someone resembling foo".
Other people in this section who are unlikely to have been in the building. And even people who were did not necessarily take part in the riot.
There are various options:
Comments? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
21:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684877634838528?s=20
I've added a minor section in the "aftermath" page but it should likely be expanded and possibly moved to a more appropriate location. Builder018 ( talk) 23:33, 8 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.
If it's called a coup attempt, howabout this title: 2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol Warlightyahoo ( talk) 00:04, 10 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.
Is there a place in the article to mention that, given that Congress is the exclusive source of authority for the Congressional officials who constitute the Capitol Police Board, it is remarkable that Senate and House members seem to be willing to blame anyone but themselves for the insufficiency of the Police deployment to secure the Capitol from the riotous break in? Qexigator ( talk) 00:11, 10 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.
If it's called a coup attempt, howabout this title: 2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol Warlightyahoo ( talk) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need so many citations in the lead? "The riots and storming of the Capitol have been described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." currently has six references on it, this seems excessive as it's clearly explained later in the article, too. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.This is a recent and controversial event, so erring on the side of caution by adding citations is probably the smartest move, at least in the short term. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This article was extended confirmed protected, but no longer has any protection. I think it should remain extended confirmed protected for the next two weeks at the very least, and at least semi-protected for the foreseeable future. -- Tataral ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I tried to do this edit but I’m on a mobile device and the page is so long it just freaked out.
Can you move the section where the sentence about the bombs to a different paragraph than all the deaths?
It’s really a separate thought and it’s getting lost. I expect overtime that the bombs will expand. As an editor it bothers me to have the two things together and I was trying to fix it but I could not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Improvements welcome to the newly created Template:2021 US Capitol Storming --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6476120/airmen-head-washington-dc Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:56, 9 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. |
"...he regretted committing to a orderly transition of power" should say "...he regretted committing to an orderly transition of power" Dmperrin ( talk) 01:26, 10 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.
I think its fair to say that Pence was a specific target for some of the protesters and I think the article should more clearly reflect that beyond mentioning him being evacuated with other members of congress. sources: https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/details-emerge-trump-instructed-mob-lynch-vice-president-mike-pence-not-overturning-election/, and the Parler message from Lin Wood quoted in this WaPo story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/trump-online-siege/. Also includes stuff like claiming Pence was a child molester. Clearly a larger theme of extreme Pro-Trumpers turning against Pence as part of the perceived establishment. Ive seen messages circulating of conspiracy theorists claiming Pence was replaced by a clone around 2018, though Im not sure that has been reported on by any reputable outlet beyond some verified journalists on Twitter. jonas ( talk) 23:17, 9 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.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Sentences like "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration" do not belong in this article because they will be removed soon, and replaced either with "The Department of Justice indicted..." or the DoJ won't.
There are many speculative sentences in this article that don't make sense in an encyclopedia. Before adding something, consider what it will look like in a few weeks DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:48, 9 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.
So the consensus position for naming is to equate a putsch by white supremacists with the precipitating event of a pro-democratic, liberal revolution? How can I request another formal renaming discussion? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 10:00, 9 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.
I might just be unable to find it, but should security preparations for the upcoming inauguration directly caused by this event be included? For example:
Crews also erected on the Capitol grounds tall, black metal fences designed to be impossible to climb. Similar structures have previously been used around the White House and in other cities that faced prolonged demonstrations. [1]
Roy Blunt, the Republican senator who chairs the congressional committee preparing for the inaugural ceremonies, has estimated that the number of participants who will be allowed into secure perimeter areas at the inauguration will be dramatically reduced to below 3,000, down from the 200,000 or so who are normally included. [2]
Or should they be included in the inauguration article itself? Juxlos ( talk) 13:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
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 person had an article but it was speedily deleted and supposed to be merged but was not merged.
Who is this person?????? Many news articles but I want a concise summary here on Wikipedia, the World's News Source.
The police officer who shot her has been suspended. Wikipedia needs at least a separate section on her in the article. Vanny089 ( talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's important to include the names of the protestors who were killed at the rally. Maybe not full biographies, but definitely include them. W33KeNdr ( talk) 19:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Very good reference
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55581206
It is is on the BBC
Vanny089 ( talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think an unarmed protestor being killed by the police at a rally is an important part of this story, and including their new had been a Wikipedia norm for all protests. W33KeNdr ( talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There's agreement that there's precedent for adding it, but the question is whether it's the correct organization. Given how long this article is becoming, it would be appropriate to move all the coverage and facts about the Babbit incident to a separate page. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I think a mention that an unarmed protestor was one of victims of police violence at the rally is extremely important. W33KeNdr ( talk) 21:33, 9 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.
I don't think this is really accurate or at least lacking context due to the 1954 United States Capitol shooting. I understand that overrun is different than attack, but I think the context is needed. Here is a source to back up [2] 3Kingdoms ( talk) 20:00, 7 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.
I think we can come up with a better name per Wikipedia:TITLE, I don't think you need the title for it. Also, I am not so sure about the word storming. Riots seem a little better. I will hold off on a move request, but I think something like United States Capitol Riots. Casprings ( talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think "protest" or "rally" are the most accurate. W33KeNdr ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It's claimed that the discussion has been closed, but I don't see where it was discussed or who decided it was closed. Given Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, not to mention QAnon's repeated use of "storm", I really don't think it's a neutral choice. -- Chronodm ( talk) 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Storming seems good but only for part of what happened. (Even then, it's important to think carefully as the unfolding of events becomes clearer.) Possibly occupation might be an alternative if one was wanted. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
07:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
United States Capitol Insurrection: Out of all the terms I've seen to describe it (riot, mob, storming, sedition, coup attempt) I feel they lack the specificity of insurrection, a term with a dictionary meaning of "violent uprising against authority or government" and one that also has legal ramifications in the United States via the Insurrection Act of 1807. Another point is does this need a year in the title? The insurrection act article doesn't seem to suggest any such major incidents at the Capitol that would warrant a pre-emptive disambiguation by adding a year to the title, and specific incidents rather than generalised titles (eg the nat turner slave rebellion, the selma to montgomery march and the george floyd protests) don't have a year in them. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
'storming' is commonly used for an event of civil disorder such as Storming of the Bastille, or the mob Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad [4] or Tehran [5] [6] while words such as 'insurrection' and 'coup' are politically loaded. On the day, the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was an act or event of civil disorder not amounting to an insurrection. It could be described as a mob invading the Capitol. While President Trump's speech-making, videos or twittering, could be part of an attempt to overturn the election, they were not acts of insurrection. Qexigator ( talk) 23:56, 8 January 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() | 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 "s" to "S" in the article title RELEASEtheRHYS ( talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
2021 storming of the United States Capitol → The Trump insurrection – This was not a "storming", or a "protest" or even a "riot", but an armed insurrection. Several news outlets are now referring to this incident as "The Trump insurrection". I think it's a more descriptive and historical title to the event, for historys sake. This is particularly true given that the participants erected a gallows outside the capital with clear intent to lynch someone. Several of the participants carried zip cuffs with clear intent to take hostages, possibly with the intent to lynch someone outside the building. The proposed title is more accurate of the event and is more concise and historical of this event Octoberwoodland ( talk) 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In this article (compliments to all the editors) it states that the fatality ..."was shot by law enforcement "... whilst in the specific article Ashli Babbitt it says ...It is unclear who shot her.... with both being referenced. Until it is clear who shot the woman should this article read that it is unclear. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 09:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
hello, I'm not good at editing the page or I would try. I hav an issue with the "tally marks" section. the death is listed under United States government. it is noted that the loss is a former U.S.A.F. member, which would make her part of the us government, BUT she was also shot because she was part of the "storm" which would make her casualty on the left side of the "tally marks" section. I wish I had better vocabulary, but as a donator to this site, I'd like to think it is accurately portrayed. I use it for information, and falsely labeled information causes a loss in faith. 32ashu ( talk) 14:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)32ashu
WP needs to (for obvious reasons) be superhumanly careful with these three words. They may fit, but they could quickly be editorialized and get out of hand. Whereas, I, a regular "dude" may find them appropriate; WP may (and some users) take odds or offense with their inclusion. But, let's face facts, if "coup" or "attempted coup" and "insurrection" are proper terms, we can only assume the "treason" and "sedition" may equally work as well. I'm not saying this because the words are used heavily (or at all) in the main article; I'm saying this because I want WP to simply "be careful, and let calmer editors prevail." The dust must settle, fuller perspectives will shine through like a beacon, and the truth will win the day.
America will rebound from these events. The Union is stronger than a rabble storming a building, after all. Thank you for reading this. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion might be of interest to the editors of this page: Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States § Attack on the United States Capitol (2021). -- MarioGom ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
They are no protestors neither terrorists. They were far-right crowd that attempted to make a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As I can't touch modern American political articles, I ask someone else correct this purely physical error. Article says she was shot by "law enforcement officers" (those who drew handguns are also called "guards"), later died of "injuries". Sources generally say she was only injured once by a single US Capitol Police officer, per Chief Robert J. Contee III in at least one of nine existing citations. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
( talk) 09:52 8 January 2021 (EST)
Please include if anyone sees fit:
Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Nazi sympathizers and terrorist would be more in order. weapons and bombs found? need more proof? 37.188.243.3 ( talk) 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, some rioters were neo-nazis. Some were also neo-confederates. Some were "proud boys". Some were neither of those three and just generic Trump supporters. The fact that neo-nazis were present should be in the article, but in a list of the types of participants, rather than as an adjective describing them all. If the facts and reliable sources show that some, yet not all, of the rioters were neo-nazis, then that is what this article should say. Caleb M1 ( talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"Top to bottom, left to right: Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to supporters at the "Save America" rally, protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza"
Was there a Black Lives Matter protest occuring at the same time as the events described in this article? Can someone tell me why the Black Lives Matter image and caption have been included? It's incongruous and genuinely confusing; it gives the impression the storming of the Capitol and Black Lives Matter protests are somehow connected. Thanks. Anotheranothername ( talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Doh, reading comprehension failure. Thanks for the reply. Anotheranothername ( talk) 21:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/ Zhould be incorporated into the sources. 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:48DB:C29A:9C27:7E77 ( talk) 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the following:
The Proud Boys posted messages boasting and taking credit for causing "absolute terror". [1]
The source says:
… the Proud Boys openly supported the Capitol insurrection. "Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots."
Support for is not "taking credit for".
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified
— Telegram
Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots.
— Parler
Being in the UK, I don't plan to edit this article directly, but I'd like to raise a key omissions as I see it. It relates to Trump's clear encouragement of the rally-goers (rioters-to-be) to march on the Capitol buildings, and was in videos of his speech in the earlier rally that day. The key section, which evidences how they were incited to leave the rally and 'progress' to the government buildings, seems to be: "After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol,... and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.” [1] [2] Perhaps the second part isn't so essential, but the first part seems highly relevant to the background to the rioting. (and just commenting that Trump did not go with them, but returned to the White House, I believe, to watch events unfold on TV). Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
References
"Multiple European security officials told Insider that President Donald Trump appeared to have tacit support among US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex in Wednesday's coup attempt."
Count Iblis ( talk) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I oppose these additions. Those are very, very serious allegations to make, which could border on libel. I say we need to have confirmation from many reliable sources (which Business Insider is not) to add this allegation. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) ( talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@ EEng: No, certainly not joking. This is an article about an event; photographs of people in which everything but the face and upper body is cropped out – leaving no contextual information, no sense of where or when the photographs were taken, nor who these people are or what role they played – plainly tell the reader nothing useful. They're also a clear WP:BLPCRIME violation, explicitly linking low-profile living people who have not been convicted of crimes to criminal activity. It's such an obvious point that WP:NOT doesn't cover it, but Wikipedia is not for aiding the police in their investigations (even if it appears they could do with all the help they can get!). – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
One thing that feels missing to me from this article is an explanation of the very visible iconography used by rioters to help explain who they were, which groups they belong to and speak to their motivations. E.g blue lives matter flags, people dressed as vikings (white supremacists who want 'racial purity', a whites only America), the use of the 6MWE slogan (6 million wasn't enough, referring to the wish for a second holocaust) and QAnon signs.
Can anyone suggest a structure for a section like this or any iconography that should be included? Here are some references
Vikings
6WME
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone agree that “2021 storming of the US Capitol” is quite a mouthful for a article title? I propose naming it to
“2021 US Capitol Siege”
thoughts? Bruhmoney77 ( talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
United States Capitol Insurrection. Straightforward, fits the dictionary definition better than any alternative, is supported by sources. Adding a date not required (for now). Macktheknifeau ( talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose that we revise the following line which implies a conclusion drawn on inadequate evidence (specifically the word "allowing" is an interpretation that has not been substantiated):
Footage emerged on social media of police allowing rioters through barricades into the Capitol, and one officer was filmed taking a "selfie" with a rioter inside the building.
Per nbcnews:
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said he wants to give police "the benefit of the doubt" and hopes they were attempting to de-escalate Wednesday's event when they appeared to let pro-Trump rioters inside the legislative building.
"Sometimes when you don't have enough personnel, you can't stand and fight a large crowd like that," he said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, noting that there were not enough law enforcement personnel on scene.
Furthermore, per Politifact:
We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim.
Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”
Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat. 8.45.132.4 ( talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The "methods" section in the infobox lists murder, citing a New York Post article about the death of the policeman who was struck with a fire extinguisher. However, the article does not mention murder specifically, and the New York Post is considered to be an unreliable source per here. As such I believe murder should be removed from the infobox. Spengouli ( talk) 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Worth adding?
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM6h9elyTY Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed a grid of "Persons sought by police and the FBI in connection with the attack" and a "Photo of the suspected pipe bomber" per WP:BLPCRIME. We absolutely should not be publishing these photos until the people have at least been charged with crimes, if not convicted. Does no one remember what happened with the Boston Marathon bombing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Have there been any reports that have given details about who it was that hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher? Like a description of the attacker? WakandaQT ( talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021
![]() | 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. |
Trump is a very bad man but in an encyclopedia we have to be entirely factual. No court judgment have been made stating claims were false. Instead, they were sometimes deemed unsubstantiated and sometimes dismissed without judicial comment. A false claim would be if the judge heard a case then Trump was found guilty of perjury for stating a false claim.
Current version, lede, 2nd paragraph Following several months of false claims by Trump about voting fraud in the November 2020 election, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to protest the certified election results and demand
Suggested, encyclopedia version Following several months of unsubstantiated claims by Trump about voting fraud Vanny089 ( talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Rewritten: despite the current status, users have edited over one another. The consensus is that the rate of editing should be decreased (see comments about "waiting until the dust has settled") rather than increased. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The section "Identification of rioters" has severe problems. I have already removed a reference to someone being there when the source said "someone resembling foo".
Other people in this section who are unlikely to have been in the building. And even people who were did not necessarily take part in the riot.
There are various options:
Comments? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
21:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684877634838528?s=20
I've added a minor section in the "aftermath" page but it should likely be expanded and possibly moved to a more appropriate location. Builder018 ( talk) 23:33, 8 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.
If it's called a coup attempt, howabout this title: 2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol Warlightyahoo ( talk) 00:04, 10 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.
Is there a place in the article to mention that, given that Congress is the exclusive source of authority for the Congressional officials who constitute the Capitol Police Board, it is remarkable that Senate and House members seem to be willing to blame anyone but themselves for the insufficiency of the Police deployment to secure the Capitol from the riotous break in? Qexigator ( talk) 00:11, 10 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.
If it's called a coup attempt, howabout this title: 2021 coup attempt at the United States Capitol Warlightyahoo ( talk) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need so many citations in the lead? "The riots and storming of the Capitol have been described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." currently has six references on it, this seems excessive as it's clearly explained later in the article, too. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.This is a recent and controversial event, so erring on the side of caution by adding citations is probably the smartest move, at least in the short term. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This article was extended confirmed protected, but no longer has any protection. I think it should remain extended confirmed protected for the next two weeks at the very least, and at least semi-protected for the foreseeable future. -- Tataral ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I tried to do this edit but I’m on a mobile device and the page is so long it just freaked out.
Can you move the section where the sentence about the bombs to a different paragraph than all the deaths?
It’s really a separate thought and it’s getting lost. I expect overtime that the bombs will expand. As an editor it bothers me to have the two things together and I was trying to fix it but I could not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.77.141 ( talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Improvements welcome to the newly created Template:2021 US Capitol Storming --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6476120/airmen-head-washington-dc Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:56, 9 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. |
"...he regretted committing to a orderly transition of power" should say "...he regretted committing to an orderly transition of power" Dmperrin ( talk) 01:26, 10 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.
I think its fair to say that Pence was a specific target for some of the protesters and I think the article should more clearly reflect that beyond mentioning him being evacuated with other members of congress. sources: https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/details-emerge-trump-instructed-mob-lynch-vice-president-mike-pence-not-overturning-election/, and the Parler message from Lin Wood quoted in this WaPo story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/trump-online-siege/. Also includes stuff like claiming Pence was a child molester. Clearly a larger theme of extreme Pro-Trumpers turning against Pence as part of the perceived establishment. Ive seen messages circulating of conspiracy theorists claiming Pence was replaced by a clone around 2018, though Im not sure that has been reported on by any reputable outlet beyond some verified journalists on Twitter. jonas ( talk) 23:17, 9 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.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Sentences like "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration" do not belong in this article because they will be removed soon, and replaced either with "The Department of Justice indicted..." or the DoJ won't.
There are many speculative sentences in this article that don't make sense in an encyclopedia. Before adding something, consider what it will look like in a few weeks DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:48, 9 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.
So the consensus position for naming is to equate a putsch by white supremacists with the precipitating event of a pro-democratic, liberal revolution? How can I request another formal renaming discussion? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 10:00, 9 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.
I might just be unable to find it, but should security preparations for the upcoming inauguration directly caused by this event be included? For example:
Crews also erected on the Capitol grounds tall, black metal fences designed to be impossible to climb. Similar structures have previously been used around the White House and in other cities that faced prolonged demonstrations. [1]
Roy Blunt, the Republican senator who chairs the congressional committee preparing for the inaugural ceremonies, has estimated that the number of participants who will be allowed into secure perimeter areas at the inauguration will be dramatically reduced to below 3,000, down from the 200,000 or so who are normally included. [2]
Or should they be included in the inauguration article itself? Juxlos ( talk) 13:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
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 person had an article but it was speedily deleted and supposed to be merged but was not merged.
Who is this person?????? Many news articles but I want a concise summary here on Wikipedia, the World's News Source.
The police officer who shot her has been suspended. Wikipedia needs at least a separate section on her in the article. Vanny089 ( talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's important to include the names of the protestors who were killed at the rally. Maybe not full biographies, but definitely include them. W33KeNdr ( talk) 19:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Very good reference
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55581206
It is is on the BBC
Vanny089 ( talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think an unarmed protestor being killed by the police at a rally is an important part of this story, and including their new had been a Wikipedia norm for all protests. W33KeNdr ( talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There's agreement that there's precedent for adding it, but the question is whether it's the correct organization. Given how long this article is becoming, it would be appropriate to move all the coverage and facts about the Babbit incident to a separate page. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I think a mention that an unarmed protestor was one of victims of police violence at the rally is extremely important. W33KeNdr ( talk) 21:33, 9 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.
I don't think this is really accurate or at least lacking context due to the 1954 United States Capitol shooting. I understand that overrun is different than attack, but I think the context is needed. Here is a source to back up [2] 3Kingdoms ( talk) 20:00, 7 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.
I think we can come up with a better name per Wikipedia:TITLE, I don't think you need the title for it. Also, I am not so sure about the word storming. Riots seem a little better. I will hold off on a move request, but I think something like United States Capitol Riots. Casprings ( talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think "protest" or "rally" are the most accurate. W33KeNdr ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It's claimed that the discussion has been closed, but I don't see where it was discussed or who decided it was closed. Given Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, not to mention QAnon's repeated use of "storm", I really don't think it's a neutral choice. -- Chronodm ( talk) 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Storming seems good but only for part of what happened. (Even then, it's important to think carefully as the unfolding of events becomes clearer.) Possibly occupation might be an alternative if one was wanted. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
07:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
United States Capitol Insurrection: Out of all the terms I've seen to describe it (riot, mob, storming, sedition, coup attempt) I feel they lack the specificity of insurrection, a term with a dictionary meaning of "violent uprising against authority or government" and one that also has legal ramifications in the United States via the Insurrection Act of 1807. Another point is does this need a year in the title? The insurrection act article doesn't seem to suggest any such major incidents at the Capitol that would warrant a pre-emptive disambiguation by adding a year to the title, and specific incidents rather than generalised titles (eg the nat turner slave rebellion, the selma to montgomery march and the george floyd protests) don't have a year in them. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
'storming' is commonly used for an event of civil disorder such as Storming of the Bastille, or the mob Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad [4] or Tehran [5] [6] while words such as 'insurrection' and 'coup' are politically loaded. On the day, the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was an act or event of civil disorder not amounting to an insurrection. It could be described as a mob invading the Capitol. While President Trump's speech-making, videos or twittering, could be part of an attempt to overturn the election, they were not acts of insurrection. Qexigator ( talk) 23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)