![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Currently, the few cherry-picked words from Trump's address are arranged in such a way that they push a POV and give the false impression that he explicitly advocated for a violent attack on the Capitol.
Happily for us, fact-checkers have since used more nuance in describing his words in context—and as Snopes points out here, Trump told them to "peacefully and patriotically" march to the Capitol to "cheer on" legislators to "take back the country". Snopes links to a transcript of the full remarks. Accordingly, I suggest keeping the current phrases, but editing the sentence to read:
That seems to me a far more neutral and accurate encapsulation of what he said in the context of encouraging his supporters going to the Capitol. And I understand there are concerns about length; if that's the case, a briefer but still more-accurate sentence is possible. But it's essential that the lead in this encyclopedia article not give a distorted or biased view of the President's words. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 22:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump said “fight” 23 times in his January 6th 2021 speech. In every every other use of “fight” Trump was referring to an intellectual and political “fight” with words and ideas rather than physical violence. Why would the article assume that Trump’s “fight like hell” statement encouraged unlawful violence? Trump instead encouraged his audience “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Here’s 3 quotes from Trump’s 1-6-2021 speech that tells his audience to peacefully cheer on the elected officials “to take back our County”.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (18:16)
“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women” (16:25)
“So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” (01:12:43)
Before we state a POV that Trump incited an insurrection, let’s at least read Trump’s actual speech.
Trump 1-6-2021 speech full transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6 Harpervi ( talk) 20:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The Trump administration gutted a key federal agency responsible for funneling intelligence and threat assessments to law enforcement partners across the country Could this information be included in the introduction to the Background section?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 12:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The following (properly sourced) lines are in the entry:
A source close to the vice president subsequently told CNN that Trump and his top aides did little to check on Pence's safety during the crisis and appeared unconcerned at the possibility that "an angry mob that he commanded to march on the Capitol might injure the vice president or his family."
The line reports on something an anonymous source noticed that did not happen - it's not actually part of the narrative of what DID happen. Further, it reads like an attack on Trump's character - unnecessary, and out of place. I don't write this in defense of Trump - who I totally oppose - but it disrupts the narrative of the day's events - which say more about Trump, and more effectively, than this anonymous statement about something that purportedly did not happen. I'm deleting the line, and referencing this comment. Jd2718 ( talk) 14:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump and top White House officials did little to check in on Vice President Mike Pence while he and members of his family were inside the US Capitol when Trump-backed rioters stormed the halls of Congress on Wednesday, a source close to the vice president tells CNN....Several of the violent Trump supporters who were rampaging the US Capitol were heard screaming "where's Mike Pence," the source said, frightening the vice president and his family. Yet, the President and his top aides barely lifted a finger to check in on Pence to make sure he and his family were unharmed, the source added
aides to the vice president were outraged that Trump did not check in on Pence on Wednesday as he and his family were fleeing from the mob storming the Capitol.
"While the vice president and his family were in a bunker in the Capitol, the president did not reach out to check on his safety nor did he condemn those who said the VP should be executed," said sources familiar with the matter. Video shows rioters shouting, 'Hang Pence!'
Pence was whisked from the Senate chamber to a secure location, where he was held for hours with staff as well as his wife and daughter, who had been there to support him. Trump did not call to check in on his vice president's safety during the ordeal and instead spent much of Wednesday consumed with anger over Pence's action, tweeting, 'Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.' Later, members of the mob outside the Capitol were captured on video chanting, 'Hang Mike Pence!'
When rioters broke through the perimeter and rampaged the building, Pence, his wife and older daughter were whisked away to a secure location by the Secret Service. Trump did not reach out to inquire about their safety, according to a person close to Pence.
There’s too much evidence proving that this did actually happen so I agree that we should keep it SRD625 ( talk) 15:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I can see that consensus is leaning toward saying something, so let’s talk about wording. I object to the "appeared unconcerned" part of the original material, which is mind reading; let's talk about actions. Reviewing the sources suggested by Neutrality (giving less credence to the AP article since it does not say where it is getting its information), how about something like this:
Sources close to the vice president said that Trump never reached out to Pence during the siege or inquired about his safety. ( NBC News) Aides believed that Pence was being set up as a scapegoat for Trump’s failure to overturn the results of the election. ( CNN 1) Pence was described as very angry with Trump, and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incident. ( CNN 2)
Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incidentwill get outdated at some point, but otherwise that sounds good. Majavah ( talk!) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Responding to
Maile's concern: Should we add something to the first sentence like even as protesters inside the Capitol were seeking him out and chanting “Where is Pence?” (
NYT)
--
MelanieN (
talk)
18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll add it. I agree that a split between Trump and Pence could prove to be one of the most important results of this thing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
In the opening line, it refers to the rioters as domestic terrorists. In the citations used in the opening line (21 and 22), nothing implies that these people were terrorists. The words "Domestic Terrorist", "Terrorist", or even "Domestic" were never used. And as a matter of fact, using a random sampling of 30 or so citations in this article, the words domestic terrorist or their constituent words, words that have alternative meanings similar to that of domestic terrorist or terrorist, wording that would imply these rioters were terrorists or domestic terrorists, or a quotation stating or implying that these rioters were domestic terrorists is nowhere to be found. Calling someone a terrorist is a severe accusation, and if there is no evidence to back it up, it has no place in this article. In the meantime, I am placing a "Citation not found" inline on that line. JazzClam ( talk) 16:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are some events from the C-SPAN broadcast of the Joint Session for Counting of Electoral College Ballots on January 6.
1. The House goes into recess after protestors breach the chamber at 14:16 to 14:18
2. The House goes into recess again at 14:29
3. Protestors inside Statuary Hall at 14:30 to 14:34
4. The Senate goes into recess broadcast at 17:14 to 17:20
The third one would be nice to have but I don't think it's in the public domain since it's not from in the House or the Senate. The last one is public domain though so I uploaded it here. Can it be added to the article? Neckstells ( talk) 10:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
in this version 2021 storming of the United States Capitol ( this version) appears to be incorrect upon viewing the C-SPAN2 clips. Would the following better reflect events, as Senator Sinema had finished, and Senator Lankford was in the midst of remarks?After Pence left, Arizona's senior senator, Kyrsten Sinema, finished her defense before the Senate was recessed at 2:20 p.m., and the chamber was then locked down
References
“ | While debate over the Arizona electoral college votes continued, an armed police officer entered the Senate chamber, positioned facing the back entrance of the chamber. Pence handed the floor from Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema to Senator James Lankford. Moments later, Pence was escorted out by members of the Secret Service, and banging could be heard from outside as people attempted to breach the doors. As Lankford was speaking, the Senate was gaveled into recess at 2:13 p.m. | ” |
“ | The Senate [a] will stand in recess until the call of the chair. | ” |
“ | It wasn't anything you said. | ” |
References
Due to size considerations, the section on the timeline of the events of the Capitol storming likely needs to be spun out into a standalone article. If approved, I suggest placing the link at the beginning of the main section on the D.C. events using Template:For. TVTonightOKC ( talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I scanned the talk page and didn't see one happening. I've been reading a lot of coverage about the protesters this weekend, ones who were live streaming and posting on Instagram & Facebook and ones who have since been arrested. And, to a man, they describe what they did as "storming the Capitol." Then I saw a Yale history professor on a news program who was talking about the language we use for this event and she said that "storming" implies heroism (like revolutionaries storming the Bastille and other like incidents). I don't think the article reflects a sympathetic view of the rioters so I think we should consider a title that implies more of a riot or insurrection than a "revolution" or a heroic storming of the bastions of political power. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There was an RfC with more than 200 participants. [1] The current title was the result. We should wait at least a week, probably more, before reopening that question. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Even with all the details and specifics about this crowd listed I was still unable to ascertain if the size was 500 people or 500,000. Did I miss something? Fieldlab ( talk) 10:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
All I've seen in Reliable Source reporting is that there were "thousands" at the rally and "hundreds" in the invasion force. I believe that is still what we say in the article. If we get better/more official numbers we should use them. Ironically, helicopters had been grounded for fear of seeming too "military", so we don't have our usual means of estimating crowd size. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
🇳🇵 I'm glad others are talking about! I was curious about other users' thoughts about adding attendance, even though it hasn't been a much discussed item by news sources. I think we should try and add it in the main infobox.
Jccali1214 (
talk)
01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this addition by Ethanwa probably should be discussed. It might make sense to incorporate such information into the article, but perhaps not as its own stand-alone section. The way it was added also seems to be problematic because basically it was inserted as a level-3 section into the level-2 "Aftermath" section after the level-3 "Criticism of the Capitol Police"; the latter, however, had two level-4 subsections added to it which now are completely out of place in the "Praise of certain individuals". (see before and after for a comparison). I get WP:BOLD and that people want to contribute. but it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS and slow down a bit when expanding like this, just to (1) see whether there's a consensus and (2) try and avoid mucking up (even unintentionally) the overall layout of the article. This article is under WP:ACDS and WP:1RR which means everyone needs to be as careful as possible when editing it. This content might actually fit better in the "Other domestic reactions" section for the praise aspects of it and in the "Rioting in the Capitol building" where the actual actions taken by these individuals might be OK to add. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this section seems mostly based on one's opinion. Should we not add a counter-claim such as this article? [2] 3Kingdoms ( talk) 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The call of many of the Trump rioters to murder VP Pence by hanging is documented by Reliable Sources (as defined by Wikipedia), as well as video. This extraordinary fact should go in the Lead, as it speaks to the intentions of the rioters. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 ( talk) 23:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to get consensus on the issue of whether or not it is okay to site Fox News in politics for attributed opinion (talk shows) for this article. I had previously made edits [4] [5] adding them as a source for opinion on media bias because I thought they were fine to use for opinion. But user Soibangla argues that they shouldn't be used because they are "arguably (and I would argue strongly) "agents" of the larger Trump political operation, and as such should be excluded in this case." The issue is that RSP language in this case isn't very nuanced, as it says Fox News talk shows can only "sometimes" be sourced for opinion. Which is why I came here to get consensus. I would also like to clarify that I am not a fan of Fox News at all, so I don't really care to much if the decision goes either way. @ Soibangla: X-Editor ( talk) 03:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace reports details about several people who took part in the riots. — Chrisahn ( talk) 04:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
To settle the edit warring re: use of "insurrection" in a lede let's do a vote on whether to call it an insurrection, as most US and worldwide reliable sources call it an insurrection Yeungkahchun ( talk) 05:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, i was merely proposing a discussion of a vote on the talk page whether or not to use the word. I highly oppose unilaterally adding the word "insurrection" to the page before a group consensus. To be clear, I did not revert anyone's edit once the word "insurrection" was removed. My stance is that I strogly oppose adding the word "insurrection" unless there is a group consensus. Also, I was topic unbanned. Yeungkahchun ( talk) 05:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
My topic ban has been lifted according to user Mz7. 05:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Former Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger drew parallels between the storming of the Capitol and the Reichskristallnacht in a video he posted via Twitter and urged his fellow Americans to support President-elect Biden to bring us all together. Should this be added to the "reactions" section? -- Nomentz ( talk) 20:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
A good bit of the story are the people who performed the storming of the US capital. Why is there not a section showing all those charged??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverGoneWild ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 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. |
Okay, I'm putting in a ""complete and specific desription" as required, additional details and a request for discussion follow.
My request: Change the opening sentence from "Five people died during or shortly after the event: four were among those who stormed the Capitol and one was a police officer" to "Five people died during or shortly after the event: One person was shot to death by police inside the Capitol building, three people who were present on the Capitol grounds but may not have been inside the building died of natural causes, and one police officer died of head injuries received from rioters."
Section 2.8, "casualties" leads with the sentence: "Five people died during or shortly after the event: four were among those who stormed the Capitol and one was a police officer".
Firstly, the source says that ONE person was shot while attempting to enter the capital building, and that "the three who died from apparent medical emergencies were on the grounds of the Capitol at the time but said it wasn’t clear whether they participated in Wednesday’s events". Shouldn't the opening statement should be changed to reflect this? Those three people may not have been involved in storming the Capitol building, and also, I think people would likely interpret the opening statement to mean that all five people died of violent causes, which isn't the case.
Secondly, the source in question (a Wall Street Journal article) requires a paid subscription to read in its entirety. I just checked the Wikipedia "Verifiability" policy page, "Accessibility" section and it says that reliable sources (for which it seems to me the Wall Street Journal almost certainly qualifies) may be included even if they are difficult for readers to access (indeed, it specifically mentions paid online articles as an example). However, if possible, could someone please add a source or sources which readers can read for themselves in full (if they so desire) without having to pay for the privilege? Surely that would be preferable!
I'd appreciate hearing what other people think about this. KIP13 ( talk) 00:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you will find the following correction is necessary: "they shattered the ideas we took for granted" → "they shattered the ideals we took for granted". The subtitling is also wrong and possibly where this mistake arose. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 22:16, 11 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. |
On April 11th, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf resigned. Veracityforever ( talk) 00:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJzTFZxhpp7/?igshid=131rzfksaw20z
Is some ground footage with audible dialog. Not sure about how notable it is, but can this find a place somewhere? 119.82.84.240 ( talk) 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I have thought about asking protestors to donate footage or photos (form inside the capitol). But they would be incriminating themselves if they did. Journalists are unlikely to want to release their bread and butter under a our license. The best we can hope for is govt. footage, but that may be delayed because of criminal investigations. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
08:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
The section refers to Ashli Babbitt as a "a 35-year-old rioter" the next paragraph states "Three other protesters also died." Are they rioters or are they protesters? also the entire article is one sided and does not represent a neutral point of view in any section, the article authors are all too polorised and should not be working on this article 80.5.174.91 ( talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
What do RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Well I do dispute the validity of left wing media as reliable sources for such an article as they have a heavy bias, but either way you cannot conflate "Rioters" as "Protesters" 80.5.174.91 ( talk) 15:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course I agree and the protest did turn into a riot, but the article says a "Rioter" died then says "Other Protesters" died which by the use of the word "Other" is saying the Rioters and Protestors are one and the same and is not neutral. We do not know if the protesters who died were involved in the riot or were law abiding hence the lack of neutrality when conflating the two. "Three protesters also died" would be a more neutral choice of words than "Three other protesters also died". Also an RS is not an RS in every situation especially situations which they have a heavy bias in. 80.5.174.91 ( talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with "rioter" (or the earlier "invader"). I had changed it to the neutral "35-year-old woman". I can't change it again, but that is what I recommend. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
rioters" Slatersteven ( talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Two previously unreported video clips obtained by The Washington Post shed new light on the fatal shooting by police of Trump supporter and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt as she and other rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Babbitt and others were attempting to breach a barricaded door inside the Capitol building on Wednesday afternoon, angrily demanding that three U.S. Capitol Police officers who were guarding the door step aside, one of the clips shows. The officers moved away as colleagues in tactical gear arrived behind the rioters, according to the clip and other video posted online. Roughly 35 seconds after the officers moved away, as she climbed up toward a broken section of the unguarded door, Babbitt was shot by an officer on the other side.
Just called them all rioters; That’s what I am seeing at least in the news articles I’m looking at SRD625 ( talk) 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say we change it to "1 rioter, 3 protestors and a cop". Slatersteven ( talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It does not seem a stretch to say that all the people involved are protestors, and some of them are rioters. Unless things have changed, none of the three medical emergencies have been identified as rioters, though it is possible one or two might have been.
Therefore it is correct to say "4 protesters died", it is also (almost certainly) correct to say "1 rioter and 3 protesters" - but this may be considered misleading if it transpires that more than one of the dead can be classified as rioters.
Whether we should describe Babbitt as a woman or a rioter in text seems a fine point. It's clear that one or more riots occurred, but not what the temporal or spatial limit of a riot is. I don't know what the benefit of calling her a rioter, as well as saying that she was climbing through a just broken window in a barricaded door which was being held by armed guards, which conveys far more information. It's also obvious from her name that she is a woman.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
If anyone for whatever article needs more photos, check out my page under this username at Wikimedia Commons and feel free to apply them wherever. I'm prioritizing getting the direct storming ones up first, then later will upload photos from Trump's speech on the Ellipse, some of which include people who later stormed the Capitol.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapTheForwardAssist
TapTheForwardAssist ( talk) 04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It would improve the article if the photos were grouped as a Category and then linked from the article. Qexigator ( talk) 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Include a sentence in the background about the other times the capitol building has been attacked? It might be useful for readers (especially non American readers who don't have as much of a background in American history) to include one sentence in the Background section mentioning the other times the capitol building has been attacked, perhaps something like:
The capitol building has been attacked on several occasions; during the 1814 Burning of Washington, a dynamite attack in 1915, in 1954 by Puerto Rican nationalists and the 1983 Resistance Conspiracy' bomb.
Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor ( talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree but not using that wording SRD625 ( talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the best wording, I think:
While there have been other attacks and bombings of the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British Army during the War of 1812, [1] [2] [3] [4] and the first time that a president had incited an attack against the Capitol. [1]
References
For the first time on Wednesday, it was the site of an armed insurrection incited by the sitting president....Not since 1814 has the building been breached. Then, it was by British troops who set fire to the building during a broader attack on Washington in the war of 1812.
While this is the first large-scale occupation of the U.S. Capitol since 1814, there have been several other instances of violence at the U.S. Capitol, particularly in the 20th century.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The attack, which some historians called the most severe assault on the Capitol since the British sacked the building in 1814
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The stunning display of insurrection was the first time the US Capitol had been overrun since the British attacked and burned the building in August of 1814, during the War of 1812, according to Samuel Holliday, director of scholarship and operations with the US Capitol Historical Society.
-- Neutrality talk 22:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
State capitol buildings have also been occupied. For example Wisconsin in 2011. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
There are several stories about reporters in this article. All are sourced. Several (all?) of them do not contribute to the topic. Which should be kept?
Perhaps the Schaff story is part of the narrative of events? I don't see the Fandos and Schaff stories as anything more than human interest. Jd2718 ( talk) 22:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view whether we have a Threats against the lives of government officials section or not, but at this point it looks like threats against Pence were covered earlier. Perhaps threats against Pelosi could also be handled with Pence. Or migrate all the specific threats into the new section. One or the other. Mcfnord ( talk) 06:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit changed the established consensus wording by adding a lengthy and UNDUE intepretation of Trump's speech to the lead to try to "get him off the hook" and that portrays him as just calling for "protection of elections." The shorter version without the original analysis and POV should be reinstated. -- Tataral ( talk) 13:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Deaths and/or causalities need to include causation to prevent false notions. 2 of the 5 deaths were due to natural causes from a heart attack and a stroke. Joustice ( talk) 15:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Green Party former presidential candidate Howie Hawkins has spoken about the Capitol insurrection on the "All Exits Closed" podcast. [1] I'm not all too experienced with sourcing, so would a podcast as a source be appropriate? Nekomancerjade ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Currently, the few cherry-picked words from Trump's address are arranged in such a way that they push a POV and give the false impression that he explicitly advocated for a violent attack on the Capitol.
Happily for us, fact-checkers have since used more nuance in describing his words in context—and as Snopes points out here, Trump told them to "peacefully and patriotically" march to the Capitol to "cheer on" legislators to "take back the country". Snopes links to a transcript of the full remarks. Accordingly, I suggest keeping the current phrases, but editing the sentence to read:
That seems to me a far more neutral and accurate encapsulation of what he said in the context of encouraging his supporters going to the Capitol. And I understand there are concerns about length; if that's the case, a briefer but still more-accurate sentence is possible. But it's essential that the lead in this encyclopedia article not give a distorted or biased view of the President's words. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 22:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump said “fight” 23 times in his January 6th 2021 speech. In every every other use of “fight” Trump was referring to an intellectual and political “fight” with words and ideas rather than physical violence. Why would the article assume that Trump’s “fight like hell” statement encouraged unlawful violence? Trump instead encouraged his audience “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Here’s 3 quotes from Trump’s 1-6-2021 speech that tells his audience to peacefully cheer on the elected officials “to take back our County”.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (18:16)
“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women” (16:25)
“So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” (01:12:43)
Before we state a POV that Trump incited an insurrection, let’s at least read Trump’s actual speech.
Trump 1-6-2021 speech full transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6 Harpervi ( talk) 20:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The Trump administration gutted a key federal agency responsible for funneling intelligence and threat assessments to law enforcement partners across the country Could this information be included in the introduction to the Background section?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 12:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The following (properly sourced) lines are in the entry:
A source close to the vice president subsequently told CNN that Trump and his top aides did little to check on Pence's safety during the crisis and appeared unconcerned at the possibility that "an angry mob that he commanded to march on the Capitol might injure the vice president or his family."
The line reports on something an anonymous source noticed that did not happen - it's not actually part of the narrative of what DID happen. Further, it reads like an attack on Trump's character - unnecessary, and out of place. I don't write this in defense of Trump - who I totally oppose - but it disrupts the narrative of the day's events - which say more about Trump, and more effectively, than this anonymous statement about something that purportedly did not happen. I'm deleting the line, and referencing this comment. Jd2718 ( talk) 14:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump and top White House officials did little to check in on Vice President Mike Pence while he and members of his family were inside the US Capitol when Trump-backed rioters stormed the halls of Congress on Wednesday, a source close to the vice president tells CNN....Several of the violent Trump supporters who were rampaging the US Capitol were heard screaming "where's Mike Pence," the source said, frightening the vice president and his family. Yet, the President and his top aides barely lifted a finger to check in on Pence to make sure he and his family were unharmed, the source added
aides to the vice president were outraged that Trump did not check in on Pence on Wednesday as he and his family were fleeing from the mob storming the Capitol.
"While the vice president and his family were in a bunker in the Capitol, the president did not reach out to check on his safety nor did he condemn those who said the VP should be executed," said sources familiar with the matter. Video shows rioters shouting, 'Hang Pence!'
Pence was whisked from the Senate chamber to a secure location, where he was held for hours with staff as well as his wife and daughter, who had been there to support him. Trump did not call to check in on his vice president's safety during the ordeal and instead spent much of Wednesday consumed with anger over Pence's action, tweeting, 'Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.' Later, members of the mob outside the Capitol were captured on video chanting, 'Hang Mike Pence!'
When rioters broke through the perimeter and rampaged the building, Pence, his wife and older daughter were whisked away to a secure location by the Secret Service. Trump did not reach out to inquire about their safety, according to a person close to Pence.
There’s too much evidence proving that this did actually happen so I agree that we should keep it SRD625 ( talk) 15:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I can see that consensus is leaning toward saying something, so let’s talk about wording. I object to the "appeared unconcerned" part of the original material, which is mind reading; let's talk about actions. Reviewing the sources suggested by Neutrality (giving less credence to the AP article since it does not say where it is getting its information), how about something like this:
Sources close to the vice president said that Trump never reached out to Pence during the siege or inquired about his safety. ( NBC News) Aides believed that Pence was being set up as a scapegoat for Trump’s failure to overturn the results of the election. ( CNN 1) Pence was described as very angry with Trump, and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incident. ( CNN 2)
Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incidentwill get outdated at some point, but otherwise that sounds good. Majavah ( talk!) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Responding to
Maile's concern: Should we add something to the first sentence like even as protesters inside the Capitol were seeking him out and chanting “Where is Pence?” (
NYT)
--
MelanieN (
talk)
18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll add it. I agree that a split between Trump and Pence could prove to be one of the most important results of this thing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
In the opening line, it refers to the rioters as domestic terrorists. In the citations used in the opening line (21 and 22), nothing implies that these people were terrorists. The words "Domestic Terrorist", "Terrorist", or even "Domestic" were never used. And as a matter of fact, using a random sampling of 30 or so citations in this article, the words domestic terrorist or their constituent words, words that have alternative meanings similar to that of domestic terrorist or terrorist, wording that would imply these rioters were terrorists or domestic terrorists, or a quotation stating or implying that these rioters were domestic terrorists is nowhere to be found. Calling someone a terrorist is a severe accusation, and if there is no evidence to back it up, it has no place in this article. In the meantime, I am placing a "Citation not found" inline on that line. JazzClam ( talk) 16:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are some events from the C-SPAN broadcast of the Joint Session for Counting of Electoral College Ballots on January 6.
1. The House goes into recess after protestors breach the chamber at 14:16 to 14:18
2. The House goes into recess again at 14:29
3. Protestors inside Statuary Hall at 14:30 to 14:34
4. The Senate goes into recess broadcast at 17:14 to 17:20
The third one would be nice to have but I don't think it's in the public domain since it's not from in the House or the Senate. The last one is public domain though so I uploaded it here. Can it be added to the article? Neckstells ( talk) 10:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
in this version 2021 storming of the United States Capitol ( this version) appears to be incorrect upon viewing the C-SPAN2 clips. Would the following better reflect events, as Senator Sinema had finished, and Senator Lankford was in the midst of remarks?After Pence left, Arizona's senior senator, Kyrsten Sinema, finished her defense before the Senate was recessed at 2:20 p.m., and the chamber was then locked down
References
“ | While debate over the Arizona electoral college votes continued, an armed police officer entered the Senate chamber, positioned facing the back entrance of the chamber. Pence handed the floor from Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema to Senator James Lankford. Moments later, Pence was escorted out by members of the Secret Service, and banging could be heard from outside as people attempted to breach the doors. As Lankford was speaking, the Senate was gaveled into recess at 2:13 p.m. | ” |
“ | The Senate [a] will stand in recess until the call of the chair. | ” |
“ | It wasn't anything you said. | ” |
References
Due to size considerations, the section on the timeline of the events of the Capitol storming likely needs to be spun out into a standalone article. If approved, I suggest placing the link at the beginning of the main section on the D.C. events using Template:For. TVTonightOKC ( talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I scanned the talk page and didn't see one happening. I've been reading a lot of coverage about the protesters this weekend, ones who were live streaming and posting on Instagram & Facebook and ones who have since been arrested. And, to a man, they describe what they did as "storming the Capitol." Then I saw a Yale history professor on a news program who was talking about the language we use for this event and she said that "storming" implies heroism (like revolutionaries storming the Bastille and other like incidents). I don't think the article reflects a sympathetic view of the rioters so I think we should consider a title that implies more of a riot or insurrection than a "revolution" or a heroic storming of the bastions of political power. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There was an RfC with more than 200 participants. [1] The current title was the result. We should wait at least a week, probably more, before reopening that question. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Even with all the details and specifics about this crowd listed I was still unable to ascertain if the size was 500 people or 500,000. Did I miss something? Fieldlab ( talk) 10:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
All I've seen in Reliable Source reporting is that there were "thousands" at the rally and "hundreds" in the invasion force. I believe that is still what we say in the article. If we get better/more official numbers we should use them. Ironically, helicopters had been grounded for fear of seeming too "military", so we don't have our usual means of estimating crowd size. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
🇳🇵 I'm glad others are talking about! I was curious about other users' thoughts about adding attendance, even though it hasn't been a much discussed item by news sources. I think we should try and add it in the main infobox.
Jccali1214 (
talk)
01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this addition by Ethanwa probably should be discussed. It might make sense to incorporate such information into the article, but perhaps not as its own stand-alone section. The way it was added also seems to be problematic because basically it was inserted as a level-3 section into the level-2 "Aftermath" section after the level-3 "Criticism of the Capitol Police"; the latter, however, had two level-4 subsections added to it which now are completely out of place in the "Praise of certain individuals". (see before and after for a comparison). I get WP:BOLD and that people want to contribute. but it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS and slow down a bit when expanding like this, just to (1) see whether there's a consensus and (2) try and avoid mucking up (even unintentionally) the overall layout of the article. This article is under WP:ACDS and WP:1RR which means everyone needs to be as careful as possible when editing it. This content might actually fit better in the "Other domestic reactions" section for the praise aspects of it and in the "Rioting in the Capitol building" where the actual actions taken by these individuals might be OK to add. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this section seems mostly based on one's opinion. Should we not add a counter-claim such as this article? [2] 3Kingdoms ( talk) 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The call of many of the Trump rioters to murder VP Pence by hanging is documented by Reliable Sources (as defined by Wikipedia), as well as video. This extraordinary fact should go in the Lead, as it speaks to the intentions of the rioters. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 ( talk) 23:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to get consensus on the issue of whether or not it is okay to site Fox News in politics for attributed opinion (talk shows) for this article. I had previously made edits [4] [5] adding them as a source for opinion on media bias because I thought they were fine to use for opinion. But user Soibangla argues that they shouldn't be used because they are "arguably (and I would argue strongly) "agents" of the larger Trump political operation, and as such should be excluded in this case." The issue is that RSP language in this case isn't very nuanced, as it says Fox News talk shows can only "sometimes" be sourced for opinion. Which is why I came here to get consensus. I would also like to clarify that I am not a fan of Fox News at all, so I don't really care to much if the decision goes either way. @ Soibangla: X-Editor ( talk) 03:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace reports details about several people who took part in the riots. — Chrisahn ( talk) 04:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
To settle the edit warring re: use of "insurrection" in a lede let's do a vote on whether to call it an insurrection, as most US and worldwide reliable sources call it an insurrection Yeungkahchun ( talk) 05:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, i was merely proposing a discussion of a vote on the talk page whether or not to use the word. I highly oppose unilaterally adding the word "insurrection" to the page before a group consensus. To be clear, I did not revert anyone's edit once the word "insurrection" was removed. My stance is that I strogly oppose adding the word "insurrection" unless there is a group consensus. Also, I was topic unbanned. Yeungkahchun ( talk) 05:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
My topic ban has been lifted according to user Mz7. 05:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Former Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger drew parallels between the storming of the Capitol and the Reichskristallnacht in a video he posted via Twitter and urged his fellow Americans to support President-elect Biden to bring us all together. Should this be added to the "reactions" section? -- Nomentz ( talk) 20:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
A good bit of the story are the people who performed the storming of the US capital. Why is there not a section showing all those charged??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverGoneWild ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 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. |
Okay, I'm putting in a ""complete and specific desription" as required, additional details and a request for discussion follow.
My request: Change the opening sentence from "Five people died during or shortly after the event: four were among those who stormed the Capitol and one was a police officer" to "Five people died during or shortly after the event: One person was shot to death by police inside the Capitol building, three people who were present on the Capitol grounds but may not have been inside the building died of natural causes, and one police officer died of head injuries received from rioters."
Section 2.8, "casualties" leads with the sentence: "Five people died during or shortly after the event: four were among those who stormed the Capitol and one was a police officer".
Firstly, the source says that ONE person was shot while attempting to enter the capital building, and that "the three who died from apparent medical emergencies were on the grounds of the Capitol at the time but said it wasn’t clear whether they participated in Wednesday’s events". Shouldn't the opening statement should be changed to reflect this? Those three people may not have been involved in storming the Capitol building, and also, I think people would likely interpret the opening statement to mean that all five people died of violent causes, which isn't the case.
Secondly, the source in question (a Wall Street Journal article) requires a paid subscription to read in its entirety. I just checked the Wikipedia "Verifiability" policy page, "Accessibility" section and it says that reliable sources (for which it seems to me the Wall Street Journal almost certainly qualifies) may be included even if they are difficult for readers to access (indeed, it specifically mentions paid online articles as an example). However, if possible, could someone please add a source or sources which readers can read for themselves in full (if they so desire) without having to pay for the privilege? Surely that would be preferable!
I'd appreciate hearing what other people think about this. KIP13 ( talk) 00:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you will find the following correction is necessary: "they shattered the ideas we took for granted" → "they shattered the ideals we took for granted". The subtitling is also wrong and possibly where this mistake arose. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 22:16, 11 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. |
On April 11th, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf resigned. Veracityforever ( talk) 00:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJzTFZxhpp7/?igshid=131rzfksaw20z
Is some ground footage with audible dialog. Not sure about how notable it is, but can this find a place somewhere? 119.82.84.240 ( talk) 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I have thought about asking protestors to donate footage or photos (form inside the capitol). But they would be incriminating themselves if they did. Journalists are unlikely to want to release their bread and butter under a our license. The best we can hope for is govt. footage, but that may be delayed because of criminal investigations. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
08:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
The section refers to Ashli Babbitt as a "a 35-year-old rioter" the next paragraph states "Three other protesters also died." Are they rioters or are they protesters? also the entire article is one sided and does not represent a neutral point of view in any section, the article authors are all too polorised and should not be working on this article 80.5.174.91 ( talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
What do RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Well I do dispute the validity of left wing media as reliable sources for such an article as they have a heavy bias, but either way you cannot conflate "Rioters" as "Protesters" 80.5.174.91 ( talk) 15:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course I agree and the protest did turn into a riot, but the article says a "Rioter" died then says "Other Protesters" died which by the use of the word "Other" is saying the Rioters and Protestors are one and the same and is not neutral. We do not know if the protesters who died were involved in the riot or were law abiding hence the lack of neutrality when conflating the two. "Three protesters also died" would be a more neutral choice of words than "Three other protesters also died". Also an RS is not an RS in every situation especially situations which they have a heavy bias in. 80.5.174.91 ( talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with "rioter" (or the earlier "invader"). I had changed it to the neutral "35-year-old woman". I can't change it again, but that is what I recommend. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
rioters" Slatersteven ( talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Two previously unreported video clips obtained by The Washington Post shed new light on the fatal shooting by police of Trump supporter and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt as she and other rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Babbitt and others were attempting to breach a barricaded door inside the Capitol building on Wednesday afternoon, angrily demanding that three U.S. Capitol Police officers who were guarding the door step aside, one of the clips shows. The officers moved away as colleagues in tactical gear arrived behind the rioters, according to the clip and other video posted online. Roughly 35 seconds after the officers moved away, as she climbed up toward a broken section of the unguarded door, Babbitt was shot by an officer on the other side.
Just called them all rioters; That’s what I am seeing at least in the news articles I’m looking at SRD625 ( talk) 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say we change it to "1 rioter, 3 protestors and a cop". Slatersteven ( talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It does not seem a stretch to say that all the people involved are protestors, and some of them are rioters. Unless things have changed, none of the three medical emergencies have been identified as rioters, though it is possible one or two might have been.
Therefore it is correct to say "4 protesters died", it is also (almost certainly) correct to say "1 rioter and 3 protesters" - but this may be considered misleading if it transpires that more than one of the dead can be classified as rioters.
Whether we should describe Babbitt as a woman or a rioter in text seems a fine point. It's clear that one or more riots occurred, but not what the temporal or spatial limit of a riot is. I don't know what the benefit of calling her a rioter, as well as saying that she was climbing through a just broken window in a barricaded door which was being held by armed guards, which conveys far more information. It's also obvious from her name that she is a woman.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
If anyone for whatever article needs more photos, check out my page under this username at Wikimedia Commons and feel free to apply them wherever. I'm prioritizing getting the direct storming ones up first, then later will upload photos from Trump's speech on the Ellipse, some of which include people who later stormed the Capitol.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapTheForwardAssist
TapTheForwardAssist ( talk) 04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It would improve the article if the photos were grouped as a Category and then linked from the article. Qexigator ( talk) 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Include a sentence in the background about the other times the capitol building has been attacked? It might be useful for readers (especially non American readers who don't have as much of a background in American history) to include one sentence in the Background section mentioning the other times the capitol building has been attacked, perhaps something like:
The capitol building has been attacked on several occasions; during the 1814 Burning of Washington, a dynamite attack in 1915, in 1954 by Puerto Rican nationalists and the 1983 Resistance Conspiracy' bomb.
Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor ( talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree but not using that wording SRD625 ( talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the best wording, I think:
While there have been other attacks and bombings of the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British Army during the War of 1812, [1] [2] [3] [4] and the first time that a president had incited an attack against the Capitol. [1]
References
For the first time on Wednesday, it was the site of an armed insurrection incited by the sitting president....Not since 1814 has the building been breached. Then, it was by British troops who set fire to the building during a broader attack on Washington in the war of 1812.
While this is the first large-scale occupation of the U.S. Capitol since 1814, there have been several other instances of violence at the U.S. Capitol, particularly in the 20th century.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The attack, which some historians called the most severe assault on the Capitol since the British sacked the building in 1814
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The stunning display of insurrection was the first time the US Capitol had been overrun since the British attacked and burned the building in August of 1814, during the War of 1812, according to Samuel Holliday, director of scholarship and operations with the US Capitol Historical Society.
-- Neutrality talk 22:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
State capitol buildings have also been occupied. For example Wisconsin in 2011. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
09:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
There are several stories about reporters in this article. All are sourced. Several (all?) of them do not contribute to the topic. Which should be kept?
Perhaps the Schaff story is part of the narrative of events? I don't see the Fandos and Schaff stories as anything more than human interest. Jd2718 ( talk) 22:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view whether we have a Threats against the lives of government officials section or not, but at this point it looks like threats against Pence were covered earlier. Perhaps threats against Pelosi could also be handled with Pence. Or migrate all the specific threats into the new section. One or the other. Mcfnord ( talk) 06:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit changed the established consensus wording by adding a lengthy and UNDUE intepretation of Trump's speech to the lead to try to "get him off the hook" and that portrays him as just calling for "protection of elections." The shorter version without the original analysis and POV should be reinstated. -- Tataral ( talk) 13:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Deaths and/or causalities need to include causation to prevent false notions. 2 of the 5 deaths were due to natural causes from a heart attack and a stroke. Joustice ( talk) 15:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Green Party former presidential candidate Howie Hawkins has spoken about the Capitol insurrection on the "All Exits Closed" podcast. [1] I'm not all too experienced with sourcing, so would a podcast as a source be appropriate? Nekomancerjade ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).