![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
Shouldn’t Wikipedia mention Jake Angeli, the most notable protester with costum and horns? He gained world fame and surely is notable. Topjur01 ( talk) 13:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Now at AfD... --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:12, 7 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. |
Currently the section "Response" lists three protestors: "Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli..." Proposal: Extending this paragraph with two other protestors with a sentence like: "Further identified protestors include Richard “Bigo” Barnett who was sitting in Pelosi's office and Adam Johnson who was smiling while carrying away a lectern."
Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] --- 21:18, 7 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.
Why are we normalizing this by using soft language like storming. CatLife4ever ( talk) 13:57, 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.
Should some other neutral word (e.g. crowd, supporters, etc.) be used (except for quotes) or is it ok as it is from the aspect of NPOV? Mob sounds derogatory to me and we should use neutral language regardless of our opinion about the event and the people involved. -- TadejM my talk 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I see your point of view, but there are also numerous sources using the word 'rioters' or 'crowd' or something else. And the media takes a stance that or another way, which we as an encyclopedia should not. Taking a look at WP:NPOV, I find the following: "neutral terms are generally preferable" and "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:EPSTYLE states: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." -- TadejM my talk 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This could work in specific contexts (as occurs in the article: "angry mob", "violence of mob"). Then, the more specific question is whether we should use this in the lead: "Subsequently, a pro-Trump mob marched on Congress and eventually stormed the building." Probably something else would work better in this place; the section providing details uses the terms "rally attendees" and "rioters", so one of these terms should also be used in the lead. Also as per WP:LEAD. -- TadejM my talk 14:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a common misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy does not forbid, for example, to acknowledge rather common opinions such as death being bad or puppies being cute. Nor does it require us to describe serial killers in such a way that reading the article does not negatively affect your opinion of them. If you feel describing the events here reflects negatively on, say, the president-unelect, the cause if far more likely to be found in the nature of the events themselves rather than the way they are presented. Matthias Winkelmann ( talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
06:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
I think we haven't reached consensus about whether it's ok to use at all, but for now editors should really favor equivalent, neutral words that lose none of the meaning. In a week we'll know what to call it. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 02:52, 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.
New York Times has gone ahead and labelled the riot/protest/blabla an "attack incited by Trump." Should be included in the article somewhere. 180.151.224.189 ( talk) 07:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The article MUST remain neutral to both parties and not heavily BASED and lean and pander to the far-left. Bombastic Brody ( talk) 19:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I have seen no evidence that President Trump, explicitly or otherwise, Called for anything like the storming of the Capital Building. I have found what appears to be a transcript of his remarks here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-told-supporters-stormed-capitol-hill/story?id=75110558 Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 13:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with brody, it wouldnt be too neutral to say that donald trump insited the 'Storming' Call me Deathisaninevitability Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 ( talk) 19:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Right now in these times of tension, we really do not need to incite more claims that will only cause more tension between users and their political affiliations here on Wikipedia. Bombastic Brody ( talk) 00:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that incitement to riot is a crime (as per https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2101.html), which President Donald Trump has not yet been convicted of, it seems premature to describe the riots as incited by Trump. Perhaps that he has been accused of inciting the riots?
Please don't post in this section unless you've read "WP:BLPCRIME" below. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
New related article at 2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump. Casprings ( talk) 23:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm posting a reminder about WP:BLPCRIME.
As an example, please do not use the word "murder" for a possible crime currently under investigation. Unlike other edits, this is a very serious problem. This isn't just about this article: it's about Wikipedia and legal liability.
Similar words that have legal implications are sedition, assault, etc.
I know there are a lot of sections on this talk page but it's very important for the integrity of the encyclopedia so I'm posting here as a reminder to everyone. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There's been a lot of back-and-forth about crowd, mob, group, etc. "rioters" is still correct and shorter.
Let's add something when there's consensus about what to call it. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There is little information about the size of the January 6th crowds, even though Trump's crowd sizes are often claimed to be shattering attendance records. At a minimum the article should document the fact that the crowd of pro-Trump rioters inside the Capitol was the largest and most enthusiastic mob ever to vandalize the Capitol in the 2020s (and possibly any federal building ever throughout the 21st century.) Also, it needs to be mentioned that FoxNews's and OANN's ratings were sky-high on January 6th. Timothy Horrigan ( talk)
Interestingly, this article lacks contextual information regarding events preceding the march on Congress. If placed in the context of being the third rally/protest, as organized by Women for America First, and labelled "Save America March", one can begin an accurate assessment (of both the event, and crowd size). Such rally/protest included a pre-rally at Freedom Plaza, the afternoon into evening of the 5 Jan 2020. The 6 Jan 2020 rally, with admission beginning at 0700 EST, centered on the Ellipse at the White House, with a crowd that eventually extended to the Washington monument, and flanking it to both sides. At a minimum, at least a Field Army (100,000-300,000) assembled. As those assembled then marched down Pennsylvania Ave to the U.S. Capitol, it is difficult to ascertain how many assembled outside to "have their voices heard (regarding election integrity)". As this article, rather biasedly, only includes information regarding the "storming", I personally would estimate 100s to less than 10,000 were actually allowed inside by Capitol Police. Photos will likely be forthcoming on the larger group that, like myself, though being on the Capitol footprint, remained outside, and easily was tens to a hundred thousand. [1] 73.191.183.56 ( talk) 15:08, 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 article made a couple of false statements in just one sentence when they said "TAKEN OVER FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1814". First off it was taken over in 2018 by an anti-Kavanagh protests. Then secondly the Trump supporters did not break down the door AKA "TAKE OVER" there is video after video showing the Capitol Police opening the doors and letting them in..— Preceding unsigned comment added by BhcPatriot ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no evidence for “forcible storming” in the above links - can you find a source for broken windows? Recollections of seeing live TV can be inaccurate (memories can be strange that way - cf Mandela effect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:AA30:2D4C:CE8:3B69:7FC4 ( talk) 08:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Under deaths section there is a line about a Capitol Police Officer dying, the article it links to states that this was false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.216.101 ( talk) 01:57, 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.
I just had a quick question regarding this. So, early on in the article, the phrase "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." seems to imply that he encouraged them to specifically "storm the capitol" which he factually did not do. While I agree that his rhetoric definitely raised the temperature, in his speech he literally called for the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today" Casting the blame on anyone for inciting something is a matter of opinion/a judgment call unless they outright call for the act that is carried out. Not trying to say Trump didn't raise the temperature just that the word "incite" ( definition: to urge or persuade someone to act in a violent or unlawful way) seems to imply a direct correlation between what Trump specifically called for (a peaceful and patriotic protest) and the what actually happened (storming of the capitol).
Perhaps a better sentence would be "The riots occurred following fiery comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." This implies a correlation between the two (the Trump speech and the riots) without implying that he specifically encouraged riots. You could even tack on a "which many view as having incited the violence" to the end of it.
So in conclusion I think that the sentence "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." would be more factual if it were stated as "The riots occurred following divisive comments made by Trump at an earlier rally, which many view as having incited the violence." I think this maintains the NPOV better, without implying that Trump specifically called for the storming of the capitol and without making a judgement call on whether or not Trump incited the riots which is a matter of opinion.
Let me know what you think. -- Brboyle ( talk) 08:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Some lead paragraphs, with emphasis added. I can do this all day:
LA Times:
New York Times:
Washington Post:
-- Calton | Talk 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Please don't be so condescending. I'm not weasel-wording and I think it is inappropriate of you to suggest that I am trying to mislead. The change I suggested doesn't deny that any of the newspapers reached the conclusion that Trump incited the riot, it just allows the reader to realize that whether or not someone incited something is a matter of opinion. My statement is not deliberately misleading and in fact reaches mostly the same conclusion as the original statement, it just makes a clearer point that Trump didn't literally call for the violence, something I feel is important in gaining neutrality. I know that all of those papers reach the conclusion that he "incited" the rioters but I think maybe there is a better way of saying it.
Nothing wrong with me suggesting a dissenting opinion, especially when I'm not really disagreeing but rather trying to come up with a way of saying it that doesn't imply that Trump literally called for/deliberately incited violence, which he factually did not. He raised the temperature and parroted falsehoods/other divisive rhetoric, but saying he "incited" violence appears to me to be those newspapers taking a step past reporting the facts at face value and instead implying that Trump said something directly related to the protesters committing acts of violence when in fact he did the exact opposite and urged them to remain peaceful (a fact that as far as I can tell, all of those news sources and the sentence I am questioning fail to lend any credence to. This alone would immediately raise a red flag interns of their reliability if I were you)
Implying in the opening of the article that Trump incited the violence without mentioning that he literally told those at the march to "march peacefully" is misleading by exclusion of information IMO and thus would seem to violate the NPOV. But, I guess if the general consensus is that these headlines that exclude this fact are more worthy of inclusion (due to them being "reliable sources" in the eyes of Wikipedia) than what Trump actually said, so be it. -- Brboyle ( talk) 13:10, 8 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.
Self-explanatory. Thoughts? Phillip Samuel ( talk) 02:31, 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.
The recent riot has caused the deaths of five people. In 1968, 13 were killed in D.C. during rioting that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Would this be worth mentioning in the article? XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 03:39, 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.
Are these images in the public domain? https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc Victor Grigas ( talk) 18:57, 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.
One of the citations comparing the event to the Beer Hall Putsch (citation 348) was a quote from author George R.R. Martin.
Is Martin an appropriate source for this topic? He is a fantasy writer who lacks expertise on both American politics and Nazi Germany.
( Painting17 ( talk) 19:06, 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.
Please add some words about him:
I don’t think the fact that he’s a Holocaust denied matters that much, but I support the addition of this information if he was influential. — Bray ( talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Note, there is an in-line before the lead of the article. Until consensus is reached, please do not add/change the lead with any of the words or phrases in question.
I think the first sentence should include something about the storming happening at the urging or incitement of Trump. That is really quite central to the reception of the incident and its political magnitude. (RS have overwhelmingly stated that Trump and his associates incited (or similar wording) the storming, so that's not the issue here, only whether it's important enough to be in the first sentence)
I would propose e.g. one of these:
On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of Trump and his associates
On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol, incited by Trump and his associates.
-- Tataral ( talk) 15:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.
|
---|
|
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 discussion is about the lead for the article. Originally, the lead read “On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of President Trump and his associates.” The new lead currently leaves the “urging of President Trump of his associates” off due to Wikipedia needing a neutral lead. The discussion is about whether to add that last part into the lead, or keep it out of the lead. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, even if you are not a part of the WikiProject.
Discussion was originally on WikiProject Current Events. It has been moved here. Elijahandskip ( talk) 15:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.
|
---|
|
*Support adding it back - Having accurate information about seditious acts against a country is important. Even if someone is able to make a well reasoned argument per
WP:NPOV, I believe that
WP:IAR needs to supersede. This is important enough. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jdphenix (
talk •
contribs)
16:18, 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.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Capitol insurrection. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Capitol insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
06:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In the paragraph below quick facts the Trump jr. quote of "total war" is linked to the internal article of "war". The phrase "total war" is a term of its own and has a dedicated Wikipedia article. Recommend to change linking accordingly as this significantly changes the context of the term used.
Snippet of referenced section: Trump Jr. threatened the president's opponents by saying "we're coming for you," having called for "total war" in the weeks leading up to the riots. Troubadix77 ( talk) 09:44, 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 we should because A.) We could continue updating it and B.) It could keep trolls from bringing people to argue about stupid stuff that leads nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8FE:4840:4169:A880:FFB4:A3E5 ( talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
who keeps changing them to a confederate flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.238.103 ( talk) 11:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Having seen serious reporting on the role of (some) Capitol police in hindering, or not hindering and possibly aiding, entrance to the Capitol, am a bit curious why it is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that it was the ease of entrance, facilitated by (some) of these armed security force ppl, is why a number of persons (see the lede paragraph) are calling it a coup. Would be helpful to gather articles and references and explicate the situation, to see if their is a consensus verifiable view on these alleged actions. N2e ( talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
Shouldn’t Wikipedia mention Jake Angeli, the most notable protester with costum and horns? He gained world fame and surely is notable. Topjur01 ( talk) 13:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Now at AfD... --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:12, 7 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. |
Currently the section "Response" lists three protestors: "Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli..." Proposal: Extending this paragraph with two other protestors with a sentence like: "Further identified protestors include Richard “Bigo” Barnett who was sitting in Pelosi's office and Adam Johnson who was smiling while carrying away a lectern."
Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] --- 21:18, 7 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.
Why are we normalizing this by using soft language like storming. CatLife4ever ( talk) 13:57, 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.
Should some other neutral word (e.g. crowd, supporters, etc.) be used (except for quotes) or is it ok as it is from the aspect of NPOV? Mob sounds derogatory to me and we should use neutral language regardless of our opinion about the event and the people involved. -- TadejM my talk 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I see your point of view, but there are also numerous sources using the word 'rioters' or 'crowd' or something else. And the media takes a stance that or another way, which we as an encyclopedia should not. Taking a look at WP:NPOV, I find the following: "neutral terms are generally preferable" and "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:EPSTYLE states: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." -- TadejM my talk 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This could work in specific contexts (as occurs in the article: "angry mob", "violence of mob"). Then, the more specific question is whether we should use this in the lead: "Subsequently, a pro-Trump mob marched on Congress and eventually stormed the building." Probably something else would work better in this place; the section providing details uses the terms "rally attendees" and "rioters", so one of these terms should also be used in the lead. Also as per WP:LEAD. -- TadejM my talk 14:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a common misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy does not forbid, for example, to acknowledge rather common opinions such as death being bad or puppies being cute. Nor does it require us to describe serial killers in such a way that reading the article does not negatively affect your opinion of them. If you feel describing the events here reflects negatively on, say, the president-unelect, the cause if far more likely to be found in the nature of the events themselves rather than the way they are presented. Matthias Winkelmann ( talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
06:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
I think we haven't reached consensus about whether it's ok to use at all, but for now editors should really favor equivalent, neutral words that lose none of the meaning. In a week we'll know what to call it. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 02:52, 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.
New York Times has gone ahead and labelled the riot/protest/blabla an "attack incited by Trump." Should be included in the article somewhere. 180.151.224.189 ( talk) 07:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The article MUST remain neutral to both parties and not heavily BASED and lean and pander to the far-left. Bombastic Brody ( talk) 19:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I have seen no evidence that President Trump, explicitly or otherwise, Called for anything like the storming of the Capital Building. I have found what appears to be a transcript of his remarks here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-told-supporters-stormed-capitol-hill/story?id=75110558 Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 13:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with brody, it wouldnt be too neutral to say that donald trump insited the 'Storming' Call me Deathisaninevitability Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 ( talk) 19:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Right now in these times of tension, we really do not need to incite more claims that will only cause more tension between users and their political affiliations here on Wikipedia. Bombastic Brody ( talk) 00:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that incitement to riot is a crime (as per https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2101.html), which President Donald Trump has not yet been convicted of, it seems premature to describe the riots as incited by Trump. Perhaps that he has been accused of inciting the riots?
Please don't post in this section unless you've read "WP:BLPCRIME" below. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
New related article at 2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump. Casprings ( talk) 23:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm posting a reminder about WP:BLPCRIME.
As an example, please do not use the word "murder" for a possible crime currently under investigation. Unlike other edits, this is a very serious problem. This isn't just about this article: it's about Wikipedia and legal liability.
Similar words that have legal implications are sedition, assault, etc.
I know there are a lot of sections on this talk page but it's very important for the integrity of the encyclopedia so I'm posting here as a reminder to everyone. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There's been a lot of back-and-forth about crowd, mob, group, etc. "rioters" is still correct and shorter.
Let's add something when there's consensus about what to call it. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There is little information about the size of the January 6th crowds, even though Trump's crowd sizes are often claimed to be shattering attendance records. At a minimum the article should document the fact that the crowd of pro-Trump rioters inside the Capitol was the largest and most enthusiastic mob ever to vandalize the Capitol in the 2020s (and possibly any federal building ever throughout the 21st century.) Also, it needs to be mentioned that FoxNews's and OANN's ratings were sky-high on January 6th. Timothy Horrigan ( talk)
Interestingly, this article lacks contextual information regarding events preceding the march on Congress. If placed in the context of being the third rally/protest, as organized by Women for America First, and labelled "Save America March", one can begin an accurate assessment (of both the event, and crowd size). Such rally/protest included a pre-rally at Freedom Plaza, the afternoon into evening of the 5 Jan 2020. The 6 Jan 2020 rally, with admission beginning at 0700 EST, centered on the Ellipse at the White House, with a crowd that eventually extended to the Washington monument, and flanking it to both sides. At a minimum, at least a Field Army (100,000-300,000) assembled. As those assembled then marched down Pennsylvania Ave to the U.S. Capitol, it is difficult to ascertain how many assembled outside to "have their voices heard (regarding election integrity)". As this article, rather biasedly, only includes information regarding the "storming", I personally would estimate 100s to less than 10,000 were actually allowed inside by Capitol Police. Photos will likely be forthcoming on the larger group that, like myself, though being on the Capitol footprint, remained outside, and easily was tens to a hundred thousand. [1] 73.191.183.56 ( talk) 15:08, 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 article made a couple of false statements in just one sentence when they said "TAKEN OVER FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1814". First off it was taken over in 2018 by an anti-Kavanagh protests. Then secondly the Trump supporters did not break down the door AKA "TAKE OVER" there is video after video showing the Capitol Police opening the doors and letting them in..— Preceding unsigned comment added by BhcPatriot ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no evidence for “forcible storming” in the above links - can you find a source for broken windows? Recollections of seeing live TV can be inaccurate (memories can be strange that way - cf Mandela effect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:AA30:2D4C:CE8:3B69:7FC4 ( talk) 08:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Under deaths section there is a line about a Capitol Police Officer dying, the article it links to states that this was false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.216.101 ( talk) 01:57, 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.
I just had a quick question regarding this. So, early on in the article, the phrase "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." seems to imply that he encouraged them to specifically "storm the capitol" which he factually did not do. While I agree that his rhetoric definitely raised the temperature, in his speech he literally called for the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today" Casting the blame on anyone for inciting something is a matter of opinion/a judgment call unless they outright call for the act that is carried out. Not trying to say Trump didn't raise the temperature just that the word "incite" ( definition: to urge or persuade someone to act in a violent or unlawful way) seems to imply a direct correlation between what Trump specifically called for (a peaceful and patriotic protest) and the what actually happened (storming of the capitol).
Perhaps a better sentence would be "The riots occurred following fiery comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." This implies a correlation between the two (the Trump speech and the riots) without implying that he specifically encouraged riots. You could even tack on a "which many view as having incited the violence" to the end of it.
So in conclusion I think that the sentence "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." would be more factual if it were stated as "The riots occurred following divisive comments made by Trump at an earlier rally, which many view as having incited the violence." I think this maintains the NPOV better, without implying that Trump specifically called for the storming of the capitol and without making a judgement call on whether or not Trump incited the riots which is a matter of opinion.
Let me know what you think. -- Brboyle ( talk) 08:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Some lead paragraphs, with emphasis added. I can do this all day:
LA Times:
New York Times:
Washington Post:
-- Calton | Talk 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Please don't be so condescending. I'm not weasel-wording and I think it is inappropriate of you to suggest that I am trying to mislead. The change I suggested doesn't deny that any of the newspapers reached the conclusion that Trump incited the riot, it just allows the reader to realize that whether or not someone incited something is a matter of opinion. My statement is not deliberately misleading and in fact reaches mostly the same conclusion as the original statement, it just makes a clearer point that Trump didn't literally call for the violence, something I feel is important in gaining neutrality. I know that all of those papers reach the conclusion that he "incited" the rioters but I think maybe there is a better way of saying it.
Nothing wrong with me suggesting a dissenting opinion, especially when I'm not really disagreeing but rather trying to come up with a way of saying it that doesn't imply that Trump literally called for/deliberately incited violence, which he factually did not. He raised the temperature and parroted falsehoods/other divisive rhetoric, but saying he "incited" violence appears to me to be those newspapers taking a step past reporting the facts at face value and instead implying that Trump said something directly related to the protesters committing acts of violence when in fact he did the exact opposite and urged them to remain peaceful (a fact that as far as I can tell, all of those news sources and the sentence I am questioning fail to lend any credence to. This alone would immediately raise a red flag interns of their reliability if I were you)
Implying in the opening of the article that Trump incited the violence without mentioning that he literally told those at the march to "march peacefully" is misleading by exclusion of information IMO and thus would seem to violate the NPOV. But, I guess if the general consensus is that these headlines that exclude this fact are more worthy of inclusion (due to them being "reliable sources" in the eyes of Wikipedia) than what Trump actually said, so be it. -- Brboyle ( talk) 13:10, 8 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.
Self-explanatory. Thoughts? Phillip Samuel ( talk) 02:31, 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.
The recent riot has caused the deaths of five people. In 1968, 13 were killed in D.C. during rioting that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Would this be worth mentioning in the article? XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 03:39, 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.
Are these images in the public domain? https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc Victor Grigas ( talk) 18:57, 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.
One of the citations comparing the event to the Beer Hall Putsch (citation 348) was a quote from author George R.R. Martin.
Is Martin an appropriate source for this topic? He is a fantasy writer who lacks expertise on both American politics and Nazi Germany.
( Painting17 ( talk) 19:06, 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.
Please add some words about him:
I don’t think the fact that he’s a Holocaust denied matters that much, but I support the addition of this information if he was influential. — Bray ( talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Note, there is an in-line before the lead of the article. Until consensus is reached, please do not add/change the lead with any of the words or phrases in question.
I think the first sentence should include something about the storming happening at the urging or incitement of Trump. That is really quite central to the reception of the incident and its political magnitude. (RS have overwhelmingly stated that Trump and his associates incited (or similar wording) the storming, so that's not the issue here, only whether it's important enough to be in the first sentence)
I would propose e.g. one of these:
On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of Trump and his associates
On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol, incited by Trump and his associates.
-- Tataral ( talk) 15:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.
|
---|
|
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 discussion is about the lead for the article. Originally, the lead read “On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of President Trump and his associates.” The new lead currently leaves the “urging of President Trump of his associates” off due to Wikipedia needing a neutral lead. The discussion is about whether to add that last part into the lead, or keep it out of the lead. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, even if you are not a part of the WikiProject.
Discussion was originally on WikiProject Current Events. It has been moved here. Elijahandskip ( talk) 15:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Process discussion/discussion on where the discussion should take place.
|
---|
|
*Support adding it back - Having accurate information about seditious acts against a country is important. Even if someone is able to make a well reasoned argument per
WP:NPOV, I believe that
WP:IAR needs to supersede. This is important enough. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jdphenix (
talk •
contribs)
16:18, 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.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Capitol insurrection. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Capitol insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
06:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In the paragraph below quick facts the Trump jr. quote of "total war" is linked to the internal article of "war". The phrase "total war" is a term of its own and has a dedicated Wikipedia article. Recommend to change linking accordingly as this significantly changes the context of the term used.
Snippet of referenced section: Trump Jr. threatened the president's opponents by saying "we're coming for you," having called for "total war" in the weeks leading up to the riots. Troubadix77 ( talk) 09:44, 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 we should because A.) We could continue updating it and B.) It could keep trolls from bringing people to argue about stupid stuff that leads nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8FE:4840:4169:A880:FFB4:A3E5 ( talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
who keeps changing them to a confederate flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.238.103 ( talk) 11:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Having seen serious reporting on the role of (some) Capitol police in hindering, or not hindering and possibly aiding, entrance to the Capitol, am a bit curious why it is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that it was the ease of entrance, facilitated by (some) of these armed security force ppl, is why a number of persons (see the lede paragraph) are calling it a coup. Would be helpful to gather articles and references and explicate the situation, to see if their is a consensus verifiable view on these alleged actions. N2e ( talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)