Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

False flag conspiracies

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."

The Law&Crime source looks legit, if it is indeed run by the same Dan Abrams that the Wikipedia article is about. That would only confirm the Mo Brooks information, though. Secondly, even with a source, we would still need consensus that the information is not WP:UNDUE and other considerations; being covered by a reliable source is necessary, but not sufficient, for including information in an article. It also needs to be determined by consensus that it is relevant. --Jayron32 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking up "Antifa capitol" shows many sources discussing and debunking the conspiracy theory. Matt Gaetz uttered it on the senate floor. I definitely support including it and saying it's false, because it has been shown to be false about 5 times over yet still spreads. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it still spreads. Rudy was selling gold/fear... again: WHAT REALLY REALLY REALLY HAPPENED On January 6th?, Rudy W. Giuliani Youtube Chanel, 8 January 2021, 335.950 Clicks 577.000 Follower. Rudy's video has been removed from YouTube just hours after it appeared. He was blaming the MAGA mob riot on the "fascist-deep-state ANTIFA/antifascists". With dramatic starring of Youtube-Holocaust-denier and Groyper Army leader Nick Fuentes! --93.211.218.107 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (6)

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 is simply not true as of now, as Betsy Devos and Elaine Chao, both cabinet members, have resigned since the event as a direct result. Even had your request been accurate at the time of the publication of the article, it isn't anymore. Builder018 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
If you're suggesting the initial statement by Borger is no longer true (a sentiment I would agree with), I would amend my request to simply have that line removed from the article as incorrect.
If it is to stand, then I have to ask for clarification on resistance to my addition. Has Mulvaney retracted his statement, or has every member of the cabinet resigned? Without one or both of those scenarios occurring there is no way of knowing the "truth" of his assertion, only that he has made it and a reliable source has reported it. Dangerdan97 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
My assertion is indeed that the initial statement by Borger is no longer true, and should be removed. Builder018 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Builder018: If you look at the source, it's very clear Borger is writing after Chao and Devos resigned, and is explicitly describing them as "second-tier officials". You can disagree with his assessment, but the article's presentation of his statement, which I've now restored in full, is entirely accurate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case, then Borger is incredibly incorrect; by no means is any cabinet member a "second-tier official", and even the most seemingly unimportant wield a massive amount of power and influence, though his assessment being incorrect rather than out of date makes for a much less strong opposition to the inclusion. Builder018 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Unacceptable removal of key facts from the first sentence

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)

Agree that the removal of this information is entirely inappropriate, and should be re-instated if there is no significant objection. Builder018 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to remark that I find the current phrasing awkward, as it seems to be trying to cram too much information into a single sentence. I preferred the earlier version which stated that the rioters were "supporting United States President Donald Trump". From a readability point of view it might make more sense to add the "attempts to overturn the election" part in the second paragraph which discusses Trump's comments leading up to the riots. AnonQuixote (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@AnonQuixote: "attempts to overturn the election" does not supply nearly enough information; many elections have taken place recently, and multiple have been challenged. The current section was sufficient context without overly crowding the article. Builder018 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The edit in question removed the phrase "supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election", describing the rioters. I agree that the information/wikilinks should not be removed, but I think trying to fit everything into the initial sentence results in awkward phrasing. AnonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it's not the exact wording that's the issue, but the inclusion of key facts and links to those related articles. We may have to discuss the exact wording further, but the sentence should be reinstated until we agree on a new wording. --Tataral (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Concur with Tataral, the sentence should probably be re-written by consensus, but should be re-instated and not removed until such consensus for a re-write can be obtained. Builder018 (talk) 17:52, 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)

User:Elijahandskip has continued to attempt to edit-war out this sentence; I have restored it again and warned them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It is so funny that a discussion about this exact topic is above in the talk page. Extremely funny how you followed a discussion here and completely ignored the discussion above. There is no consensus as multiple people (In the discussion above) stated an oppose AND a support for it. I would consider this discussion irrelevant as it doesn’t involve anything from the one above. Please move the discussion to the topic above. I am undoing the part in question and I am rejecting the “warning” as this talk page section is actually how major problems arise. Please see above. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As explained above, it's an outright falsehood that there is a discussion above about this (I started the other discussion as well). There is no support for your edit-warring over this sentence and attempt to remove uncontroversial facts and links to other relevant articles. Please self-revert. --Tataral (talk) 18:27, 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)

The discussion in question says nothing about this specific wording in the lede. The fact that a discussion is ongoing about some other wording does not imply that you may unilaterally declare that no edits may be made to other wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The other discussion is specifically about whether to include something about Trump's personal "urging" or "incitement" in the sentence, not about stating the uncontroversial fact that the protesters were supporters of Trump or including relevant links to other WP articles. --Tataral (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I did not participate in the previous discussions on this matter but it is obvious to me that Elijahandskip's edit was inappropriate and against clear consensus existing here (which I myself support). I have restored [3] the wording to the lede. I am currently on wikibreak and will be mostly inactive on WP for a few weeks. However, I do want to note that this page is subject to WP:ACDS. If issues of significant and persistent misconduct arise here, they can be reported at WP:AE for appropriate action there. Nsk92 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    My edit was not called for. I understand what the consensus here is for and I respect it. I do want to note that in the future, this could get messy again (Unintentionally). Personally, I feel like the discussion above (If votes to remove it) could have an impact on the lead sentence that would go against this consensus. For now, we kick the can down the road. Hopefully it doesn’t get messy, but it could. Sorry for the problems I caused. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:07, 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)

  • I think this is now correctly reflected on the page ("The riots were incited by comments made by Trump and his allies at an earlier rally"). Indeed, it is important that they were not just supporters of Trump (and Republican Party), but that they were incited by him. As sources say, "Seething with anger, mostly unmasked, Donald Trump’s supporters stormed and breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, stoked by his defiant speech claiming the election had been stolen from him." and especially this :“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump had told the crowd, urging them to head to the Capitol. That must be cited on this page. [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above pretty much has a decent consensus that the word "urge" shouldn't be used in the lead paragraph as Pres. Trump never said the exact phrase "Storm the capital". He might have alluded to it, but the word urge means a direct statement. See Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence for that discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:07, 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)

Agreed—please see my comments about ongoing BLP violation here. Using Wikivoice to assert that Donald Trump committed a serious crime is unacceptable, and guidance makes clear we must both use "alleged" or "accused" and identify the accusers. Also, this fact-check should be instructive. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Does speculation by reliable sources equal fact?

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)

Agreed. It's a specific accusation with legal implications and Wikipedia isn't about speculation. The job of assigning blame is a court. All current sources are sources that have expressed anti-Trump sentiment. We need more than that. Please post on the discussion above. We need more sane voices like yours. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Q746371: You mention this above: 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)
It's reliable in the facts it reports. It is correct to state what Trump said and cite the newspaper. It is not correct to use its same language and draw its same conclusions. Further, "inciting an insurrection" has legal implications. It is perfectly reasonable for a newspaper to accuse someone of a crime, but inappropriate for Wikipedia to state it without saying who accused them. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The use of Inciting in this article is not a legal matter, and we don't need to wait for a court of law to weigh in on it to see whether or not he incited the crowd. There's far more than enough consensus for this to be put into wikivoice with no issue. Builder018 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
One article may well be challenged, especially from a sketchy source. But dozens of articles, from dozens of reliable networks, represent a consensus that Wikipedia by its policies cannot ignore. Even if there is reason to suspect that the consensus is incorrect, unless that reason is published by another reliable source, Wikipedia cannot depend on it, as that falls under Original Research. Builder018 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources can be reliable in that they make a good faith effort to report truths rather than falsehoods and make best efforts to rectify any inaccurate reports. But that doesn't mean that everything they write is completely factual. They can still embellish or "fill in the blanks" with bits of speculation or interpretation that are not actually supported by empirical facts or even particularly effortful or informed analysis of facts. And I do not fault them for doing this (though I would prefer that they didn't). But it illustrates that what makes good news media isn't the same as what makes a good encyclopedia.--Frogging101 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Kingsif and Builder018. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
We're editing in the middle of event. Sentences like these don't belong in the article. Whether Trumped "incited" or "urged" will be stated by more authoritative sources later. This sentence will either read, "X agency indicted Trump for inciting...and found guilty" or will quote historians. There's no point in quoting newspapers making their own (possibly correct) interpretations. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed a sentence of this sort yesterday, but it seems to have found its way back in. Can we take this section as indicating a consensus it doesn't belong? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There's absolutely no such consensus here, in fact it's basically evenly divided. The argument that we need to wait for a court of law to state things like "instigated" or "falsely" for us to include them is based on an inherently flawed understanding of policy. Builder018 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It depends on what the preponderance of sources say. But it is also (to a degree) speculation. I lean towards yes we can say this, as simply put its to widely held a view for anything else to be a bit wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected pipe bomber

here if anyone needs it: File:Pipe bomb suspect FBI Jan 2021.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs)

Per Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, this file shouldn't even be uploaded, let alone included in the article. Hard oppose to any possible inclusion. Builder018 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I've disabled the image per WP:BLPCRIME. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This file shouldn't even be on our servers. Thank you and please don't hesitate to remove anything like this immediately. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine to have that image - as the wanted poster - hosted on Wikipedia or on Commons. Since it's not actually identifying any known individual, it's not needed as a cropped image (but also fine to have until the figure does become identifiable) Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Specific word/phrase discussions

These are discussions for words or phrases that are questioned.

Closing per discussion above and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus

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.

When Trump "Urged" his supporters

In the "Save America March" section, we currently have the phrase "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol".

  • Replace with incited as Pres. Trump didn't directly say "storm the capitol" or "march on the capitol" (In respect to a command). The word "Urge" means to "recommend or advocate (something) strongly" (Oxford dictionary). Since he never actually said a command to storm the capitol, saying it would be a lie and would be a slight bias on Wikipedia. Incited is a better word for what he did. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment In a discussion earlier, the community had a consensus to remove the word "Urge" from the lead. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Circumstances of Mr. Greesons death

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

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/an-alabama-man-who-suffered-a-heart-attack-outside-the-capitol-is-among-the-dead.html
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/08/woman-possibly-crushed-to-death-these-are-the-five-people-who-died-amid-pro-trump-riots/?sh=684d4261737c
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/an-alabama-man-who-suffered-a-heart-attack-outside-the-capitol-is-among-the-dead.html

The other protesters who died

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)

I thought one protester died after falling 50 feet from the scaffolding? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead getting too long again

Perhaps the italicized text below should be moved to other sections:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they damaged, ransacked,[17] and occupied parts of the building for several hours.[18]
The storming led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol building, and it disrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes and formalize Joe Biden's election victory. The rioters gathered in support of President Trump's persistent and false claims that the 2020 election had been "stolen" from him, which were part of his months-long effort to overturn his electoral defeat. Summoned by Trump,[19] thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and 6 to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory.[20][21][22]
On the morning of January 6, protesters assembled on the Ellipse for a "Save America" rally.[23][24] in which Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and several members of Congress addressed the crowd.[25] Trump encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and to march towards the Capitol,[26][27] while Giuliani called for "trial by combat",[28] and Trump Jr. threatened Trump's opponents that "we're coming for you."[29] As the rioters entered the Capitol by breaking through windows and doors, Capitol security evacuated the Senate and House of Representatives chambers. Several buildings in the Capitol complex were evacuated, and all of them were locked down.[30] Rioters broke past security to occupy the evacuated Senate chamber while federal law enforcement officers drew handguns to prevent entry to the evacuated House floor.[31][32][33] The evacuated office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was occupied.[34] Improvised explosive devices were found on the Capitol grounds during the riots; explosives were also found at offices for both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, and in a nearby vehicle.
Five people have been confirmed dead from the events and others were seriously injured. One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died.[35][36][37] Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.[3][12][38] Federal authorities launched a murder investigation to examine Sicknick's killing.[39] Three protesters suffered fatal medical emergencies during the event.
Trump reacted slowly to the storming, first resisting sending the National Guard to quell the mob,[40] and eventually praising the rioters as "great patriots" and telling them to "go home in peace" while reiterating false claims of election fraud.[41][42] The crowd was dispersed out of the U.S. Capitol later that evening. The process to certify Electoral College results resumed that evening and continued to its conclusion the following morning, with Pence declaring Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the victors and affirming that they will assume office on January 20. Under pressure from his administration, including many resignations, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a statement.[43][44][45]
The events prompted widespread condemnation by political leaders and organizations in the United States and abroad. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the storming of the Capitol a "failed insurrection". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for Trump to be removed from office, either through the 25th Amendment or by impeachment.[46] Facebook responded by locking Trump's accounts and removing posts related to the incident, and Twitter responded initially by locking his account for 12 hours, then permanently suspending his account on January 8, 2021.[47][48] The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as treason,[49] insurrection, sedition, domestic terrorism,[50] and an attempted coup d'état[51][52] or self-coup[53] by Trump.

This would leave the intro like this:

On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they damaged, ransacked,[17] and occupied parts of the building for several hours.[18]
The storming led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol building, and it disrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes and formalize Joe Biden's election victory. Summoned by Trump,[19] thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and 6 to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory.[20][21][22] On the morning of January 6, protesters assembled on the Ellipse. Trump encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and to march towards the Capitol,[26][27]
Five people have been confirmed dead from the events and others were seriously injured. One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died.[35][36][37] Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.[3][12][38]
Trump reacted slowly to the storming, first resisting sending the National Guard to quell the mob,[40] and eventually praising the rioters as "great patriots" and telling them to "go home in peace" while reiterating false claims of election fraud.[41][42] Under pressure from his administration, including many resignations, Trump committed to an orderly transition of power in a statement.[43][44][45] The events prompted widespread condemnation by political leaders and organizations in the United States and abroad.

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)

United States Capitol art

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 evacuated office of the Speaker was occupied.

Strong consensus (if few participants) to retain text about Pelosi's office being entered. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 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.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&diff=999359229&oldid=999359132

soibangla (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Who proposed that the occupation of Pelosi's offices be removed? It's currently mentioned in the lede ("he evacuated office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was occupied.") with a reliable source. The statement should stay. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay I see now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 removed related content, saying "Pelosi's office was one of several offices occupied. Stop singling this out". I think that Pelosi being singled out is the most important reason why this information should stay, just as the information about Mike Pence being singled out for harm by rioters should stay. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
As the epitome of "Mob" Richard 'Bigo' Barnett, not only entered Pelosi's office, he also boasted that he 'wrote her a nasty note, put my feet up on her desk and scratched my balls'. --87.170.192.221 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Fatal medical emergency for crushed to death?

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)

Incitement of violence - Permanent Twitter-suspension of Trump

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 event. Discussions about tech regulation and the role of social media companies are driven by events like this. Please find neutral sources.
As a side note, the US media has given significant attention to this event--more than the coronavirus deaths and unemployment. With few developments on the ground, outlets have begun to focus on unconfirmed and speculative reports. Keep on eye on how credible supposed threats like these are. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Twitter is a US company with close personal connection to the event no 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)

Can someone fix the paragraph below to talk about the people in the same order?

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)

Flags, signs and other items left behind in Capitol riot to be preserved as historical artifacts

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)

@John Cummings: This is a great source! Content can probably be added to the "Participating groups" and "Damage, theft, and impact" sections. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Modi flags but no Gasdsen flag?

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)

R.N.C.

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...

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)

"Storming The U.S. Capitol Was About Maintaining White Power In America"

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)

Another Capitol Police officer has died

Discussed above Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 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)

Too soon? No cause of death has been given, unless they died of injuries sustained at the Capitol, then this should not be included.The joy of all things (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see #Capitol Police Officer dead by suicide above. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, EvergreenFir. We should discuss it there. There is not enough information yet to add it to the article - not even to the statistics, i.e., number of deaths. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone has already put this in.The joy of all things (talk)
I've removed it. We have no evidence that the officer is a "casualty" of the insurrection. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

identification of rioters

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)

Please see our reliable sources policy, namely WP:SPS. Wikipedia is not in the business of identifying people from photographs without reliable sources to back them up; the FBI can do that themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare,thanks for the tip, I need to read the policy Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:42, 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)

The Independent isn't really a tabloid, but since their news articles can border on indiscriminate, they're not the most respected. If they're just restating a tweet, there's not much point, but that report that Jones was seen later would be RS. Kingsif (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Even so the tweet mentioned above is him(?) walking along outside the Capitol, according to the captions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

Baseless => False

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)

Baseless and unfounded are no more value-laden than false. Reliable Sources call it that, so we call it that. Also, please sign your posts, so people know who they're talking to. Builder018 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
They are certainly more value laden. Look at the recent entries in the OED under "baseless" and "unfounded". It's always about a dispute or disagreement, often political and always heated. "False" is simple, clear, and accurate. More to the point, "baseless" and "unfounded" add no semantic meaning. Also thank you for the signature reminder. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I entirely agree with this. Whether something is "baseless" or "unfounded" depends on what basis or foundation one finds acceptable. What is false is, for our purposes at least, universally false. I would add that we do not need sources to specifically describe claims as false in order to describe them as such. If a source says "John Doe said antifa were responsible for the attack, which was actually carried out by Trump supporters" or "John Doe said the election was won by Trump, when in fact it was won by Biden" the source is identifying John Doe's claim as a false claim and there is no reason we shouldn't do the same, only more explicitly. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There appears to have been consensus among UK broadcast news media for a period of weeks to use phrases like "unsupported" and "without offering any evidence" - my feeling is that they are trying to put a more explicit disclaimer, a la social media, on these claims than usual. (Normal practice would be to report claims by major figures as "claims", and say who they were challenged by, so this has been a very noticeable change of style, which may come back to bite us.) This seems to me far preferable than saying "false", it's perfectly clear and encourages people who might believe the claims to think about whether the claims are in fact supported, rather than just dismiss the messenger as "MSM". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC).
I think we should expect more of our readers. Note that there are plenty of articles about how to do inadvisable things with chemistry without a "don't do this at home".
In the US, there's a suicide prevention notice on every media about suicide, but none in the Wiki article. Perhaps we should, but as an encyclopedia it I feel intrudes on the voice. I put some weight on your opinion, however, and definitely prefer "unfounded" to "baseless". DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Overview of relevant terminology undergoing discussion

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.

Relevant Discussion There is a discussion about the words "Urge" and "Incited" above. See:Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence Elijahandskip (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Added a section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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 discussion for the word "urge" determined it was not a good word for the lead. It might need to be questioned in the rest of the article as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Added a few, including the headwords themselves which are pretty neutral. Also alphabetized them, just because. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC).
Thank you! DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Storming of the Oregon State Capitol on December 21, 2020

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)

You should discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. TFD (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Riot" and WP:BLPCRIME

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Most Republicans blame Biden for the Capitol invasion.

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)

I'm pretty sure it's already included here: 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Opinion_polling.David O. Johnson (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the Terrorist Attack Over?

Why are you asking us? Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 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.

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, let's wait and see. Mgasparin (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Found a way to portray the sides in the infobox

See other discussions about infobox. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 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'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)

I think this might open the gate to the earlier disagreements. For example, should we not also include the protective details within the Capitol building? I'm not sure if it's police, or FBI, or some other group, but it wasn't simply protesters vs congress. — Czello 08:48, 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)

Agreed, thank you MelanieN. There was consensus above, see relevant section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Protestors vs. Rioters

Prior consensus: seek formal consensus change if wanting to change terms Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'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)

This is being discussed elsewhere on this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Has already been discussed, the consensus was that if they were outside, they were "protesters", but once inside the building, they became "rioters"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

About infobox

Duplicate discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 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.

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)‎

See discussion above. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, no one post here. Post in the infobox discussion above. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

An article listing those arrested?

Would be a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:03, 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)

That would be a clear breach of WP:BLPCRIME. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_7&oldid=1104085189"