Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Requested move 8 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close to enforce the RM moratorium through the weekend. Sceptre (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 breach of the United States Capitol – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOL. Using "Storming" kinda has an alarming sound that comes across as not totally neutral. Additionally, breach has been commonly used in reliable sources.

  • Support - though I'm not seeing Breach as much as Insurrection, Riot, Invasion and Siege in the headlines here. Examples: CBC, Toronto Star, Economist National Geographic. But Storm? Given that it appears that the QAnon nutters appear to use "Storm" as a codeword for their takevoer ... the use of Storm is very concerning, and should be quickly changed! Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural close Not another one. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: "Breach" is too neutral of a term to accurately describe this incident. Brad (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No such thing as "too neutral". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
There most certainly is such a thing as too neutral.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was a storming. They unlawfully took control of the capitol and forced a joint session of Congress to evacuate. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I have no problem with the current title but it does seem more that credible sources use the term "breach" rather than the term "storming". However, two title changes in two days seems like a lot so we should be patient and wait to change again. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel storming reflects what happened accurately.RKT7789 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural close let's wait a few days for what the public reflects this as before considering another move. The last request was literally just closed an hour ago. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: A breach is not what happened Cliffmore (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and procedural close per DividedFrame and Kingsif. "Insurrection" was used more by sources than "breached", and the proposal to move to "insurrection" was unsuccessful. The current title is good enough; let's hold off on starting more proposed name changes unless and until one of those proposals emerges as the obvious WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:14, 8 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.

'2021' in the title really necessary?

Is the '2021' in the title necessary? There isn't really an event like this ever in history, and no media outlet or source is calling it "the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" (Or "The 2021 Siege of the United States Capitol"/"The 2021 Coup of the United States Capitol"/"The 2021 Riots of the United States Capitol" etc). We call it the 'Storming of the bastille', not the '1789 storming of the Bastille'. For a recent event, we call it the 'COVID-19 Pandemic', not the '2019-2021 COVID-19 Pandemic'. We need to make sure that this wikipedia article is easy for people to access in the future. Foxterria (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s how it’s always been done SRD625 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Capitol was stormed by the British Army during the War of 1812. So the year is necessary. Smartyllama (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: But we call the incident in which the Capitol was stormed by the British Army the Burning of Washington Foxterria (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That may be the main article but there’s a section on the storming of the Capitol and I wouldn’t be opposed to 1814 Storming of the United States Capitol as a redirect there. Multiple sources have described this as the first time the Capitol was stormed since 1814. Even if we don’t have a page just about the 1814 storming, we still need to distinguish this from that. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Facebook ban of President Trump?????

Is it true? Not mentioned in the article.

Facebook and Instagram 24 ban. Later increased to 2 week ban.

Twiiter 12 hour ban and threatened longer unless Trump complied and removed 3 tweets. What did those tweets say? Twitter ban reported to have been lifted.

This is good info for the article. Has any President ever been banned, especially for this long? If so, Mr. Facebook is stronger than Mr. Trump. All the pleading in the world won't help. Vowvo (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has contained this information for some time now. Majavah (talk!) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Add new tags

We should add the rebellions in north america and 2020s coup attempts categories to the page. Elishop (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Meaning Category:Rebellions in North America and Category:2020s coup attempts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but it's Category:2020s_coups_d'état_and_coup_attempts to be more precise. Elishop (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

25th amendment, Section 4 interpretation.

Description of Section 4 of the 25th amendment is inaccurate. It doesn't remove the president from office. It strips the president of his powers & duties, passing it to the vice president. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The article seems to sufficiently recognize this distinction, except in the two sentences like [Democrats] called for Trump's removal from office, either through impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Many sources (and the article on 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump from office) conflate "removal from office" with "no longer being the Acting President", and the functional difference is so small that this sentence doesn't strike me as inaccurate. RoxySaunders (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
As long as we're careful, not to let MSM's inaccuracy overwhelm the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

"also know as the Nationalist Social Club)"

should be "also known"

 Done Majavah (talk!) 05:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of "TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY" in the second paragraph

Minor nitpick, but I think the following words found at the beginning of the article should either be lower-case or italicized if being emphasized. Capitalized words almost always lead the reader to reading them first and can be distracting. Courier (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Courier (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bipartisan observation

Mitch McConnell and a number of other Republicans have described what transpired as a Invasion by insurrectionists not protesters.

I agree. So many across the political spectrum in America, and everyone else in the world, has certainly described it in more stark terms than merely "protests". So many public officials and experts in America, and leaders around the world called it an "attempted coup", "storming of the Capitol", "insurrection", or even "riots" for the extreme level of violence against the Capitol rather than mere "protests"? Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't a riot this was a political insurrection planned coordinated and clearly effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.23.104 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an exercise in bipartisanship. We chronicle what RS reported whether both, one, or no parties agree. Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Made New article regarding 25th amendment or possible impeachment

2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. Multiple, credible sources (CNN, CBS) have reported both Trump's cabinet and multiple senior Republicans are calling for his removal. So I've put my draft in the main space. Put the link in the main article if you want to.MarkiPoli (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe this article is premature as Articles of Impeachment haven't even been introduced. Until a formal impeachment inquiry is passed or another action like invoking the 25th Amendment happens this article is pure speculation and should not warrant a separate page. Some members have said they are drafting Articles right now or support impeachment but other than that nothing has happened. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. An article about people calling out the president for one event isn't the type of article that would pass WP:10YEARTEST – Trump has been called out many times before; this is stronger than usual, but not unique. The responses should be noted, just not on their own page for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with both of the above. This is not quite, but bordering on, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Chetsford (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

The first sentence of the third paragraph, which states "The demonstration culminated in a violent attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters." The word "violent" in this sentence should be removed for two reasons. First, it is a fluff word which serves no purpose, as the word "attack" necessarily implies violence (unless you're talking about a verbal attack, which this article very clearly is not). And second, due to the loaded nature of the word, it should only be included if WP:RS are also using that word. However, the source cited for that sentence does not include the word "violent." Therefore, the word should be removed. Mlb96 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this amendment. "Violent" is an adjective, "attack" is a verb. The adjective in this case better puts forward gravity of the situation. If the sentence is not a quote, then I don't think the point of the article not using that one specific point is relevant. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"Attack" necessarily implies violence of some nature. Saying "violent attack" feels like too much puffery for this controversial article. Edit implemented. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Superfluous wording "violent attack" has been changed to just "attack" (Note This was  Not done due to your second point. Insurrection and attack necessarily implies violence and the sourcing for that is extensive.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (2)

In the sixth paragraph of the introduction, when mentioning the removal from office demands from Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi over the event, include link to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump> so as to provide background information of the impeachment in 2019 and early 2020. MrSnufflegums (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Current Lead wording wouldn't be a good fit. However it would be perfect for linking in the body section if it isn't already. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe include the link under the words "second time" at the end of the second sentence there as such: ("House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on Pence to formally invoke the 25th Amendment, while threatening to impeach Trump for a second time.")? MrSnufflegums (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
no Declined due to the fact it would be confusing to link the first impeachment when saying "second time". ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"LifeSupport" citation broken

I removed the no longer linked citation "LifeSupport" because the original citation for that is currently broken. It was placed on the article as shown:

One officer was placed on life support after being assaulted by pro-Trump rioters.

Does anyone know a suitable citation for this? It feels kind of empty to be leaving a {{Citation needed}}. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess that the sentence there was quite a trivial addition to the article too. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No longer matters as he is dead. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
WWGB, I see no clear evidence that the officer on life support and Sicknick were the same person; Sicknick is mentioned as joining the Capitol Police in 2008 here: [1], while the officer on life support is reported as being a 15-year veteran: [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
US Capitol Police officer on life support dies after suffering stroke following riots, union chair says WWGB (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ref. It looks like Sicknick was the person on life support. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (3)

Change "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." to "Several media outlets accused Trump of inciting the riots by his comments at an earlier rally.". The first version violates WP:BLPCRIME. AnonQuixote (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

☒N Not done and not likely to be done — While I understand the concern, we must understand what "wikt:incite" means. They didn't make a claim of being formally indicted with Incitement (the crime). They mean it, they mean "to stir up or excite; to rouse or goad into action". That is indisputable given the sources. I understand the murky nature of this. However this was also  Not done because the suggested replacement you have is NPOV given the controversial nature of the page because it frames the issue in a way that goes along with Trump's rhetoric. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at the BLP noticeboard. AnonQuixote (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (4)

Change "while condoning the insurrection with false claims of election fraud." to "while reiterating false claims of election fraud". The former interpretation is not directly supported by the sources and violates WP:SYN. AnonQuixote (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done The wording was a bit NPOV and a little SYN, so I reworded it to suit the sources and NPOV better. However the facts remain unchanged. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (3)

Please change: "During the evening, riot police and protester outside United States Capitol" to: "Riot police and protesters outside the United States Capitol during the evening" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Camarillo (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done — The new wording you suggest doesn't improve the sentence. Putting the "During the evening," first as an introductory adjunct clause informs the reader of the time change regarding the information presented as well as frames the circumstances well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (5)

Change Ashli Babbitt, to Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed U.S. Air Force veteran, a married business-owner from San Diego who’d reportedly served four tours of duty,

citation: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/07/trump-supporter-reportedly-killed-by-capitol-police-was-us-air-force-vet-family-distraught-and-confused-1013485/ 2601:1C2:1100:9460:89BF:AA5C:DA59:D83A (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Her service, vocation, location and marital status are irrelevant to her unlawful incursion into the Capitol. WWGB (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

You cite CNN as your only source for [20]. You need more than one source to make this claim. 2601:204:C102:1450:8C2:576:B7AF:5AF7 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

no Invalid Not a proper edit request. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Indian Flag

Did you see Indian Flag waving during protest? Nitesh003 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

5 deaths confirmed now. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/a-capitol-police-officer-dies-from-injuries-sustained-during-the-pro-trump-rampage.html 46.114.145.150 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already says there were 5 deaths. Majavah (talk!) 14:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (2)

"mob of rioters" is awkward and redundant. Change to just "mob". Also, "rioters" and "mob" may violate NPOV. Why are they not "protestors"? "Mob" seems most NPOV to me, unless we'd like to go with "group" or something. 172.58.222.251 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.
Please see the extensive discussions about which term to use to describe the group elsewhere on this talk page. We go with what source material says. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (5)

Change Ashli Babbitt, to Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed U.S. Air Force veteran, a married business-owner from San Diego who’d reportedly served four tours of duty,

citation: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/07/trump-supporter-reportedly-killed-by-capitol-police-was-us-air-force-vet-family-distraught-and-confused-1013485/ 2601:1C2:1100:9460:89BF:AA5C:DA59:D83A (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - The lede is a summary of the body, which already states "Among the protesters, Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran, died after being shot by law enforcement inside the Capitol.[266]
Wikipedia doesn't support adding excessive details, in this case being "married" and a "business-owner." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oregon, for the "Outside the District of Columbia" section

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/01/06/pro-trump-election-rallies-close-oregon-marion-county-offices/6558277002/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/pro-trump-protesters-gather-near-oregon-capitol/283-9d75e29c-d3d8-4b48-8818-054a7ff54282

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/01/06/oregon-capitol-salem-trump-protest-election-results/

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2021/01/protest-set-for-oregon-capitol-as-trump-stages-dc-rally-lawmakers-convene-to-confirm-electoral-college-vote.html

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/operation-occupy-the-capital-salem-01062021/

Sharing again, mostly as a reminder to myself, since someone else archived a section with these sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Change Section 5.2.1 "Identification of rioters" to include the sentence:

Music-themed news website MetalSucks has identified Jon Schaffer of American Heavy Metal band Iced Earth as having participated in the riot. [1] Dodeskjeggen (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done with some rewording and changing of source to original cited by MetalSucks. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.metalsucks.net/2021/01/08/iced-earths-jon-schaffer-is-now-wanted-by-the-fbi/

Another media outlet, NME is reporting the same. DCai169 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (5)

make all references to the rioters use the same term/phrasing for consistency (i.e. change protestor to rioter) 24.60.228.96 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There has been an extensive RfC on this topic, and the consensus was not to refer to them universally as rioters, but rather on a case by case basis reflecting what the reliable sources say. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

False information

Discussed above Kingsif (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

A statement was just released saying that no police officer died and the claims are false, making the death total still 4 Darce98 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Source? Multiple credible sources are saying that a police officer died, with some saying that there may have been two officer deaths. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Being reported by Reuters. As of right now, the headline on the home page and the URL give the updated information, but the article itself still makes the claim, so may just be a case of waiting. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-capitol-police/u-s-capitol-police-say-reports-of-officer-death-not-accurate-idUSKBN29D00G?il=0 pcuser42 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Now the article has been updated - this could be used as a source now pcuser42 (talk) 01:55, 8 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (5)

They found the senators ipad it was not taken by rioters https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/washington-dc-riots-trump-news-friday/h_c0028e708eef7426f2d4926e5e610781 108.17.71.32 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done User:GKFXtalk 22:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ben Phillips

Ben Phillips was one of the three people who died from a medical emergency. The following information might be worth mentioning in the Deaths section of the article:

Phillips had coordinated transportation from Pennsylvania to Washington for several people; The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that there was "no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol."[1]

Note: This source is already used as a reference for a statement in the "Casualties and losses" section in the civil conflict infobox.

References

  1. ^ Terruso, Julia (January 7, 2021). "He organized a bus of Trump supporters from Pa. for 'the first day of the rest of our lives.' He died in Washington". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on January 8, 2021. Retrieved January 8, 2021. There's no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol. ... Philips, a computer programmer who founded a social media website for Trump supporters and coordinated transportation for several dozen people, arrived in Washington with the group around 10:30 a.m.

Aluxosm (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

In case this hasn't been seen, 2021 United States coup d'état attempt

Doug Weller talk 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I've redirected the page to this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Off to bed now, I suppose I won't be able to sleep through the night without checking the news! Doug Weller talk 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Confusingly though, we now have 2021 United States coup d'état attempt pointing to one article and 2020 United States coup d'état attempt to another. Would a hatnote – 2021 United States coup d'état attempt redirects here. It is not to be confused with 2020 United States coup d'état attempt – seem flippant? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Arms & Hearts, I have corrected the aforementioned redirect. It now points to this article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@EDG 543: But this event didn't happen in 2020. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Arms & Hearts, you are correct. However, if people are mistakenly typing it often looking for this article, then it is a good redirect. Unless it was referring to a different incident? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You're probably right, but it's worth revisiting in a week or so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll take a look at the view count then and see if it is necessary or not. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543, your edit to 2020 United States coup d'état attempt has now been reverted by P,TO 19104 to point back to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Description as an attempted coup. Seagull123 Φ 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Seagull123, yes. The redirect was indeed supposed to point to a different article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t there be a separate but linked article entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”? Why does this specific event not have its own article? It is unprecedented in modern US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title Runnamucker (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Runnamucker (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the same event. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this event could be considered a coup, the thing is too unorganized. I was sure that Trump, despite his questionable actions, I don't think that his real intention was to block in this illegal way the certification of votes. In my opinion, it lacks the assumptions to call this also an attempted coup. DR5996 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note of Appreciation to Wikipedia contributors

May I on behalf of all readers express enormous gratitude for the contributions & editing here. A hugely impressive page on an ongoing event. Wikipedians at their best. I really hesitate to clutter this page even with this note, so feel free to remove :) Perhaps there is space in the wiki model for an additional tab to allow readers to express gratitude. Thank you all contributors for your diligent work. A European reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.66.189 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That is very kind of you to say, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
👍 Like --- N2e (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
👍 Like All of the contributors should be commended, and by that I mean those contributing in good-faith, which is the majority. I'd also like to say that I'm particularly impressed with GorillaWarfare's fair and extended engagement with various editors on the talk page, as well as their quick handling of some minor bits of disruption. I was going to leave something saying as much on their talk page, but I might as well leave it here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am more mixed on this. There have been far too many edit conflicts, and clearly there is need for a type of protection that has a higher requirement than 500 edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, This was a note of appreciation to editors, not praise for the Wikipedia backend. Just say thanks! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
And I left my own note to editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, Fair enough, I'm just giving you a hard time. Happy editing! (I'll give another thanks to editors who've helped out as well!) ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I too am mightily impressed by the work of my peers. I have started several breaking news articles during my 200 years on Wikipedia and know how frustrating and exhilarating it can be. Brilliant efforts all round today. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think page protection is an appropriate solution to edit conflicts. If more protection is needed to avoid edit wars, sure, but this would be unnecessary otherwise. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The edit conflicts are frustrating, but page protection is for preventing intentional disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
If edit wars aren't considered disruptive, then I disagree. There have been silent edit wars on this article, where the same content has been added, removed and re-added multiple times. This is allowed due to the significant amount of edits being made, which makes community enforcement of WP:BRD impossible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Then just... enforce it? Ping the people relevant to the war on the talk page. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I wish it was enforced too, but it seems that there are far too many edits, making it too difficult to enforce. Due to the high likelihood of edit conflicts, edits were making their edits smaller and more numerous, which creates more edit conflicts and increases the difficulty in identifying and enforcing edit warring behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Never thought I’d see the day (besides Olympus Has Fallen in real life) that people genuinely appreciated Wikipedia. This is why we do what we do, at the end of the day. Trillfendi (talk)

Also want to say good job to those who did it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just read the entire article and am greatly impressed with it. Even if many conflicts had to be undergone by the editors, this is an astonishing production in a very short time. DSatz (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New page for efforts to remove Trump via 25th Amendment or Impeachment.

Should we start a new page dedicated to the efforts to remove Donald Trump? Even if these efforts are unsuccessful, articles of impeachment are already being drawn up by Ilhan Omar, and I would say it would be likely they will be voted on tonight, which would warrant a separate page. A vast number of Democratic members have said he should be removed via 25th amendment or impeachment, tonight. So I think we should make a page now, and if it turns out to not happen we can just merge it back into this page as its not really that notable (members have called for trumps impeachment and removal 100s of times, not really that notable unless at least there is a vote).

I would make it myself, but it would likely get deleted or by the time I was finished writing it there would already be another page lol.MarkiPoli (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We've already got Impeachment of Donald Trump which largely describes the late 2019/early 2020 impeachment, but it could perhaps be added to that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That page (along with Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump, which covers the house investigation before the vote, and Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump, which covers the Senate trial) only covers the 2019-20 impeachment. Other efforts are at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, so it would be added to that. There will need to be a new page though, if he is impeached again by the house (even if he isn't removed by the senate). MarkiPoli (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support you to write a draft, but only publish it until the articles of impeachment are official. It should be named Second Impeachment of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It is far too premature to create a new page until actions are taken toward impeachment beyond just an introduction of a resolution. This should be a new section at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump for now. Reywas92Talk 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody who can edit mention that Ilhan Omar has announced the drafting of articles of impeachment? [1] Thank you Homo logos (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some footage that could be migrated

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Uploading to commons now. Heavy video so might take a little while. Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • here Kingsif (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

PolitiFact

I recently added a citation of a PolitiFact article claiming that what occurred can be reasonably considered a coup, but this citation was removed in another edit by another user. The removal was unexplained by the user, and I think the source (including the quotation) should still be there. AndrewOne (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It was probably an edit conflict—I've had a handful of my edits mysteriously go missing just because the page is so heavily-edited. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't seem supported by the source. PolitiFact only concludes "a good case can be made" and, throughout the article, the author hedges his bets, never coming right out and saying yes or no. (In any case, if it could be defined in these terms it would be an autgolpe and not a coup, but I don't think PolitiFact is probably sophisticated enough to have landed on that word yet; maybe they will in a few days. I don't say that disparagingly, just that their writers don't have any real expertise in this area and seem to be learning on the job at the moment.) Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@AndrewOne: - that "other user" was me, I'm afraid. I intended to make a simple one-word change to a different section to improve readability, but there was an edit conflict. I cancelled it completely and made my tiny change again, and I have no idea how it picked up this other material. By the time I was alerted to what happened, it could not be undone because there were almost a hundred other changes in the meantime which overlapped. Then I had to go to work and I have only just seen your note as well. So I am happy to fix it if there is agreement on what should be changed. And please accept my rather confused apologies for the problem.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Separate article

untitled section split off from above by User:GKFXtalk 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There should be a separate but linked article for this attack, as it is an unprecedented in modern US history. News sources such as NYT are calling it an attack... and that’s what it is.

The article should be entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”

further discussion at link below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title Runnamucker (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, suggest WP:CITEBUNDLE. GeraldWL 15:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitters Involvement

Twitter had a big role in the storming of the Capitol. Multiple high ranking GOP members went out and disavowed trumps actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.142.139 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparison with the Wilmington coup of 1898

If relevant, please consider adding mention of the comparisons being made with the Wilmington coup of 1898.[2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.35.142 (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1346934098384793606
  2. ^ https://news.stanford.edu/2021/01/06/stanford-scholars-react-capitol-hill-takeover/
  3. ^ https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/us-capitol-riots-almost-entirely-unprecedented-umkc-professor-says
  4. ^ https://starnewsonline.com/story/news/2021/01/06/wilmington-area-via-social-media-reacts-capitol-hill-riots/6572057002/

Lackluster police response

Seems like an aspect of this event that isn't well covered in the article. Much of the controversy has been over the lax response of law enforcement, in comparison to other demonstrations, potentially due to demographics involved. Anyone got any good sources? I'm thinking specifically of things like the cops who were taking selfies with the rioters inside the building BlackholeWA (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is some at 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Scrutiny_over_Capitol_security_lapses. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Security forces present

Perhaps it should be added in the articles that the US Marshals Service were also called in? They were in the infobox as a "party to the civil conflict" and it is confirmed in this source[1]

KnightofFaerië (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)-

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/buildings-in-us-capitol-complex-evacuated-amid-pro-trump-protests.html

In contrast to the BLM protests/riots/etc.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that a lot of comparisons have been made between the police response to the BLM riots and this event, yet there's nothing about this in the article. I've seen some news coverage doing these comparisons, so there's definitely sources. It seems pretty important to me, as the responses were incredibly different. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide these sources when suggesting changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
OmegaFallon, I found some sources to back this: CNN, USA TODAY, and The Guardian, The Washington Post, and CBS News, among others. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

May well be more trouble than it's worth, but I wondered what others thought of including a further reading section to collect some of the longform narrative pieces like the following. (I saw one last night from WSJ too, but I don't have the URL handy.) There's a zillion news articles around and I thought it might make sense to highlight, for our benefit and for posterity, the ones that describe the whole event and not just episodes that are part of it. FYI, the below are collected at the Wikidata item, which is well worth a look if you haven't seen it yet. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Adam Kinzinger videos

Adam Kinzinger speech in House after Jan 6, 2021 intrusion
GOP rep Adam Kinzinger calling for Trump to be removed via 25th amendment

I've just added two PD videos of Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill 11): one of his speech when the House returned to debate, and the other of his Twitter video today as the first GOP lawmaker to call for 25th amendment removal. Either of these might be good to use in the article. Kingsif (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, Thanks, the first would be good for 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Need to add visual material that reflects the identity of perpetrators as Trump supporters

The photographs and videos currently included in this page do not sufficiently reflect the identity of the perpetrators as Trump supporters. Given that there are now conspiracy theories indicating that the ANTIFA incited the storming which are being circulating in the right-wing media, it is imperative that this page thoroughly debunks any falsehoods and presents sufficient evidence to unequivocally put such conspiracy theories to rest. There are numerous photographs and videos that clearly indicate the political affiliations of the perpetrators, including Trump flags and items of clothing prominently displaying the Trump name. These need to be included in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppt91 (talk • contribs)

If you have access to such images (which are compliant with Wikipedia's image use policy) can you include them here so we can see them? Also, as a side note, we don't include images merely to "identify perpetrators". I agree some better images of the actual event would be useful, but not for the reasons you note. However, we don't have a magic picture fairy who can just wave their wand and make images appear. A real live person has to 1) take the picture 2) agree to license the image for uses compatible with Wikipedia's license 3) upload the image to Wikimedia Commons so we can 4) add it to the article. If you can help with ANY of those steps, it would be most appreciated. --Jayron32
You're not wrong, but I don't know if it will accomplish what you think it will. These people will just as easily believe that "antifa infiltrators" put on some MAGA hats to blend in. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
While I do agree that visual parts of the articles could be improved, you're coming to it from a wrong angle. Wikipedia is not a forum or a battleground. It is also nota place for righting great wrongs. While there is some call for due weight and balance, we should just follow reliable sources, and the cultural consensus will make it to the top. Melmann 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
IMHO, we will need to rely on fair use here. Some of the most gripping images are owned by Getty (I've seen their watermark clearly on them), as well as other for-profit groups. They might permit CC-NC relicensing, which I believe falls under fair use. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


Many sources are providing proof - more of which will be forthcoming - regarding Antifa's obvious roll in the violence at the Capitol. This was clearly a democrat putsch. https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/known-antifa-members-posed-as-pro-trump-to-infiltrate-capitol-riot-sources/

Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump Is A Juggernaut - No. NY Post is not [[WP::RS]]. Jdphenix (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Cursory link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#New_York_Post RoxySaunders (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

International reactions

So now there is a separate page, obviously we can and should summarize here. However the current summary is vastly inadequate and borders on disinformation. It is not sufficient to say outside observers expressed concern and were shocked as if that's all there was. The current version goes even further than before in practically equating Ireland/France/Sweden/Germany's responses with that of Belarus or Russia: Some criticized the government of the United States itself, comparing the riots to other chaotic events throughout history. But there is a wide diversity of responses, all of which are notable and who says what has deep implications, especially once the next administration takes power:

  • The following blamed Trump for the crisis (relevant to how they treat him as a legitimate or illegitimate interlocutor for the American people in the two weeks he is still President, if he remains so): France, Germany, Ireland, Nigeria, Sweden, Malaysia
  • Said it was internal matter for the US: Mexico, Russia
  • Russia made a cryptic statement about Maidan (i.e. the Ukrainian protests that toppled a pro-Russian head of state) that may be interpreted either as mocking American democracy or... something else.
  • Explicitly described the protests as illegitimate,unlawful, as an insurrection, threat to democracy, etc: Canada, France, United Kingdom Germany, Israel, India (yes: both Israel and India), Austria, Bahamas, Trinidad, Estonia, Iceland, Lux, Slovakia --- relevant in the context of the "free world" relying on other members of the "free world" to maintain democracy in their country should it be challenged, and the US' history of intervention in the internal affairs of country's facing challenges to democracy, especially in Eastern Europe.
    • As a self-coup or autogolpe: Bolivia
  • Stated that the protests damaged the ability of the US to criticize other governments or governing systems, or of double standards: Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, Russia sort of, China (bonus: South Africa advocated that Americans should "follow the example of great democratic states like South Africa")
  • Explicit support to Joe Biden: Argentina,
  • Call for a peaceful transition of power and/or stated the election results were legitimate: a lot.
  • Endorsed Trump's claims about the election: Belarus, Brazil, some populist parties in Europe.

The summary should be fixed so that these are not all lumped together in some way. (Not all of these have to be distinguished -- just two or three "most notable" stances can be mentioned and that would be good). --Calthinus (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Public domain images

Hey, does anyone know if any public domain images of the incursion into the Capitol itself exist? The current infobox images seem a tad detached from the subject at hand since they're from the rally earlier in the day. If such images exist, I think they'd be well placed in said infobox. U-dble (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

First sentence:

"[A]t the behest of United States President Donald Trump,[7][8][9] a mob of armed rioters stormed the United States Capitol, breaching security and occupying parts of the building for several hours"

I'm not sure this is factual. I watched the original sources, and he claims, of course, that the election was stolen and that there was fraud. But from what I saw he never actually told anyone to go to the capitol and certainly never said to storm it. I think this is a bit too inflammatory and NPOV, and should be replaced with something like "after being inflamed by unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, a mob of armed rioters stormed the United States Capitol, breaching security and occupying parts of the building for several hours" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:1f70:a494:9e9b:b503:b4d0 (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to wp:boldly fix this sentence. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
He did and did say "I will there with you"! And with that sentence he lyed again.--93.211.213.235 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
After looking into it more, it seems he did say "i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today", however he did not tell them to storm the capitol. Just to protest there. Also that quote was not present in any of the three sources cited for that sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:1f70:a494:9e9b:b503:b4d0 (talk • contribs)
1. Please sign your comments. 2. If you dispute this, simply edit the page to reflect what the sources say. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 23:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@BrxBrx: Actually they cannot be bold and edit, the article is extended conformed protected, and they are an IP. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, maybe they could use the edit request function then, with a specific request for how to cure this allegedly faulty wording. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 23:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, or rather: none of the three cited sources actually support the claim that Trump ordered them to storm the Capitol. They all report that he told his supporters to march there, but clearly that's not the same. The closest quote is from Times: "'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" [emphasis mine]. I can't and won't edit, but that seems far too weak a source to start the entire article with such a disputed/unclear/open-to-interpretation statement. (It should obviously be discussed in detail in the remainder of the article.) 2A02:908:1013:7780:F0E3:646A:F748:4C1E (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Look more, b/c "Trump Is Said To Have Discussed Pardoning Himself" --93.211.213.235 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It's been fixed. --108.17.71.32 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Act of War, Enemy Combatants, & Military Tribunal?

WP:NOTAFORUM Kingsif (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal? 162.237.205.133 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that show that the insurrection is an act of war, then it will be added to the article. Wikipedia's job isn't predicting what might happen. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Actualy, if somebody carries a Confedarate flag outside the Capitol isnt't an act of war. But if they are armed and cause damages threatening people at the sanctum of democracy, mayby you are right. This is an act of war. Finding sources to prove something that all planet saw with their eyes is something really easy. 5.54.43.217 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Terrorism in the United States perhaps. The US government can act against domestic terrorism, but "war" indicates there is a defined enemy. I would think it would be unConstitutional to designate any one political party as the enemy. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Act of war might be a good starting place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC).
No, rioters carrying confederate flags, which really from 1896- till the late 2010s, were often prompted by the federal government is not insurrection. By that reasoning Antifa members carrying flags of the Soviet Union or 1960s protestors who had North Vietnam flags, were insurrectionist or enemy combatants. All evidence points to this being handled by the DC police not the army so none of the three things you mention apply here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Their point is specifically about carrying a flag of the Confederacy (i.e. an enemy state to the Union) during a coup d'etat attempt against the United States government. This could theoretically be interpreted as a nascent act of the Civil War performed by militant advocates for the (now-defunct) Confederacy. While the attempt to violently disrupt democracy has been recognized as sedition and domestic terrorism, but currently no reliable sources recognize it as an act of war. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
And it is still meaningless. This just personal opinion, but this was not a coup, but a protest turned riot. The confederate flag was tolerated by both the federal government and both parties till really the late 2010s, it was not uncommon to see at events celebrating the union. Using the term (enemy state to the Union) is meaningless outside of the league of the south no one calls for a return of an independent south. One guy holding a flag now deemed political incorrect while at a protest turned riot by people who pride themselves on not being political correct is a pointless side note in comparison to what actually happened. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody said that carrying a confedarate flag at a protest is an act of war. But not inside the US Capitol, during an attack. I agree that there are ot too much sources that mention it as an act of war. But I think that here we have all the proves we need to talk about an act of war. In this case, are the sources necessery? Only the picture shows people with confedarate and other alt-right flags INSIDE the US Capitol attacking at police officers, is enough to talk about an act of civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal?" This person clearly was saying that this one guy brining the flag in was an act of rebellion that somehow called for military action. Absurd since not only is the confederacy been dead for more than 150 years, but in more recent times in 1968 riots attacked government buildings with North Vietnam flags, an actually real country the United States was fighting at the time and they were not subject to this action, so no what the original poster put out is meaningless here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The confederate flag symbolize an ideology that support slavery and it's considered a symbol against democracy. Invading the building that represents democracy itself, holding theese flags and armed it's obviously an act of war against democracy.
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Please revert vandalism that occured by 182.1.235.116 because this IP have adding info about Gunpowder Plot II in the article. I tried to revert that IP's edit, but it deems inssuficient due to article being semi-protected. And please restore the previous text about planning of storming or elsewhere. 110.137.164.146 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Citations a mess, a lot are failing

Resolved

Can someone please fix them.Doug Weller talk 20:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References 154 through 178 are broken entirely. I assume this happened when someone moved around sources, or deleted "extra" sources, and did not notice that the reference was used by name elsewhere. RexSueciae (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's what happened. I'll fix it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! This has been bugging me, but I've fixed this sort of thing on previous breaking news articles, and it's a pain to do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Change "storming" to "Storming" in the title Aortiz49 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done A title change will require a WP:RM move request. I'd recommend some discussion before opening one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 Not done The manual of style says to keep it lowercase. See WP:NCCAPS. -- 02:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trump video

As seen and discussed previously at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 1#this is PD. Instead of just quoting his words from the video, we can insert it as media - at least five other language versions of Wikipedia have - for encyclopedic documentation of 1. the response and 2. the video which has taken on notability of its own for being removed by all social media. One editor objected to its inclusion - and tried to delete it - by saying it's inciting violence. Well, we've got the speech in quotes already in the article and I'm sure you can all see it's not an incitement to anything, not that such would preclude inclusion at all per the fact we're documenting its existence and significance, and the video caption came with a disclaimer. As there was one unfounded objection and plenty of support, I feel it would be beneficial to the encyclopedic coverage of the article to include the video (here on commons). Kingsif (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be included, yeah. WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course it needs to be included (with appropriate context). WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a document of high historic relevance. We wouldn't even be having this discussion with a different country. --MarioGom (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the video should be included for its historicity but strongly disagree that the disclaimer is needed. The current disclaimer comes across as overly concerned with challenging the points made by the subject of the video instead of simply informing the reader of what the video is. Simply saying in the caption what the video is, and what happened to it, should suffice; I see no reason why the disclaimer is necessary as it is currently worded and it will only invite future edit warring for its lack of a neutral presentation. I also disagree that there's any real, settled consensus on this yet (as insisted by Kinsif), considering the age of the article. RopeTricks (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The isn't a real consensus, but there was overwhelming support at the last discussion linked at the top of this section. Some said it should only be included if there is a strong disclaimer. @RopeTricks: Do you think your sole opinion - and two reverts before bringing it to discussion on what I expect is a 1RR article - trumps the pre-established views of those that discussed it before? I'll be waiting on your self-revert. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"two reverts before bringing it to discussion" I made the last revert AFTER I posted on this talk page discussion so check your clock before you try taking that route against me again. I saw on your previous discussion you can be rather snarky in your responses, which I am not tolerating. Anyway, to answer your question, my "sole" opinion should be considered, yes, as any editor's. This is an invite to a greater, dedicated discussion on the topic to hopefully secure a final, lasting consensus, unlike the prior discussion. If every single editor agrees that the current Twitter-style "disclaimer" is suitable, then so be it. RopeTricks (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh but you still re-reverted before it was discussed, no? No need to shout. If I'm snarky to people making ridiculous accusations of inciting violence then I'll be snarky to them and it's not your place to say you won't tolerate me when I've been nothing but polite to you. It's also not your place to say that nobody can add a disclaimer because you disagree when multiple other users have already agreed on doing it. Do you understand that? Get a consensus for your choice edit before continuing to force it, and self-revert until then. P.S. And don't think that calling someone out for being "snarky" in a different situation makes your opinion superior or whatever your intention in doing that was, okay? Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the video doesn't directly incite violence. If it did, I'd push for its outright deletion regardless of alleged historical significance. However, I don't think its inclusion on the article adds anything that can't be expressed solely through prose in a sentence or two. If a video needs a caption to debunk most of Trump's words as lies, we just shouldn't be including that video. RoxySaunders (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MacCallum's alleged “support"

What the article says she said does not necessarily imply support. She said that it was a huge victory for them, which is obvious. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ExperiencedArticleFixer I think it's important to mention the fact that coverage of the riot on Fox News had a largely positive tone, at least until the violence ramped up. This is especially important given the sharp contrast with other networks. The Daily Beast article seemed like a fairly reliable source, and I thought the implication was pretty clear. But, fair enough. Should there be a section of the article describing news coverage of the event, and how different networks reacted? This source additionally mentions how Fox News, at least initially, was very much happy for the rioters, backtracking once they realized the mob was far from peaceful. RexSueciae (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This would be original research/synthesis unless there are analyses of published media we could cite. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The linked WaPo article, and the article from The Daily Beast (which was removed from the wiki page, hence this discussion) appear to fit the criteria. RexSueciae (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Because editors have added references to Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, I am going to be bold and add MacCallum back in. RexSueciae (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_3&oldid=1104085180"