![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Please add:
"Despite the lack of evidence, Congressmen, Louie Gohmert and Mo Brooks spread false flag conspiracies on Twitter shortly after the storming. Both are Trump acolytes."
In section "Trump administration resignations," request to add following sentence after "Julian Borger of The Guardian observed that the resignations were mostly among 'second-tier officials' and that there was 'no sign ... of a sweeping exodus or mutiny'."
"Mulvaney has indicated some officals are declining to resign 'because they’re worried the president might put someone worse in'."
citation: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-adviser-resigns-two-other-senior-officials-consider-quitting-matt-pottinger Dangerdan97 ( talk) 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit [1] that removes several key facts and links to other related articles is completely unacceptable. Note that the material that was removed is uncontroversial, purely factual and not related to the above discussion on whether we should include something about Trump's "urging" or "incitement."
The rioters were supporting Trump's attempt to overturn the election (regardless of whether he urged them to do it), and the edit essentially removes any motivation or identity from the sentence, turning them into an anonymous group of "rioters" with no goal, purpose or identity, when in fact they had stated their goal – supporting Trump and overturning the election – very clearly. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Procedural note: The sentence was restored in this edit [2], which I support. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
See here: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence. This discussion needs to move to that discussion (Which was started yesterday). Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Procedural note #2: The sentence was restored again in this edit citing clear consensus for it. [4]. -- Tataral ( talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of these words have legal implications. This is the kind of thing that will be decided in due course. Despite the timely nature of the event, Wikipedia is not a place to write about ongoing crimes. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 23:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Just because one (or more) reliable sources say that Trump's speech "inflamed" or "encouraged" the crowd of protestors, does that mean this should be stated as fact, in wikivoice? Trump's speech contained dog whistles both overt and subtle, but the emotional state of the crowd and its motivations in that moment is a matter of speculation. Given the methods used in the insurrection (as well as evidence of online organization beforehand), this was planned well in advance of Trump's speech.
I honestly hope I'm not nitpicking. I'm just confused about how we can treat what is almost certainly speculation as a fact just because a news article from a reliable source says so, even though the author of that article had no reasonable way of knowing. -- Frogging101 ( talk) 23:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
sources that have expressed anti-Trump sentiment, but many of these are the most reliable, neutral sources around. They just report when Trump does bad things - that isn't being anti-Trump media. It's honest. What we'll have is sources that have reported Trump doing illegal things - unobjectionable fact after last year's impeachment - and sources that won't report that, which are pro-Trump media. Simply put: you are trying to say that any media that has ever criticized Trump has inherent bias and can't be trusted, which is an inappropriate reading of WP policies to say the least. Kingsif ( talk) 23:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
here if anyone needs it: File:Pipe bomb suspect FBI Jan 2021.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas ( talk • contribs)
These are discussions for words or phrases that are questioned.
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.
In the "Save America March" section, we currently have the phrase "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol".
The actual articel writes "Greeson died of a heart attack linked to accidental electrocution, while Philips died of a stroke.[302]" The claimed source don't write something about the accidental electrocution. NYT [1] announced that Greeson was outside the captiol having a phonecall while suffered an heard attack. Accourding to forbes [2]: "The D.C. police department did not immediately respond to questions from Forbes about the circumstances surrounding these deaths, including a request for information on a rumor circulating social media that one of the two men who suffered a heart attack did so after accidentally tasering himself. " Proposal to change the Wikiarticel according to the NYT-article [3] by Adam Goldman (he is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner) the NYT in: "Greeson died of a heart attack outside of the capitol [6], while Philips died of a stroke. Quaternus ( talk) 13:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Besides Ashli Babbit, who was shot, it appears that the cause of death of two of the other three protesters (Benjamin Philips and Kevin Greeson) were stroke and heart attack, respectively, whereas the fourth (Rosanne Boyland) was trampled to death.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rosanne-boyland-woman-killed-in-dc-riots-was-trampled-by-crowd/ https://people.com/politics/family-member-of-woman-who-died-riots-capitol-blames-trump/ https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/washington-protest-trump-capitol-pennsylvania-ben-philips-20210107.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-supporters-who-died-during-capitol-riot-left-online-presence-n1253400
-- 2001:B07:646C:244E:312A:D83F:5151:E835 ( talk) 13:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the italicized text below should be moved to other sections:
This would leave the intro like this:
I'm not saying that this is anything like what the intro should wind up with when you get done with your editing. It's merely an idea of what could be done to shorten the lead. - RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the article says art was "looted" per this source. Details about individual artworks are probably too specific for this page, but editors can add information to the newly created United States Capitol art page, or share sources on the talk page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 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 office of the second most powerful person in America was breached and occupied. This is absolutely astonishing and it should not be surprising that some might seek to whitewash it away. Imagine what might have happened had she been there, as “PELOSI IS SATAN” was written on a police car and a gallows was placed on the grounds. The edit should be restored.
soibangla ( talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I know the media was using the phrase “fatal medical emergency” but that implies, “something that would have happened anyway, and was fatal because the person couldn’t get to medical help” I.e. stroke,Aneurysm , Heart attack, anaphylaxis... being crushed to death by the mass of people is certainly *not* in this category. Can someone fix this misleading text? It appears multiple times, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 ( talk) 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that an unarmed protestor sitting down is an "occupation". W33KeNdr ( talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Included in Twitter’s statement, explaining why it banned Trump: “Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.” → https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html -- 217.234.74.170 ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Twitter is a US company with close personal connection to the eventno it's not. And it's acceptable as PRIMARY for their own statement on why Trump was banned. You think anyone besides Twitter knows better why they did that? It's not being used for anything else. Q/Denver, your understanding of various neutrality policies is demonstrably poor (see: up and down this talk page), can you stop weighing in demanding things that aren't helpful? Kingsif ( talk) 00:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Three other protesters also died, identified as Rosanne Boyland, 34, of Kennesaw, Georgia; Kevin Greeson, 55, from Athens, Alabama; and Benjamin Philips, 50, of Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.[197][198][199] Greeson died of a heart attack while Philips died of a stroke.[200] Boyland's cause of death was disputed; one account said she was crushed to death, while another said she collapsed while standing at the side in the Capitol rotunda.[201][202][203] The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that there was "no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol."[204] Phillips started the social media site Trumparoo, intended for Trump supporters.[205] Greeson's family said he was "not there to participate in violence or rioting, nor did he condone such actions."[206] Boyland's sister also said she "had no intention of committing violence when she traveled to Washington" and simply wanted to show her support.[203]
If it’s going to go Boyland. Greeson, Phillips, then all the stuff about B., then all the stuff about G, then all the stuff about P. As it’s written, I feel like I need a score card to keep track of what happened to who.
I don’t want to edit myself on a sensitive page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 ( talk) 20:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure where to mention this, any ideas? Also seems important to include what the signs say, which may speak to which groups people belonged to eg QAnon
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the entire paragraph devoted to India/Modi/Trump based on one flag seen in a photo does not maybe make notability?
Wether it does or not, the Gasdsen “don’t tread on me” flag was carried a lot, and seems like a glaring omission. Perhaps there should be a section on the signs and banners and symbolism being invoked? From a cultural and historical perspective that seems I,portent, as there are news stories that the Smithsonian and others have actually collected some of the things left behind of historical preservation.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 ( talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Some news regarding how the Republican National Committee is taking this event. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:22B2:4000:38D6:DADF:92B3:53D9 ( talk) 23:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump 'expressed regret' for the video where he promised a peaceful transfer of power and says he won't resign See here. Count Iblis ( talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The header title above comes from a piece published by 538 yesterday [7]
Our article here on Wikipedia doesn't currently contain deeper analysis regarding the riots, etc. Obviously it would need to be supported by WP:RS but would like to hear from other editors on what a section like that would be titled (I was thinking something like Analysis) and if the new sub-section should be placed within the current Aftermath section, or stand on its own. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 00:43, 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.
A Capitol Police officer, Officer Howard Liebengood, who was among those who responded to the storming of the Capitol last week, died while off duty, the Capitol Police said. Please add his death to the appropriate casualties section. President Trump also ordered all US flags half staff in honor of the fallen police officers. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/capitol-police-officer-dies-howard-liebengood/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/brian-sicknick-howard-liebengood-white-house-flag/index.html Amen. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 23:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1346922707431129089?s=19
Add that Alex Jones also participated in the riots, since FBI said they want everyone to identify those involved for prosecution. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 03:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Is The Independent considered RS? (Its Wikipedia page describes itself as a tabloid, but I don't remember where the source list is.) They're quoting Jones' claims that he was there, and saying that "was reportedly seen later in the day, standing on top of a car near the Capitol building and shouting into a bullhorn." -- Zanimum ( talk) 02:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Many words in this article have a clearer, simpler, exact synonym that isn't value-laden.
We need to maintain as neutral a tone as possible. When there are less loaded words with identical definitions, we should use them. When I read "baseless" in a Wikipedia article, I begin to question it.
"Baseless assertion" should be "false assertion".
"Unfounded claims" should be "false claims". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There have been lengthy discussions about the appropriate word choice for several things on this article. Most of the discussion centers on the least charged and most accurate definition.
This is not the purpose of this section. The purpose of this section is merely to assemble a list of words for quick and easy reference.
|
|
|
|
Please add to the list but do not remove from it.
When adding to this list, note that this is not just a list of synonyms. No one has called the participants "freedom fighters", nor should we. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 23:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The Oregon State Capitol in Salem was attacked by the same or a similar group on December 21, 2020, while the Capitol was in session with the subject of COVID-19. This insurrection was handled haphazardly, and the armed hostiles were allowed to walk away. This incident has disturbing similarities to the Washington DC Capitol attack. The issues being "protested" were different: COVID-19 lockdown in Oregon; the Electoral vote count in Washington DC. On the day of the DC attack, January 6, 2021, the Salem Capitol was again surrounded by hostiles, as were the Capitols in a number of other states. The Oregon States Capitol was stormed before the US Capitol was. Riffel2021 ( talk) 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
See here: "Just seen YouGov poll: most Republicans blame Biden for the Capitol invasion. ". If we can find the link to this poll then this should be included in the article. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:33, 11 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 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've updated the infobox with sides as supporters of attempts to overturn the election vs. the US Congress. I believe this is a good and succinct way of summarizing the sides to the conflict and avoids the issues previously discussed in terms of more detailed list of participants etc. Z117 ( talk) 08:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No "sides" in the infobox. Period. If you want to talk about who did what, or who was in favor of what, do it in article text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:08, 11 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'm sure this is going to get a lot more discussion, so I'd like to point out a simple solution that might make everyone happy.
In US politics, both these words mean roughly the same thing--protestors can be violent--but rioters has a very strong connotation. Until recently, "protestors" didn't always have a positive connotation, but there was a lot of debate about the word during the BLM protests and now unfortunately "protestor" has acquired a bit of positive interpretation (though much less than the negative connotation of "rioter").
I'd like the point out that there's no reason to have this debate. "Protestors supporting Donald Trump" and "Rioters supporting Donald Trump" can simply be "Supporters of Donald Trump". "Attendees of the Save America Rally", "Intruders in the Capitol building". There's always a non-charged synonym if you look hard enough.
Wikipedia shouldn't get mired in a U.S.-specific political vocabulary dispute. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 19:03, 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.
Why the infobox hasn't two sides with leaderfigures etc. It's obvious that a far-right crowd invaded the Capitol and the official US Goverment. Also there was an armed conflict with police. So this is a civil conflct. An appropriate infobox has been proposed at a section above. There are opposals about it, but at least it's better than the infobox at the arcticle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 ( talk) 00:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Please, no one post here. Post in the infobox discussion above. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 01:42, 11 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 an article that aggregates those arrested? Or maybe those participating. It seems to be a topic of interest. Perhaps, name, affiliation, home state, citation.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 00:17, 11 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Please add:
"Despite the lack of evidence, Congressmen, Louie Gohmert and Mo Brooks spread false flag conspiracies on Twitter shortly after the storming. Both are Trump acolytes."
In section "Trump administration resignations," request to add following sentence after "Julian Borger of The Guardian observed that the resignations were mostly among 'second-tier officials' and that there was 'no sign ... of a sweeping exodus or mutiny'."
"Mulvaney has indicated some officals are declining to resign 'because they’re worried the president might put someone worse in'."
citation: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-adviser-resigns-two-other-senior-officials-consider-quitting-matt-pottinger Dangerdan97 ( talk) 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit [1] that removes several key facts and links to other related articles is completely unacceptable. Note that the material that was removed is uncontroversial, purely factual and not related to the above discussion on whether we should include something about Trump's "urging" or "incitement."
The rioters were supporting Trump's attempt to overturn the election (regardless of whether he urged them to do it), and the edit essentially removes any motivation or identity from the sentence, turning them into an anonymous group of "rioters" with no goal, purpose or identity, when in fact they had stated their goal – supporting Trump and overturning the election – very clearly. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Procedural note: The sentence was restored in this edit [2], which I support. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
See here: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence. This discussion needs to move to that discussion (Which was started yesterday). Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Procedural note #2: The sentence was restored again in this edit citing clear consensus for it. [4]. -- Tataral ( talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of these words have legal implications. This is the kind of thing that will be decided in due course. Despite the timely nature of the event, Wikipedia is not a place to write about ongoing crimes. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 23:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Just because one (or more) reliable sources say that Trump's speech "inflamed" or "encouraged" the crowd of protestors, does that mean this should be stated as fact, in wikivoice? Trump's speech contained dog whistles both overt and subtle, but the emotional state of the crowd and its motivations in that moment is a matter of speculation. Given the methods used in the insurrection (as well as evidence of online organization beforehand), this was planned well in advance of Trump's speech.
I honestly hope I'm not nitpicking. I'm just confused about how we can treat what is almost certainly speculation as a fact just because a news article from a reliable source says so, even though the author of that article had no reasonable way of knowing. -- Frogging101 ( talk) 23:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
sources that have expressed anti-Trump sentiment, but many of these are the most reliable, neutral sources around. They just report when Trump does bad things - that isn't being anti-Trump media. It's honest. What we'll have is sources that have reported Trump doing illegal things - unobjectionable fact after last year's impeachment - and sources that won't report that, which are pro-Trump media. Simply put: you are trying to say that any media that has ever criticized Trump has inherent bias and can't be trusted, which is an inappropriate reading of WP policies to say the least. Kingsif ( talk) 23:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
here if anyone needs it: File:Pipe bomb suspect FBI Jan 2021.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas ( talk • contribs)
These are discussions for words or phrases that are questioned.
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.
In the "Save America March" section, we currently have the phrase "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol".
The actual articel writes "Greeson died of a heart attack linked to accidental electrocution, while Philips died of a stroke.[302]" The claimed source don't write something about the accidental electrocution. NYT [1] announced that Greeson was outside the captiol having a phonecall while suffered an heard attack. Accourding to forbes [2]: "The D.C. police department did not immediately respond to questions from Forbes about the circumstances surrounding these deaths, including a request for information on a rumor circulating social media that one of the two men who suffered a heart attack did so after accidentally tasering himself. " Proposal to change the Wikiarticel according to the NYT-article [3] by Adam Goldman (he is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner) the NYT in: "Greeson died of a heart attack outside of the capitol [6], while Philips died of a stroke. Quaternus ( talk) 13:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Besides Ashli Babbit, who was shot, it appears that the cause of death of two of the other three protesters (Benjamin Philips and Kevin Greeson) were stroke and heart attack, respectively, whereas the fourth (Rosanne Boyland) was trampled to death.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rosanne-boyland-woman-killed-in-dc-riots-was-trampled-by-crowd/ https://people.com/politics/family-member-of-woman-who-died-riots-capitol-blames-trump/ https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/washington-protest-trump-capitol-pennsylvania-ben-philips-20210107.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-supporters-who-died-during-capitol-riot-left-online-presence-n1253400
-- 2001:B07:646C:244E:312A:D83F:5151:E835 ( talk) 13:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the italicized text below should be moved to other sections:
This would leave the intro like this:
I'm not saying that this is anything like what the intro should wind up with when you get done with your editing. It's merely an idea of what could be done to shorten the lead. - RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the article says art was "looted" per this source. Details about individual artworks are probably too specific for this page, but editors can add information to the newly created United States Capitol art page, or share sources on the talk page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 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 office of the second most powerful person in America was breached and occupied. This is absolutely astonishing and it should not be surprising that some might seek to whitewash it away. Imagine what might have happened had she been there, as “PELOSI IS SATAN” was written on a police car and a gallows was placed on the grounds. The edit should be restored.
soibangla ( talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I know the media was using the phrase “fatal medical emergency” but that implies, “something that would have happened anyway, and was fatal because the person couldn’t get to medical help” I.e. stroke,Aneurysm , Heart attack, anaphylaxis... being crushed to death by the mass of people is certainly *not* in this category. Can someone fix this misleading text? It appears multiple times, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 ( talk) 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that an unarmed protestor sitting down is an "occupation". W33KeNdr ( talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Included in Twitter’s statement, explaining why it banned Trump: “Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.” → https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html -- 217.234.74.170 ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Twitter is a US company with close personal connection to the eventno it's not. And it's acceptable as PRIMARY for their own statement on why Trump was banned. You think anyone besides Twitter knows better why they did that? It's not being used for anything else. Q/Denver, your understanding of various neutrality policies is demonstrably poor (see: up and down this talk page), can you stop weighing in demanding things that aren't helpful? Kingsif ( talk) 00:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Three other protesters also died, identified as Rosanne Boyland, 34, of Kennesaw, Georgia; Kevin Greeson, 55, from Athens, Alabama; and Benjamin Philips, 50, of Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.[197][198][199] Greeson died of a heart attack while Philips died of a stroke.[200] Boyland's cause of death was disputed; one account said she was crushed to death, while another said she collapsed while standing at the side in the Capitol rotunda.[201][202][203] The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that there was "no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol."[204] Phillips started the social media site Trumparoo, intended for Trump supporters.[205] Greeson's family said he was "not there to participate in violence or rioting, nor did he condone such actions."[206] Boyland's sister also said she "had no intention of committing violence when she traveled to Washington" and simply wanted to show her support.[203]
If it’s going to go Boyland. Greeson, Phillips, then all the stuff about B., then all the stuff about G, then all the stuff about P. As it’s written, I feel like I need a score card to keep track of what happened to who.
I don’t want to edit myself on a sensitive page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 ( talk) 20:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure where to mention this, any ideas? Also seems important to include what the signs say, which may speak to which groups people belonged to eg QAnon
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the entire paragraph devoted to India/Modi/Trump based on one flag seen in a photo does not maybe make notability?
Wether it does or not, the Gasdsen “don’t tread on me” flag was carried a lot, and seems like a glaring omission. Perhaps there should be a section on the signs and banners and symbolism being invoked? From a cultural and historical perspective that seems I,portent, as there are news stories that the Smithsonian and others have actually collected some of the things left behind of historical preservation.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:EDD0:6304:94D8:B555 ( talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Some news regarding how the Republican National Committee is taking this event. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:22B2:4000:38D6:DADF:92B3:53D9 ( talk) 23:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump 'expressed regret' for the video where he promised a peaceful transfer of power and says he won't resign See here. Count Iblis ( talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The header title above comes from a piece published by 538 yesterday [7]
Our article here on Wikipedia doesn't currently contain deeper analysis regarding the riots, etc. Obviously it would need to be supported by WP:RS but would like to hear from other editors on what a section like that would be titled (I was thinking something like Analysis) and if the new sub-section should be placed within the current Aftermath section, or stand on its own. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 00:43, 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.
A Capitol Police officer, Officer Howard Liebengood, who was among those who responded to the storming of the Capitol last week, died while off duty, the Capitol Police said. Please add his death to the appropriate casualties section. President Trump also ordered all US flags half staff in honor of the fallen police officers. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/capitol-police-officer-dies-howard-liebengood/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/brian-sicknick-howard-liebengood-white-house-flag/index.html Amen. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 23:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1346922707431129089?s=19
Add that Alex Jones also participated in the riots, since FBI said they want everyone to identify those involved for prosecution. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 03:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Is The Independent considered RS? (Its Wikipedia page describes itself as a tabloid, but I don't remember where the source list is.) They're quoting Jones' claims that he was there, and saying that "was reportedly seen later in the day, standing on top of a car near the Capitol building and shouting into a bullhorn." -- Zanimum ( talk) 02:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Many words in this article have a clearer, simpler, exact synonym that isn't value-laden.
We need to maintain as neutral a tone as possible. When there are less loaded words with identical definitions, we should use them. When I read "baseless" in a Wikipedia article, I begin to question it.
"Baseless assertion" should be "false assertion".
"Unfounded claims" should be "false claims". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There have been lengthy discussions about the appropriate word choice for several things on this article. Most of the discussion centers on the least charged and most accurate definition.
This is not the purpose of this section. The purpose of this section is merely to assemble a list of words for quick and easy reference.
|
|
|
|
Please add to the list but do not remove from it.
When adding to this list, note that this is not just a list of synonyms. No one has called the participants "freedom fighters", nor should we. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 23:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The Oregon State Capitol in Salem was attacked by the same or a similar group on December 21, 2020, while the Capitol was in session with the subject of COVID-19. This insurrection was handled haphazardly, and the armed hostiles were allowed to walk away. This incident has disturbing similarities to the Washington DC Capitol attack. The issues being "protested" were different: COVID-19 lockdown in Oregon; the Electoral vote count in Washington DC. On the day of the DC attack, January 6, 2021, the Salem Capitol was again surrounded by hostiles, as were the Capitols in a number of other states. The Oregon States Capitol was stormed before the US Capitol was. Riffel2021 ( talk) 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
See here: "Just seen YouGov poll: most Republicans blame Biden for the Capitol invasion. ". If we can find the link to this poll then this should be included in the article. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:33, 11 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 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've updated the infobox with sides as supporters of attempts to overturn the election vs. the US Congress. I believe this is a good and succinct way of summarizing the sides to the conflict and avoids the issues previously discussed in terms of more detailed list of participants etc. Z117 ( talk) 08:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No "sides" in the infobox. Period. If you want to talk about who did what, or who was in favor of what, do it in article text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:08, 11 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'm sure this is going to get a lot more discussion, so I'd like to point out a simple solution that might make everyone happy.
In US politics, both these words mean roughly the same thing--protestors can be violent--but rioters has a very strong connotation. Until recently, "protestors" didn't always have a positive connotation, but there was a lot of debate about the word during the BLM protests and now unfortunately "protestor" has acquired a bit of positive interpretation (though much less than the negative connotation of "rioter").
I'd like the point out that there's no reason to have this debate. "Protestors supporting Donald Trump" and "Rioters supporting Donald Trump" can simply be "Supporters of Donald Trump". "Attendees of the Save America Rally", "Intruders in the Capitol building". There's always a non-charged synonym if you look hard enough.
Wikipedia shouldn't get mired in a U.S.-specific political vocabulary dispute. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 19:03, 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.
Why the infobox hasn't two sides with leaderfigures etc. It's obvious that a far-right crowd invaded the Capitol and the official US Goverment. Also there was an armed conflict with police. So this is a civil conflct. An appropriate infobox has been proposed at a section above. There are opposals about it, but at least it's better than the infobox at the arcticle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 ( talk) 00:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Please, no one post here. Post in the infobox discussion above. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 01:42, 11 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 an article that aggregates those arrested? Or maybe those participating. It seems to be a topic of interest. Perhaps, name, affiliation, home state, citation.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)