This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can someone create an article about the 1st Amendment Praetorian (est. 2020, and led by Robert Patrick Lewis), which seems to have become an influential pro-Trump paramilitary group? Apparently many of them were involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. Link 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Last time you brought it up in June, they didn't meet our notability guideline for an article. You also were directed to WP:Requested articles. So, as before. VQuakr (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

CNN link: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/24/politics/first-amendment-praetorian-january-6-subpoena/index.html 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

U.S. House of Representatives subpoena letter: https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20211123%20Robert%20Patrick%20Lewis%20Letter.pdf 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-committee-oath-keepers-proud-boys-insurrection/2021/11/23/0ba96890-4c86-11ec-b0b0-766bbbe79347_story.html 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

ABC News link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/proud-boys-oath-keepers-subpoena-us-capitol-riot-january-6/100645708 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

NPR link: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/23/1058351733/new-subpoenas-trump-allies-january-6-capitol-select-committee 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:n We need RS covering them in some depth, not just a mention.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find an article from The Daily Beast that goes in depth about the group, as well as this article from a college group. X-Editor (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We also need more than one to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Then why is this group (and its leader, Lewis) not yet mentioned in this article, months after its key role in planning and carrying out the insurrection became known? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Was it, source?Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

CNN link: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/24/politics/first-amendment-praetorian-january-6-subpoena/index.html 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-committee-oath-keepers-proud-boys-insurrection/2021/11/23/0ba96890-4c86-11ec-b0b0-766bbbe79347_story.html 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

ABC News link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/proud-boys-oath-keepers-subpoena-us-capitol-riot-january-6/100645708 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

NPR link: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/23/1058351733/new-subpoenas-trump-allies-january-6-capitol-select-committee 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@EpicWikiLad: mentions of this group seem relatively sparse. I've reverted your proposed addition that even describes them as obscure. Due coverage is no mention at this point as far as I can tell. VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

from what i have read, the group only provided security to the freedom plaza rallies, and their leader did speak in the rally (there's several sources about that, just search "1st Amendment Praetorian" in google), so i think that there should be at least a mention about the group in the section, but, i agree, its a very obscure group and, a lot of information will come sooner or later about the group's involvement in either the riot or the pre-riot rallies, from what we know, their leader incited violence in twitter and gab posts, so i don't know, i think that its better for us to wait for more stuff to come out. EpicWikiLad (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion if neither the group nor the leader is notable enough for a bluelink, they don't rate a mention in that embedded list. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

U.S. House of Representatives subpoena letter: https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20211123%20Robert%20Patrick%20Lewis%20Letter.pdf 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I created a redirect to United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#Subpoenas, since all coverage is in the context of the Jan 6 Committee subpoenas any coverage of the group should be there. VQuakr (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm growing increasingly wary of Wikipedia nowadays. What happened to Wikipedia's supposed neutrality? There is a clear leftist bias in this article. There was no "attack" on the Capitol building. It was a protest. This article very clearly tries to skew the reader's opinions against them and tries to make it seem like it was an attempted coup, insurrection, attack, etc. It was not any of those things. Most of the sources are left-leaning. There is an extreme lack of balanced reporting in this article, with DJT's quotes being very obviously cherrypicked. And they have the audacity to lock it in this state over "vandalism"? This article makes many bold claims like how the supposed rioters assaulted police and vandalised buildings or that it was caused by far-right extremism, and that the purpose of the protest was to start a coup d'etat. Citation desperately needed. Meanwhile the BLM articles don't even mention the countless looting, arson, rioting, and murders done in their name. Very disappointing from you guys. 76.98.98.168 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of citations in this article; if you can't be arsed to read them, that's not a problem we can fix. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There was no "attack" on the Capitol building Have you seen any of the bodycam footage from the officers on the ground? soibangla (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you're getting your information from Fox News and OAAN. Perhaps your needs would be better situated at Conservapedia. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia, for the most part, reflects mainstream coverage. Mainstream coverage describes it overwhelmingly as an attack, a riot, or words to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

By left-leaning, I assume you mean pro-business. That describes reliable news sources. Neutrality doesn't mean even-handedness toward different views, but providing the views described in reliable sources using the same weight they do. TFD (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

LOL, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been hijacked by evil people on the left. My advice is spread that news to everyone you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielleevandenbosch (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

For most people in the world, Wikipedia rubber-stamps capitalism, freedom and democracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

LOL, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

See User talk:Danielleevandenbosch#Not here. Since December 2017 only makes partisan edits attacking content, editors, Wikipedia, and it's policies -- Valjean (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This was a riot, not an attack. The reason you keep getting that comment is because you are wrong and keep digging in on being wrong (see: all the comments you get and remove about this very topic). It was not a planned maneuver with a unified objective, ergo, NOT an attack. I don’t know why your small committee is so dug in on this title, but it’s wrong. The result is misrepresentation and a detriment to credibility. Furthermore, this article needs to be scrubbed to remove bias. It’s written with several political assumptions and opinions, which harm credibility. As written, the article asserts people attacked the capitol to overturn the election, but there’s no proof that was the intent for the vast majority of people. Where is your proof that was the objective for even half the people? Citation needed. Trump’s speech said many things, so it’s ok to mention the line about “fight like hell”, but you have to give equal credence to the “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” line, and the “we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them”. This article doesn’t do that. This article also doesn’t mention the year of protests and riots in 2020, and therefore leaves out critical context. Many rioters have mentioned this was in their minds as they did this. It was At Least as big of factor as Trump, arguably bigger. It needs to be included to provide the political climate leading up to this riot. There should be NO section titled Siege, since there was no siege. The whole event was over in a few hours, so Siege is incorrect. This article is also way too long, mostly because of the all the extraneous opinions and rabbit holes to try to advance political opinions. Clean it up and get it focused on the important facts. It’s a mess. 72.207.57.142 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(1) Reliable sources do use both the word "attack" and the word "riot" to describe the events at the Capitol on January 6. In a requested move discussion from earlier in the year, there was a consensus against calling it a "riot".[1] Consensus can change. I don't know that this one has. I do know that merely posting on the talk page and telling us to change the title to "riot" is never going to result in us changing the title to "riot". We'd need a requested move that achieved that consensus.

(2) Is there "proof" that the January 6 events were meant to overturn the election results? Yes, there is. We know that the purpose of people like Trump and Mark Meadows was to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes.[2][3] And we know that they put on a "Save America March" for that specific day, and these people who stormed the Capitol heeded the call. "Save America" from what? What else could they be trying to "save" America from? You ask Where is your proof that was the objective for even half the people? The answer is in the court proceedings. The overwhelming reason for action, cited again and again in court documents, was that arrestees were following Trump’s orders to keep Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the presidential-election winner.[4] The line I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard is quoted in this article already, and is not the exculpation that you think it is. The line we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them is also in the article.

(3) Finally, you bring up the social justice protests of 2020. What does that have to do with the January 6 attack/riot/coup attempt/whatever you want to call it? Their reason for storming the Capitol was Biden's electoral college victory, not BLM protests. If you think there is any link, provide reliable sources that show us how it's linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been talked about on Wikipedia all year. Multiple votes were cast, with riot, attack, and insurrection emerging as the three most widely-suggested titles, and through a rigorous consensus attack was found to be the most neutral. Please look back in the Talk History and article title discussions and check out all the arguments made there. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one has been charged with riot. TFD (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

While this article says 1 death was an overdose, one was intentional, and 3 were due to natural causes the sources provided do not suppourt this statement. After getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher and dying in the hospital this death is currently being investigated according to the source provided. And being trampled/crushed to death certainly doesn't seem like a "natural" cause of death.

I think the sources either need to be updated to suppourt the claim, or have that sentence right near the top of the article be reworded. 139.225.127.20 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're just misunderstanding the use of the term natural causes. In the United States, a death can be classified as either 1) homicide, 2) suicide, 3) accidental, or 4) natural. According to the source, the two people who died of heart attacks had their deaths classified as natural. The police officer who had a stroke also had his death classified as natural, though the medical examiner cited some contributing factors. The woman who was "trampled/crushed to death" was later found to have died due to an overdose of amphetamines, which resulted in her death being ruled an accident. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Seeking Information Pipe Bombs in Washington D.C. wfo-poi-010521.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Video shot by Congressman Dan Kildee D-Flint - via Michael Moore on Facebook Watch.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this quote should be added to the article. It is highly unusual for someone with zero criminal convictions to be put into solitary confinement. The fact that Warren is a Democrat who is criticing the treatment of Trump supporters makes this even more notable.

“Solitary confinement is a form of punishment that is cruel and psychologically damaging... And we’re talking about people who haven’t been convicted of anything yet.”

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/19/capitol-riot-defendants-warren-483125

Baxter329 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Baxter329: This would probably fit better in the Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to 2021 United States Capitol attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It says this happened 11 months ago but we’re coming up on a year. I don’t know if I’m doing this right or if someone can fix it, but I just wanted to make you aware!! :) 2600:1702:2010:2F10:B18B:4C89:6A46:AE4C (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The date uses the ((start date and age)) template, which will inform us on January 6 that a full year will have transpired. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/07/dc-riots-ashli-babbitt-killed-capitol-attack-military-veteran/6577488002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.104.89 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes she is, did you read our article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the attribution of deaths is not correct. Ashli Babbitt was the only person who actually died as a result of the event on January 6th. In the instances of death of four other people including Brian Sicknick the people in question died of natural causes. In Sicknick's case particularly, the idea that pepper spray would induce two strokes is ludicrous. If anyone wants to back that up with scientific evidence that pepper spray does in fact induce strokes then the copy should stay otherwise this is nothing more than more hysteria just as attributing suicides by officers after the fact to the events of that day is as well. Unless of course we are also going to start attributing suicides by Police Officers after George Floyd protests to those protestors. If Wikipedia is going to have any credibility it needs to be balanced in it's representation of events. Especially when too much editorializing takes the place of actual news today.

This edit request to 2021 United States Capitol attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last sentence in the section "FBI / "National Mission Force" currently reads:

This same report questioned the reason as to why, if this elite unit which included the FBI HRT had been activated and pre-positioned several days in advance, why other federal security forces made little to no apparent preparation.

The second "why" is redundant. The sentence should read:

This same report questioned the reason as to why, if this elite unit which included the FBI HRT had been activated and pre-positioned several days in advance, other federal security forces made little to no apparent preparation. Percussaresurgo (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed --Jayron32 00:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The article had been citing a couple of sources for estimates to the effect that about 800 people breached the building. However, an updated estimate from the Secret Service and FBI, reported by Newsweek, is 1200. I've changed the number and added a citation to an article. The new estimate also seems more plausible in view of the fact that 725 people have been charged, of whom 640 were charged with entering a restricted federal building. The number of prosecutions doesn't seem consistent with a crowd of only 800 people, since it's unlikely the feds could have identified and prosecuted 640 people out of a crowd of only 800.--Fashionslide (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In 2021 United States Capitol attack#House recessed it states that "Members of Congress inside the House chamber were told to don gas masks as law enforcement began using tear gas within the building." WQOW"Members of Congress inside the House chamber were told by police to put on gas masks after tear gas was dispersed in the Capitol Rotunda." but I doubt the factual accuracy since Popular Science has an article on the specific topic and LA Times and Washington Post has said there are (or has been) escape hoods stockpiled at the Capitol for the reason of biological attacks. _TheKuygerian^contribs
_userpage 09:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Believe what the rich news companies tell you! Pay no attention to the John Sullivan behind the curtain!!! https://www.bitchute.com/video/CfIfOA1xzg6J/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/not-making-headlines-utah-activist-john-sullivan-organized-antifa-protest-near-us-capitol-stormed-tweeted-blm-buses-dc-6th/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.36.117.211 (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that an article saying security plans were lax is enough to say that they did not need to change plans in response to a real attack.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Double in article, see Official predictions and warnings and Law enforcement preparations: "U.S. Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy said law enforcement agencies' estimates of the potential size of the crowd, calculated in advance of the event, varied between 2,000 and 80,000.[133] On January 5, the National Park Service estimated that thirty thousand people would attend the "Save America" rally, based on people already in the area."--Falkmart (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Weapons should be included here. Non-traditional weapons such as Bear spray, flashing lights, flag poles, a fire hydrant, taser etc. were used. 2601:140:C003:1C20:AD87:E561:3214:CB36 (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Such weapons are mostly something intrinsic to rioting, so when the methods contain "riot", that addresses the weapons too. The infobox is not meant to be very granular. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, that "bear spray" turned out to be traditional human spray, and you're probably confusing that "fire hydrant" with its much more maneuverable cousin, the fire extinguisher. Not sure flashing light counts as a weapon at all, unless it's followed by the rest of the gunshot/bomb/thunderbolt/truck/whatever. No comment on the flagpole and etc., but tasers are very intrinsic to cops and mobs of many stripes. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot of notable public events taking place in Congress with Biden and Harris making every strong remarks on the attack should be addressed in the article. Maybe a section on the anniversary? Either in this page or in the Domestic reactions article? Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Could be worth a brief mention, a sentence or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the fact that it was revealed that Harris was the person evacuated from DNC HQ after the guy planted pipe bombs. Both the VP and VP-elect were in peril that day. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be good, assuming the page responds so you can insert it. Jams on me. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Prefer the Reactions article for a separate section. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In order to get the most accurate version of events out there, this disclosure should be in the main article, yeah? Since it was a consequential part of what happened on that day, not just opinions expressed after the fact.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. Just not in a separate "First anniversary revelations" section as that kind of structuring is not encyclopedic.— Alalch Emis (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is significant. The media are treating this like Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. TFD (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a section at Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#One-year anniversary (thanks Leaky.Solar)—a better fit than the "domestic reactions" article which is intended to be more about immediate responses. Agree that a one- or two-sentence mention in the main article would be appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

[[Category:Hate Crimes]] [[Category:Terrorism]] [[Category:International Terrorism]] [[Category:Mass Casualty Events]] [[Category:Fascism]] [[Category:Racism]] 24.228.172.139 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

1, 6): Several noted white supremacists took part in the attack, yes, but I do not believe that adds a racial component to the event itself. 3) There's no international component to this. 4) was Jan6 ever declared an MCI? ValarianB (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

None of those categories are warranted. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We really don't need more cats. The only one of these that is even slightly likely to be warranted is the mass casualties. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

--Another Believer _(Talk) 00:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if you weren't sure at the time, you created an incredibly important article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Respect, you have made a mark on history. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Love of Corey (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Beneficii added ([7]) content about the seditious conspiracy charges against Oath Keepers members including its founder. This does seem like a major event and is the first such charges yet. IMO belongs in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly belongs in Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack. In the lede? I think it remains to be seen right now, IMHO. Love of Corey (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I agree that it "feels" like it could end up being significant, but I'd like to balance that with avoiding recentism. I think I'd benefit from seeing a draft proposal of the phrasing and location in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, another vote for "be careful of recentism." I certainly agree with EvergreenFir on a gut level, as I have little doubt this will end up in the lead sooner rather than later, but it doesn't have to be there right this second. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Couldn't have said it better myself. Love of Corey (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

ETA - so far it appears @Beneficii: proposed adding this to the lead but not the body, which of course was contested since it puts the cart before the horse. Do we all agree this warrants mention in the body (in this article as well as the criminal charges one)? VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree it should be mentioned. Cheers, and sorry I type slowly and cause editing issues! Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It belongs in the lead because it is the most serious charge. (While the Sarbanes–Oxley Act offense of disrupting an official proceding also carries a maximum 20 years, sentencing on conviction would probably be less.) But it should be in a list of the various charges people are facing, and we don't need a narrative style where the date of the charges is mentioned. The lead incidentally is far too long. TFD (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Convictions of sedition would belong in the lead as well as the body. Charges of sedition belong in the body only, I think, at this point. Beware of RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that the lead should mention that people have been charged in connection with the event and what they have been charged with. There should also be a summary of convictions and sentences. I don't see how we can claim that charges are a minor aspect of the event. TFD (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: this goes back to my earlier comment about seeing a draft. When I imagine a summary of convictions and sentences for something this complex, I picture a table or section of prose too unwieldly for the (already bloated) lead of this article. We have a separate child article specifically about criminal proceedings, so the lead here should be a summary of a summary. But I would be curious to see what people had in mind; I'm certainly not dead set against anything. No one has said this is a minor aspect. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Summaries don't have to be detailed. They could say something like, "Over 700 people have been charged in connection with the event of which X no. have plead guilty or been found guilty and X no. were acquitted. The charges ranged from tresspassing to seditious conspiracy and sentences have ranged from 30 says to 6 1/2 years." TFD (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty mild rewrite of the last paragraph of the existing lead, which I think we agree is desperately needed. I have no objection to including mention of "seditious conspiracy" in such a rewrite, provided of course that it is added to the body, too. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

While your article cites that 5 people died during the riots of 2021 on January 6th at the capital.

It is clear by the reference link that you supplied that the reference article is very out of date and does not even take into account Coroner's report which determined that the the officer who collapsed later did not collapse due to an injury during the during the riots.

It is also the consensus that the suicide days later and the stroke before the event even took place were definitely not incidences caused by the riots themselves. 2601:242:C102:9000:21A1:2C95:9878:556 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

RS disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Mind clarifying who among the five you think actually died in the incident? Love of Corey (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The five who died were all rioters. One was killed by police and the others died from natural causes. Saying they died during the riot does not necessarily mean they died because of it. In any case, no one else caused their deaths. TFD (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction, four of them were rioters. The fifth was Brian Sicknick. Love of Corey (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It would unpossible for any coroner given a heartattack or a stroke to say, why it happened at this moment. So ist is correct to list persons, who died during or afterwards, when staying (before) at an event. It isnt helpful to discuss reasons of suicidal actions. ---ooja23- (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. Only four people died during the riot. Sicknick was wrongly described as having died as a result of injuries sustained during the riot. A number of officers subsequently died from suicide, but what role the riots played in their deaths is unknown. However, we should mention them because they have drawn attention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reports just came out about Adam McKay and Billy Ray creating a feature film[8] on the events of January 6th, should we include this new information in the article or should we wait from more official confirmation before including it? NSNW (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Deadline is considered a reliable source per WP:RSPDEADLINE, so I'd say sure -- though it's still being shopped to studios and streamers, so a long way from reality. Personally I don't see the harm in you or someone else adding a brief mention of this, as long as you're clear about its current infancy status and why it's notable (not just some rando's tiny project), with the caveat that the marketplace of ideas known as Wikipedia editors may nix inclusion for now, until more is known and it's more of a certainty. Moncrief (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There should be an "in popular culture" section for docs and other productions and it could go in there. TFD (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I can create that NSNW (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The language in this article is rather one sided considering the ongoing investigation and misconception of the since of the deaths that are associated with the incident. I believe all of this fails this article at neutrality. 204.9.182.166 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Almost 500 separate citations of reliable sources provide this article with its basis in fact; 10,277 edits by 1424 different editors over the last 370 days. A cursory reading of this talk page and its archives will show wikipedians disagree wildly on a thousand issues related to this subject but we hammer out recording the facts via vigorous discussion; an additional 11411 talk edits by 1421 different contributors. As of this datestamp, this is the version wikipedians agree believe best reflects consensus this article is factual and well-sourced. If you have a specific disagreement with sources or points made, feel invited to discuss your disagreement here. BusterD (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This could also be seen as the version left behind when those who disagreed with reflecting the bias, misconceptions and "false claims" repetition of anti-Trump sources along with the plain facts therein realized they were outnumbered, not taken seriously and wasting their time. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If editors who disagreed with core project policy on sourcing, reliability, verifiability, and fringe p.o.v.s, left in a huff, were banned, and the like, then the article is that much better for it. Like snipping cancerous tissue from one's liver and watching it regrow healthy. ValarianB (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't the disagreements I mentioned, but yes, characterizing all right-of-leftists as huffy liver cancer is what I mean by "not taken seriously". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda too bad, tbh. Sometimes people just lose debates, eve if they really really really wanted to win them, and thought that their arguments were super-persuasive. If a majority of editors oppose, then that, as they say, is that. ValarianB (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, "outnumbered". Do you have a super persuasive argument for needing to call the claims false claims each time, after it's already established, like a highly infectious parrot? If not, don't waste even more time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: WP:EVALFRINGE directs us to put every instance of false claims in context. If you disagree you should be discussing it at WT:FRINGE or the village pump; we can't locally decide not to follow the guideline. It directs us to not be "overly harsh" with minority viewpoints, but since these are provably false claims we present them as such. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

They are in context, especially the three in the same paragraph. Context isn't text itself, you know. It's like locally deciding to not call the attack the Capitol attack or January 6 attack repeatedly. We trust our readers to remember their current subject. Same should go for specific topics involving it, especially the three in the same paragraph. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

All of Trump's claims about the election are demonstrably false - there was no widespread fraud, votes were accurately counted, and he lost because the people of America democratically chose someone else to be president. It's your choice to accept these facts or not, but don't expect anyone else to coddle your choice. NPOV is not a suicide pact, and does not require that we weaken what reliable sources say in order to assuage hurt feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not everything demonstrably proclaimed needs to repeated seven times. At least just say "claims" for two of the three lead echoes. It's superfluous, not hurtful. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

On this, you will need to be much more specific. Saying an article isn't neutral doesn't really give us much to go on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion there are a few problems in the lead. I would avoid judgmental terms such as mob and rioters. There is no need to say more than once that Trump's claims were false. Trump's "fight like hell" statement should be omitted. In his impeachment, it was claimed it was an incitement to violence, which his defenders denied. It only makes to include the statement if its relevance is explained. Finally the statement that 30 people were charged with planning the attack is confusing, because readers might assume they were alleged to have planned the attack beforehand, when in fact all it means is that they agreed to attack the Capitol when they arrived at the building.

We should follow the same dispassionate approach we would use when describing events that happened long ago and far away. Compare the lead with that of the Beer Hall Putsch. There's no attempt to prove to readers that the participants were really awful people.

TFD (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not biased, just clumsy on para two to refer to "false claims" three times. None of the "false"s are strictly necessary as "claims" and context makes the point to all but the wilfully blind, but three times is hammering the point home crudely IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your points. It is obvious when reading across this section that it contains bias. --Curiocity1 (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay...what exactly is it that you want changed? You need to be more specific. Love of Corey (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's my offer. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It was rejected by Feoffer, seemingly mistaking it as a matter of sourcing. It's a matter of wordiness. It's also easier if we treat "his false claim" as one Big Lie, not have him "repeating" his false claims right after. It's jarring. And if we're not biased, why blame "Trump and others" for some chanters not understanding how vice presidents work in elections? Why aren't any others named? Is Pence's rejection of their common misunderstanding the important part? Anyway, I tried and I'll never try again. Enjoy! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Explicit labeling of false claims is an important part of NPOV and WP:FRINGE. RSes agree the claims are false. Feoffer (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, we do label them/it/whatever, the first time. However you describe his claim(s) that first time, it holds true when he repeats said noun a short sentence away. The third time, we don't even have to mention claims, or rejection, or whatever "others" also may have claimed such false claims falsely. Just explain why Pence got heat, for not obeying the mob. And please don't readd "Explosive devices" as an attack method, that's clearly loaded and needs the most context. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your objection to "explosive device" used in that place in that way without more context. Good catch. I'll have to think more on that. Feoffer (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I know that several weeks ago, President Biden signed a law that allows for the Chief of DC police to directly request assistance from the National Guard and not have to go with extra steps. For reference, the law I'm referring to is the Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act of 2021. Does it make sense to add it to the article? I feel that it's an important part of the response. Thanks for your consideration. Losipov (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the article be categorized under terrorism-related categories as seen here? Love of Corey (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current events, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. The categories in question are Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021, Category:Rebellions in the United States, Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States, the latter two of which are long-standing (since Jan 7, 2021) and have consensus.

As for the terrorist category, that is also accurately invoked, as the article makes clear that RS have considered this a terrorist event. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No for rebellion or coup. Unsure for terrorist. per WP:WIKIVOICE, disputed information should not be stated as fact. [38] Not sure about terrorist because I don't know if we have a policy about the use of the term, and I also don't know if there are RS that dispute it. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

All that's needed for Wikipedia:Categorization is verifiable sourcing. It has been verifiably sourced for nearly a year now, and that Routers source does not disqualify other RS that label the event a coup/rebellion. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

But what if there is verifiable sourcing both for and against the categorization?Adoring nanny (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What sourcing is there that would suggest any of these categories are inaccurate? ––FormalDude ^talk 02:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

See my original vote. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

That source says nothing about the attack not being a rebellion, coup, or terrorist incident. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you see the same first paragraph I see? WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, notice how it does not mention a rebellion, coup, or terrorist incident? ––FormalDude ^talk 01:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The key phrase is "organized plot". We also have But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.. Not buying that we need the word when the meaning is there. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

According to four current and former law enforcement officials.??? All of whom are unnamed and later referred to simply as 'sources' or by vague descriptions such as "a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation". I'm against using the 'terrorism' category, but this is very vague sourcing. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to all. The FBI has classified the attack as domestic terrorism, and there is no substantial opposition to that characterization. It is also clear that the consensus of reliable sources was that the incident was a coup attempt, which is by definition a rebellion, so these classifications are also appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the article cites both the FBI and an Associated Press article summarizing of news coverage describing it as such; I might be reluctant if it were just the FBI (government designations can sometimes be politically-driven, and if they're disputed we might want to be careful and present it only as their opinion), but the AP source coupled with the fact that the article has no indication of any serious mainstream source disputing this is sufficient to support the category. --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. RSes class it that way. There were pipebombs. Feoffer (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Per above. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• No There are no reliable sources it was a terrorist attack. The unrelated pipe bombings however may be. TFD (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces: Only one of the proposed categories classifies the event as terrorism. Are you voting against the other two categories as well? ––FormalDude ^talk 00:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• No to both the AP is not an expert on terrorism, so the fact that it called the attack "terrorism" in an article is meaningless, and the only information about the FBI classifying the attack as such is [39] the director mentioning it briefly, with reliable sources rarely calling it a terrorist attack. Only some sources have characterized it as a coup, certainly not a significant enough majority to add that as a category. Bill Williams 02:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And as described in the article, the attack was not coordinated in advance, not some organized coup plot, so describing it as such is highly misleading. The same goes for calling it a "terrorist attack". Bill Williams 02:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: The article states the FBI had reports of possible violence at the event a day before hand. There is a section about a meeting of Trump and associates for "a battle for justice and truth" that took place the day beforehand. There is a section about predictions of violence that shows evidence of planned threats. And then there is the section about Official predictions and warnings, which states "Capitol Police intelligence unit had circulated an internal memo warning that Trump supporters "see January 6, 2021, as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election" and could use violence against "Congress itself" on that date." Two pipe bombs were placed.

So please, how is this possibly not coordinated in advanced and not organized? ––FormalDude ^talk 04:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you are trying to edit? Sources are already provided stating that only 30 out of 727 so far arrested of those participating in the attack were members of semi-organized militia groups, while the vast majority were not organized in any fashion. Additionally, sources state that the vast majority had no plan in advance regarding the attack, so you are entirely incorrect. Please read the last paragraph of the lead and click on some of the provided sources, and of course you can find numerous others on the internet if you wish to be proven wrong any further. Bill Williams 06:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Only 30? Are you kidding me? That's 30 people charged with planning an attack to overturn an election. The vast majority does not matter, when there was at least 30 people who organized a malicious attack. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A few individuals were a tiny fraction of the hundreds at the attack, and many of those who did not plan the attack or affiliate with far-right groups were even more violent, so your claim that it is magically a "terrorist attack" because a few of the people planned it in advance does not make it fact. The part about it being a coup can be sourced sometimes, not because it was "planned" but because it was intended to disrupt those in power[40] but that is irrelevant to it being a terrorist attack. Academic sources do not refer to it as such as regularly as they do a "coup". Bill Williams 18:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Yes to the terrorism category, of course, based on an overwhelming amount of sourcing, not to mention official classification by the FBI. Maybe to the coup category. There are an awful lot of sources which call it that, but most of the space devoted to that term in the article are about the debate of whether it was. Probably not to the rebellion category. "Rebellion" doesn't appear once in the article body, and it's a kind of category for which I'd be reluctant to have Wikipedians simply say "well we know what it means, and this fits the definition". That's not a judgment of whether it was or was not a rebellion, but that we shouldn't be categorizing in ways that aren't backed up by the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to all. Certainly an incident of domestic terrorism, and also an attempt to seize power and execute dissenting politicians. Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with Aquillion's statement and I also support the other two categories to stay. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I was directed here by a bot. My stance is Yes to all three. As @FormalDude: pointed out, the later 2 are long standing categorizations. As for the terrorism aspect, the incident was labeled a terrorist attack by the FBI, in addition it also lines up accordingly with the "traditional" academic and more objective definition of terrorism. OgamD218 (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as per Aquillion's, FormalDude's and other's reasoning. The clear majority of the mainstream Reliable sources describe the event as such, the FBI labelled the attack as domestic terrorism, it certainly fits the academic and objective definitions of domestic terrorism and at least 2 of the classifications are long standing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• No because the article doesn't even describe it as a terror event. It was a crowed whipped up to a frenzy, and described in all sorts of ways, but rarely as a terror event. LondonIP (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• No to "terrorism' or its variants. The sources claiming it to be so are too thin and even the FBI seems equivocal and plausibly political. If this was meaningfully terrorism, why has While not decisive, it is indicative that no one has been charged with any terrorism-specific offence, nor is "wanted" for one. The pipe-bombs may possibly be very tenuously related to the 'main event'. Yes to "coup attempts", partly for pragmatic reasons. That these people were trying to 'overturn' a democratic transfer of power seems self-evident. It is probably the bizarrist, most narcissistic, muddled and childish coup attempt in human history (people trying to seize power are usually better organised and VERY aware that if they fail, they are going to be dead or in jail for a long time by the end of the day - not preoccupied with taking 'selfies' to post on their social media timelines, or seemingly surprised that police 'fought back'). BUT nonetheless all sources agree that it was an attempt to use force to seize power and even if it was an improvised, out of control, Keystone Cops-ish attempt, anyone wanting to know about US coup attempts, would want to know about this event. Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, academic experts do not refer to it as a "terrorist attack" as they do a "coup". The reasoning for "coup" is at least clearer, while it was not an organized attempt at violence, but a spontaneous one, the sole purpose was to change who is going to be in power. Bill Williams 18:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• No to all. This doesn’t fit any of those definitions. Of the hundreds of people that were there, there’s no evidence to suggest they had a common purpose that could meet criteria for a coup or terrorism. There’s no credible evidence there was a group that was breaking in to overthrow the government and seize power, let alone that that was an objective for the actions of the whole group. A few small factions formed during the event that may have developed various plans to go to specific places within the building, but you can say that about any riot. There may have been an intent to disrupt the certification, but that doesn’t follow that it was a plan to actually overthrow the government, seize power, or install themselves as power. The article doesn’t support that. The limited mention of any weapons in the article are mostly improvised or weren’t at the actual event. There’s no mention of any hierarchy or plan within the group for what was going to happen to take power or secure power afterwards. This event just doesn’t fit in with what we define as coups. I still think there is merit in maintaining the relatively high standard for that definition. The only part that would make sense to classify as terrorism would be the pipe bombs, but as of today, there’s no answer about who placed those there or why, or even verification it was related to the later riot. Placing it in those categories lowers the bar and feels like partisan conjecture. It seems the purpose of this page is to make or counter certain political arguments instead of an encyclopedic entry describing an eventWinnie the publius (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC) — Winnie the publius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment/question - how many large-scale terrorist incidents (involving almost 1,000 people, possibly a higher number, not sure of total amount of participants) throughout history have resulted in zero persons being killed during the entire incident? Yodabyte (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  To clarify, one attacker was killed by the police and four died of other causes, while four police officers commit suicide as at a later date, but none of those deaths were people directly killed by the attackers during the riot. Bill Williams 19:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I know that, I was referring to the attackers. That's why I posed it as a question, not just a comment. I could be incorrect but as far as I'm aware (keep in mind I'm not an expert on the definition of terrorism) there has never been a "terrorist" incident involving hundreds/thousands of perpetrators where a grand total of zero people were killed. If that is the case, this clearly should not be classified as terrorism. Yodabyte (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  You're begging the question. Read the multiple academic studies that label this a terrorist incident. [41] [42] [43] [44] ––FormalDude ^talk 03:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  This doesn't answer the germane question I'm posing. This just distracts with speculative nonsense and titles like "Introduction: Domestic Terrorism, White Supremacy, and State Surveillance" "Will Failed Insurrection Lead to Terrorism" "Immaterial Support: Whiteness Stings"...nice try though. Yodabyte (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Each one breaks down how the event is considered terrorism. I agree you won't get that from just reading the titles though. If you really can't be bothered to read, I'll copy the relevant portions here for you. Let me know. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently I still have this page on my watchlist. Anyway, I checked the first two studies you linked. The first doesn't seem to say this was an act of terror, and I've only skimmed the second (it is long) but it doesn't seem to either. The relevant portions would be helpful I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  The first is an analysis of acts of terror and how the events of January 6th fall right in line with other acts of terrorism. It provides rebuttal for those wanting to describe this as an outlier incident. The jist of it is about the threat to democracy that terrorism poses, which it includes Jan 6 as a part of.

  As for the second source, this paragraph largely summarizes its analytical stance:

  The January 6 assault can be interpreted as a demonstration of the power of the “Stop the Steal” movement. If demonstrating power was indeed one of the objectives of the groups and individuals responsible for the January 6 attack, then terrorism could be an appealing substitute for such insurrectionary spectaculars. Indiscriminate terrorism against “soft” or civilian targets (which is easier to pull off than more precise terrorist attacks against better-defended or “hard” targets) can deepen insecurity and distrust in government. An immediate uptick in reputation for the perpetrators of such attacks is more important to them than long-term consequences, even if those include alienating the general public. Like riotous assaults on Members of Congress who are carrying out the duties of their offices, terrorist attacks can show that the government cannot protect itself, never mind its citizens.

  The third source suggests the events of January 6, 2021 are a reason to construct new counterterror legislation.

  The fourth source is probably the most indicitive, I don't even feel the need to quote that one. Read any part of it and it should be (at least tangentially) corroborating. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Having closed a previous RfC on a similar topic, I'm glad this one is at least a more specific question (whether to retain three categories) than the open-ended borderline-WP:FORUM discussion we had previously. Another issue in that RfC was a distinct lack of looking at sources. I noticed the ongoing discussion on my watchlist and was tempted to click on some of the sources above; the assertions made about what they say don't seem to be entirely accurate. So I did some researching of my own. In general, I think scholarship is better than journalism for this question, but AFAICS there's a lack of clear and good analysis in scholarship at present, on the specific question. Still:
  • Scholarship: Through the Looking Glass: Trump-Era Civil-Military Relations in Comparative Perspective A comprehensive analysis on whether this was a coup. It concludes: In sum, by this metric, the Capitol attack does not qualify as a coup attempt and is better understood as a different category of political violence.
  • Washington Post: This is an insurrection — not a coup
  • Naunihal Singh (academic) in Foreign Policy: This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. ... I get why people call it a coup: It’s because they want to say it’s an illegitimate power grab.
  • Reuters on the FBI result: The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
  • Researchers in The Conversation: While violent and shocking, what happened on Jan. 6 wasn’t a coup.
  • National Review (granted this is a conversative-leaning publication): The Capitol riot was an outrageous and embarrassing assault on our democratic institutions. Let’s also be clear about what it wasn’t. ...
  I think something stronger than mere hand-waving is necessary to make the claims requested in this RfC. For example, if one refers to an overwhelming amount of sourcing, I think they should also produce some links as examples to some of the best sources, or just any source at all. I haven't really researched the topic much before this RfC and I don't particularly care about the content outcome either way, but the quality of discussion right now is meh. There are barely links to actual sources above, never mind actual analysis of what the sources say, and some of the links are just mischaracterised. The supporters haven't really made a convincing argument so far. I would, however, argue that if the statement wouldn't be made in wikivoice, then per WP:POVCAT it probably shouldn't be made via category inclusion either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Here's some academic sources I'd appreciate those participating in the discussion to heavily consider. They're all accessible via TWL, but I've quoted some key parts for convenience.

  1. Source: It Was an Attempted Coup: The Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project Categorizes the January 6, 2021 Assault on the US Capitol Cline Center for Advanced Social Research (nonprofit).

  Quote: Using the Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project definitions, the storming of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 was an attempted coup d’état: an organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition by displacing the power of the Congress to certify the election. Specifically, at the time of this writing, we classify it as an attempted dissident coup.

  2. Source: Trump’s Coup and Insurrection Insight Turkey (journal).

  Quote: That it was a coup attempt is no doubt – it was openly declared as an attempt to reverse the results of a democratic election.

  3. Source: The Capitol Riot, Racism, and the Future of American Democracy. National Security Law Brief (American University Washington College of Law publication).

  Quote: The Capitol Riot in Washington D.C. was a coup attempt intending to upend American democracy.

  4. Source: HOMEGROWN AND GLOBAL: THE RISING TERROR MOVEMENT. Houston Law Review (journal).

  Quote: The January 6, 2021 white supremacist terror attack on the U.S. Capitol has heightened public awareness about the seriousness of this threat.

  I'd like to add that Trump was impeached for inciting "insurrection or rebellion", and that has been a category on this article since January 7th. So it's quite confusing to me that people are also opposing that category. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Some additional source:

  5. Source: Extended Commentary: The Capitol Insurrection, Emergency Management and Mutual Aid Agreements: What Questions Need to be Answered? International Social Science Review (journal).

  Quote: The situation on Capitol Hill, starting with the comments made by the President of the United States, certainly had the characteristics of a coup d’etat and the incident was later called an insurrection.

  6. Source: How Did Donald Trump Incite a Coup Attempt? tripleC (journal).

  Quote: Trump’s fans followed this call and the result was the attempted coup.

  ––FormalDude ^talk 06:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  The rebellion category seems fine. If you look up definition of "rebellion" one synonym is "riot" i.e. the Capitol riot or Capitol storming (both appropriate descriptions for this incident). But rebellion and insurrection are both broad vague terms so that seems to be an issue. Definitely not an "attempted coup" or "terrorist attack" or "white nationalism in the United States". That last category also needs to be removed since no RS call this a "white nationalist attack" and a very small minority of participants were actually white nationalists/supremacists. Yodabyte (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: WP:POVCAT states A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently defined. I feel the coup and rebellion categories are quite consistently reliably sourced (see this extensive list of sources). ––FormalDude ^talk 11:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  That’s WP:CATDEF not WP:CATPOV and I don’t see how it applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  It applies because the former two categories are not controversial, as evidenced by them being the article since January 7th, and as verified by a plethora of RS. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to all, per others above. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose T and C, Support R, per ProcrastinatingReader and TFD -- there are no reliable sources calling this a terrorist attack. The Jan 6th riot/storming/attack was obviously not a coup attempt or terrorist incident. A lot of partisan political people have an interest in making the Jan 6 capitol attack (this article was originally called something like Jan 6th storming or riot) much worse than it actually was as time passes. A multitude of reliable sources and videos prove what this really was - a bunch of MAGAtards that got out of control. Yodabyte (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Yodabyte: Your comment above states the rebellion category is fine, however, here you are opposing it. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, I think the rebellion category is probably okay. As far as I'm aware coups typically involve some degree of pre-planning and from what I know about the 1/6 incident it was mostly a spontaneous event. If more evidence emerges it wasn't then I think coup and rebellion categories are okay. Terrorism categories make no sense esp since again literally zero people were killed by the so-called violent insurrectionist terrorists. Yodabyte (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Yodabyte: Perhaps alter your comment then to say what you actually mean? ––FormalDude ^talk 04:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  FormalDude, how could it be an insurrection, attempted coup and terrorist attack at the same time? Can you name any other event in history that combined all three? TFD (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I admire your attempt at a false dillema, but when we follow reliable sources, there are multiple that support all these categories. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• No to all per ProcrastinatingReader and TFD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes obviously, per Aquillion, FormalDude, others. Sourcing is more than solid on this, and some of the dissent feels more like a tired broadside at "the mainstream media" than honest objection. the AP is not an expert on terrorism is particularly egregious. ValarianB (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  and can you provide one of those "solid" sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein: They've been provided. Here's an extensive list of sources. Try reading some time. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks FormalDude. But I could not find sources supporting 'terrorism-related categories'. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• No The article states that 727 people have been charged with this incident. If the DOJ isn't even trying to indict anyone on the charge of terrorism out over 700 people then Wikipedia shouldn't document it as terrorism.Yousef Raz (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Yousef Raz: The FBI called the attack "domestic terrorism" point blank. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: Law enforcement can label mostly anything with little burden of proof. Actions speak louder than words, meaning the truth of an investigation comes out in courts. The FBI had an investigation of an incident that Director Wray described as domestic terrorism with 700+ arrests. Of the 700+ arrests regarding this act of terrorism, they couldn't find a single terrorist?Yousef Raz (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Question can someone point me in the direction of the FBI saying this was terrorism? My reason for asking is that in some European countries, a "terrorism investigation" is launched whenever there is the possibility that an incident COULD BE terrorism. The investigation's first job is to establish whether the incident WAS terrorism. These investigations particularly happen when there is public pressure on authorities to take a matter seriously. Investigations sometimes conclude that an incident was something other than terrorism - a hate crime perhaps or the actions of a deranged person. In the UK and some other European countries, there have been violent incidents where the press or public, if not the police or courts ultimately, have sought to characterise as 'terrorist' or which do not meet that countries legal definition of terrorism. The impression I have got from the discussion above is that the FBI pronouncements are closer to "terrorist investigation" than to any firm conclusion that this was terrorism, but I would like to look at what the FBI have said. Pincrete (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972970812/fbi-director-defends-agency-in-testimony-calls-jan-6-attack-domestic-terrorism . The level of suspicion to state something is terrorism is a hunch is needed.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to all. Rebellion is obvious. Many sources above have described it as an act of terrorism. And many have described it as a self-coup. Categories are there to aid in navigation, and I think that given the above, it's useful for readers to have this article in those categories. Finally, thanks to User:FormalDude for the list of above sources including the "coup" description. BirdValiant (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Here we go again with the terrorism claim. This is what FBI Director Wray said from NPR source above "it's behavior that we, the FBI, view as domestic terrorism". But here is the interesting thing, the FBI and DOJ have not charged any of the 700+ people arrested with terrorism. Wray's words mean nothing and no RS call this riot/storming/attack a terrorist incident. Yodabyte (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Yodabyte: You are not being honest when you say "no RS call this a terrorist incident". There are multiple peer reviewed sources that refer to the incident as terrorism:

  • From the Houston Law Review journal: "The January 6, 2021 white supremacist terror attack"
  • From the Surveillance & Society journal: It is difficult to not describe the events of January 6, 2021, as terrorism, even if only to demonstrate their relationship to a preexisting legal category of violence.

  Furthermore, just because they haven't been charged, doesn't mean they wont be. At pretrial hearings, defense attorneys indicated that they were unwilling to consider plea deals for their clients because prosecutors would not agree to refrain from seeking the domestic terrorism charges. So it's certainly not off the table, and the head of the FBI considering it terrorism is not something to wave your hand at. At this point, I see way more evidence for including the terrorism category than not. ––FormalDude ^talk 11:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  It may be difficult for some to not describe these events as terrorism, but difficult things still happen. Wishing it were easier doesn't help. And substituting "terror" for "terrorism" only comforts those willing to mistake these two different words as equal. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment How is this any different from the Brooks Brothers riot of 2000? In that case, paid Republican operatives, under the direction of Roger Stone of all people, who was himself working for the Bush-Cheney campaign, violently disrupted the counting of ballots by Florida judges. Unlike 2020, they were successful and the election was awarded to the Bush-Cheney ticket. Bush and Cheney, who had encouraged the rioters, rewarded many of them by appointing them to White House posts. TFD (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose T and C, Support R No terrorists are even suspected (outside of political opinion pieces) and nothing attempted is seen by prosecutors as intending insurrection (again, in fact), but a bunch of people did oppose congressional authority in a spectacular and illegal fashion. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  By supporting R you also support I. R is like an enhanced I. I+. I=R, NOT I=C. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  MWD1 > MWD2. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just my two cents on the wording/definition of the event: terrorism= the worst (people usually die but not always, events like 9/11 and Oklahoma City where hundreds/thousands were killed, on 1/6 a grand total of ZERO people were killed out of hundreds/thousands who were present during the attack), coup=also really bad (usually involves pre-planning, all evidence one year on shows 1/6 to be a spontaneous event), rebellion=probably fits into this category, riot= definitely, storming=definitely, protest=yes, attack=yes. Yodabyte (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Before using cherry-picked sources to make a point, I would propose to do something similar to this format of grouping sources - a collection of all sources in one place, and let people decide. Please assemble all sources for "coup d'état", "rebellion/insurrection" and "terrorist attack"; and, accordingly, all sources that oppose such labels, if any, in one place. This is really going to help with the closure.

(On a side note, responding to InedibleHulk, at least here in Europe terror attacks are considered terrorist incidents, and in India also apparently so - maybe America is different, but the War on Terror had terrorists in mind, hadn't it?). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(There's been a mass media blurring of the lines since the War on Terror, but especially since 2013 and less especially since 2017. It's far more complicated than I could ever get into here, but I've helped write walls on its applicability to Wikipedia's reindeer games and might send you some links later if you're into it. For now, thankfully, the Harvard law essayist conveniently defined white supremacist terrorism for "the purposes of [his] Article", and it's not how Wikipedia defines it.) InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I don't think anyone's cherry-picking sources, at least not ProcrastinatingReader or myself, and we have provided the majority. I just hope editors are evaluating the quality of the sources in line with Wikipedia's policy on RS and BESTSOURCE. ––FormalDude ^talk 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to all I believe there is more weighty reasoning in favor of inclusion rather than against. The event is described as such in reliable sources, including some peer reviewed works as noted above. It is eminently verifiable. That leaves the only reasoning against this as WP:NPOV issues. I think we're more likely to fall afoul of WP:BALASP/WP:FALSEBALANCE by conspicuous lack of categorization into the above categories than to violate NPOV by correctly referring to the event as terrorism, rebellion, and a coup attempt. I would be interested to see any neutral (i.e., non-partisan or bipartisan, in context) sources that pointedly dispute these descriptors for the event, seeing as the opposite view is well-supported. That may affect my reasoning. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This section really should be removed and serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory. It was hyped by the media and the political left. People die of natural causes. Why should that be included? Police officers commit suicide, it is not uncommon. Do other articles about some parade or protest list the number of people that may have had medical emergencies during them? Saying that 5 people died and 4 officers killed themself sometime afterwards is sensationalism. Don't be like the media.

"Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes.[19][33] Many people were injured, including 138 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months."

It should be written in a more neutral way like:

One rioter was shot and killed by Capitol Police while trying to breach internal doors within the Capitol. Many others were injured during the riot, including 138 police officers.

73.109.125.38 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the section titled "suicides" later on, it expands on these deaths; at least one was directly tied to the events of the Capitol riot by a medical examiner. --Jayron32 19:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue of "natural causes" has been discussed on this talk page before, such as here and here. We probably need to create a FAQ for this. They are included though listed as "natural causes" because in the U.S., deaths are only classified as homicide, suicide, accidental, or "natural causes", even in the case of severe stress from an event like January 6 causing a heart attack. These deaths are connected to the events at the Capitol on January 6, as reliable sources demonstrate, and so they're included. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Since Babbitt is a notable person of the Capitol attack, I am posting the move request discussion link here [45]

Not only do I disagree with the suggested name change, I also disagree with including it in a "bulk move" format. I posted my concerns at ANI earlier [46] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This may be useful for the article:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2022/01/07/oldsmar-man-had-explosive-devices-near-jan-6-anniversary-rally-in-pinellas-sheriff-says/

Baxter329 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What standard of evidence must be met to change this article title to 2021 United States coup d'état attempt? Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A preponderance of WP:RS calling it such. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s pretty obvious that this will be the eventual conclusion of the 1/6 commission investigation once they’ve published their final report. Will that suffice? Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's pure WP:CRYSTAL. I'm personally persuaded that if this event had occurred in Nigeria or in Sudan, RSes might refer to it more uniformly as a coup attempt, but that can't be the standard. Feoffer (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. I’ve been following the investigation pretty closely. It’s clear they are dealing with an attempted coup. Now, just to be clear, if the report describes it as an attempted coup, and RS report that, will that meet the evidentiary standard to change the title name? Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question; there's no correct answer. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, we don't know where the line is. It's up to people at New York Times, the BBC, Der Spiegel, NHK, etc. TBH, I think editing wikipedia would be very stressful if we were going around trying to make editorial decisions ourselves based on the perceived merits. We just summarize the reliable sources, which aren't [yet???] using the word coup as the common name. Feoffer (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you'd need to establish consensus for the change in title. The "standard of evidence" required is whatever is sufficient to convince editors that that title is better. VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Follow up question: what safeguards are in place to prevent consensus from overriding facts and reality? For example, I’m fairly certain that a controversial close might make use of multiple editors/admins that could conceivably sift and weigh the close beyond sheer supports and opposes, and put more weight on the strength of the detailed arguments instead of blanket supports and opposes with little argument. Would that be an accurate observation, such that a potential close would go beyond consensus by numbers alone? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Rationale are weighted not counted. Wikipedia:Voting is evil. Closers are instructed to give little weight to invalid rationales. When a preponderance of RSes call it a coup, we will too, even if that's unpopular with some. Feoffer (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

In the abstract, I agree with you, however, in practice, Wikipedia doesn’t do this. See our featured article on Ronald Reagan as only one of thousands of high-profile examples. That article is written not from the perspective of the preponderance of sources, but from a pro-conservative, pro-Republican POV, which intentionally, deliberately, and methodically downplays the negative qualities of the subject and their record, and cherry picks and promotes the positive aspects. I am seeing the same thing occurring here in many respects. To me, this reflects the systemic bias of Wikipedia, and shows there are few controls or preventative measures to contain or minimize it. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in spite of the left-wing bias, right-wing bias seems strongest when dealing with GOP presidents, especially TFG. Whitewashing is rampant. -- Valjean (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like you should be raising your concerns at WP:VP, then. This is an article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as our featured article on Ronald Reagan refuses to account for the total, abject failure of the polices of Ronald Reagan, as shown by many sources, such as the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, which examined fifty years of Reagan-esque policymaking and proposals and their total failure to live up to their policy promises, so too does this article title fail to account for the consensus of relevant experts in their respective fields who classify this subject as a coup, in spite of the so-called "consensus" which refuses to accept this evidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like you have a bit of an axe to grind, but our actual naming policy is WP:TITLE. It lists the five criteria we use when determining an article title, none of which is "consensus of relevant experts in their respective fields". A discussion at an article talk page can't override policy per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You want WP:VP/P. We do in fact include the viewpoint that this was a coup attempt in the article, and discuss it in more detail at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. VQuakr (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m very much aware of all of that. My concern is that the article title in this instance, not the content, diverges from the mainstream, established consensus on accurately describing the event. Your framing of my concern as "axe-grinding" perfectly illustrates the post-truth political framing at work here. On one side, we have the reality based community, a preponderance of expert sources who describe this event as an attempted coup. But on the other side, we have a personality cult of politicians and entertainers, who call this event an act of "legitimate political discourse". This is not just overt whitewashing, it is the blanket denial of facts, evidence, and data. The two "viewpoints" are not remotely equivalent. Facts matter. Reality exists. I am not grinding an axe when I repeatedly observe Wikipedia taking the side of a myth-making, fantasy-building, contingent of alternate fact-making editors in multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Viriditas, yah, it was a "soft" coup attempt, but the true gravity of that day never set in..... all we can report on/use are the sources available. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Viriditas: As I see it and as multiple media reports indicate, the coup attempt was larger than the January 6 event. It certainly appears that the events of January 6 as reported on this page were part of the coup attempt; but in that view, to label the events reported by this page as the coup attempt would be misleading as that would suggest that the January 6 capitol riot was the totality of the attempted coup. Friendogen (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking up the earlier description of WP featuring a "a pro-conservative, pro-Republican POV", who better to exemplify that POV than Mitch McConnell – "McConnell calls Jan. 6 a 'violent insurrection,' breaking with RNC". NBC News. 8 February 2022. Retrieved 12 February 2022. . . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of such a title change? 143.229.244.70 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are individuals whom medical science has determined died of natural causes or causes outside of the incident being counted as deaths from the incident? At best, this should be a foot note stating that ("Early on, it was believed Brian Sicknick, Rosanne Boyland, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Philips, were considered casualties of the event, but later were determined to be from natural causes or causes outside of the events at the Capitol."). Because of this article, other sources are declaring that 5 people died because of the events, when in reality the count is only 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7029:6100:6015:5900:BD4D:427C (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Because we reflect reliable sources, which include them as deaths resulting from the Capitol attack. 2021 United States Capitol attack#Casualties says The D.C. chief medical examiner found he died from a stroke, classifying his death as natural,[366] and commenting that "all that transpired played a role in his condition".[367][368] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is little chance these people would have died when they did if they hadn't been there on the day of the insurrection. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Iraq War info-box lists 4,507 U.S. military deaths, but more than 30,000 veterans died by suicide. TFD (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not within a month of the war, they didn't. VQuakr (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's still true that there is little chance those people would have died when they did if they hadn't participated in the conflict. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but as this article is not about that war its irrelevant, RS make the connection where, so we report it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources policy says that we cannot rely on news media for analysis of events. That makes sense. How would a reporter determine a person's cause of death? They can only report what experts say. In the beginning, news media erroneously stated that a police officer had died from injuries sustained during the attack. Other deaths were also wrongly attributed directly to the events. Due to the ambiguity, I suggest we remove the information from the info-box and explain it in the body of the article.

Also, I am unaware of a limitation period for including suicides, but no doubt some of the soldier suicides would fall within the limits.

TFD (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Important point of clarification - we shouldn't rely on primary news reports for analysis. "News media" organizations can and does publish secondary coverage of events that is a great source for analysis of those events. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately both analysis in news media and our own analysis fail rs. Of course experts later use news reports as secondary sources for their analysis and these studies can be used as rs. TFD (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"News media" is too broad of term to be able to make that assessment. Context is needed to determine if a given tidbit is primary or secondary in nature. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the discussion. Analysis in news media is not rs unless written by a recognized expert, typically someone with a PhD in the subject area, teaches at a university and publishes in academic journals, not someone with a BA in journalism. TFD (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to This source Benjamin Philips was not at the riot. Why is he included in the death toll if he wasn't even there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.108.91 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Becasue more than one RS list his as a casualty.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the sources and the article, he was at the Capitol, but not in it. What change do you think should be made? Acroterion (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I recently found a video of the CNN coverage as the attack was happening live on Internet Archive, I'm not an expert on copyright so I want others opinions. Theres not really a way for me to tell if it's in the public domain or has a CC license, and even if it's not Im not sure if the article needs it. Any opinions are welcome. NSNW (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Its CNN, its thiers. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CNN's own website, and all videos on it, only carry the standard copyright notice. Their terms of use here states the copyright policy under item 3, and it's quite clear that none of it is compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license. Most major legacy media companies maintain copyright policies from well before the advent of common copyleft licensing, and barring obvious evidence to the contrary, you can generally assume it isn't useable on Wikipedia, except under the limited guise of WP:NFCC. --Jayron32 16:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@AriNikoBradshaw: Can you explain why you've added the 'POV' and 'Unbalanced' tags? Please be specific. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Another Believer Yes - I'll add a detailed description this weekend when I can sit and adequately outline the issues. Please bear with me until then. It's not as severe as it may seem, but the article needs some minor changes in tone. It doesn't read like a professional unbiased article at the moment. Cheers! ~

AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest removing the tags until you're able to post a detailed reply here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems another editor agrees with me. I don't have a problem with you raising concerns or adding tags appropriately, but best to wait until you can justify why before the article displays multiple ugly banners. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The entire concept of article tags should be revisited as an unnecessary waste of time, but that is for other venues. For now, yea, you don't get to tag and run away for 2 days. It should stay off til there's a proper reason given, though not holding my breath that this discussion will be fruitful. ValarianB (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to remove 2019 South Korean Capitol attack under the section 2021_United_States_Capitol_attack#See_also.

1) It is mentioned in List of attacks on legislatures

2) It did not cause any casualties.

223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if perhaps the death count should be raised to 6 to include Jeffrey L Smith now that his suicide has been ruled to be a result of injuries sustained during the riots by the board responsible for dispensing benefits to his widow?

Relevant outtake from CNN: "According to a letter obtained exclusively by CNN, the District of Columbia’s Police and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board has found that Smith “sustained a personal injury on January 6, 2021, while performing his duties and that his injury was the sole and direct cause of his death.”"

--parqs (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the tally should be updated, this has been reported by NBC as well. D.C. police officer’s suicide after Jan. 6 riot declared line-of-duty death. Zaathras (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No. No, Jeffrey L Smith committed suicide on January 15th, 2021. He shot himself on his first day back to work. They only reversed their decision so the widow could get benefits which she's been fighting for ever since. You cannot blame someone else for a suicide, his cause of death was him, killing himself. While I agree with their decision so that the lady could get benefits, it's silly to put here unless it's made explicitly clear that is was a suicide. 12:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC) OnePercent (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, as I am unsure he died during the riot, so we would need to make it clear this was a post-riot suicide, and the info box is not for that kind of nuance. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Brief mention of Ray Epps, under this section of the wiki article: Trump supporters gather in D.C.

Please add this newly released New York Times story as a citation, in regards to his being seen on Jan. 5th urging folks to "go into the Capitol."

New Evidence Undercuts Jan. 6 Instigator Conspiracy Theory
New York Times. Published May 5, 2022. By Alan Feuer

Thank you, editors with editing privileges !!  : ) 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done – we could perhaps add more from this source to this article or one of the related articles though. It does support the claim about his actions on January 5 but they aren't the main focus. This is the first time I've heard about Epps, but I'm not really sure we need a sentence about him in this article at all; I'd be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I think mentioning Epps is perhaps important, because there have been conspiracy theories swirling and claiming that he was a paid government asset / agent provocateur, which this NYT article disputes. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@LongIslandThomist914: You've reverted my edit removing this material, but haven't provided an edit summary. Can you explain your thinking, and how you'd respond to my own edit summary explaining why I don't think this belongs in the article? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You left out the parts saying that the claim could not be verified and Trunp's spokesmen denied it. TFD (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The following text should be removed from the article: "On the English Wikipedia, there were several disputes among the site's volunteer editors as to what terminology should be used to describe the event".^[1][2]

It should be removed because it is trivia of no importance. Hiddsig (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

While cited, it is a bit navel-gazey... As a common practice, the Wikipedia community generally should avoid making themselves part of the story. BusterD (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm biased because of my involvement, and I understand concerns about navel gazing, however in general I'm ok with Wikipedia having claims about Wikipedia when there are multiple reputable sources to support. In this case, there are several sources which specifically described the title dispute. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. How important is it to the event's aftermath that we had issues re: calling it a "storming" vs. "attack? I'm inclined to think we are not so important in this process so would lean against including it. But that's a weak lean. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about one sentence in a section covering "analysis and terminology". Doesn't seem outrageously inappropriate to me, but I don't feel too strongly about keeping. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That it is only one sentence and in a section about "analysis and terminology" makes me think it might be DUE. I've been going back and forth on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple reliable sources to support it. And the disputes continued for quite some time after the event, as we can see from the history of this talk page. Just as a side note, this article was edited about 2,000 times within the first 24 hours. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:FD84:589D:2E77:D266 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way this can be included in the Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack article without it being transcluded here? I think it's reasonable for it to be in the spun-off article, for reasons suggested above, but is probably not such a vital part of the event that it needs to be in the main article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess User:FormalDude has decided to remove the claim. Not sure there's consensus to do so, but ok. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I see people above attempting to form a consensus, with limited success. Unfortunately, the same people, with the exception of The Four Duces, are also edit warring about it at the article, with so far two people removing the text in question, and three people readding it. Could you all please wait till a consensus does come about? I've protected the article for four days to stop the edit war. If agreement is reached here before that expires, please let me know and I'll unprotect. Also, feel free to remind me to restore the indefinite semi when the full protection expires. Bishonen | tålk 21:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC).

In the Analysis and terminology section I added

Trump called the use of the word "insurrection" by Liz Cheney "the insurrection hoax" adding "Look at the so-called word insurrection, January 6 – what a lot of crap."^[1]

since it is about terminology which gets right to the core of the issue straight from the horse's mouth. It's well documented by a great source, The Guardian, and others. What word is more relevant to this article? Who's opinion of this word is more important? @Arms & Hearts: I'll put it back in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need that level of detail? I would just say that Trump rejected the term. TFD (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's only 3 lines. Most, maybe all of the comments on terminology are longer. I also think this is a very important part of the article. While there are a few quotes from Trump, none of them except this one seem to deny any of the accusations made against him. Let him make his denials, and let out readers decide if the denials make any sense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edit as added by Smallbones. Mainly I'd like to know what kind of objection there is to this addition. I'm seeing: it's "too long" but it's one line long. I'm seeing "maybe it should go somewhere else" but what better place could it possibly be at than the "analysis and terminology" section of the article on the 2021 United States Capitol attack? Yes we're used to articles like this mainly having unconstructive edits, but on occasion there is a halfway decent edit, so the habit of restoring the status quo isn't always the best move. BirdValiant (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: I thought my edit summary made it reasonably clear that the obvious "better place" is Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Contemporary analysis and terminology. This article uses summary style: the most important stuff goes in the main article, less vital details go into one of the split-off articles. I'm not sure where you've seen anyone claiming that the content added is "too long" – that would indeed be silly – but small additions quickly mount up and cause articles to become too long, as has happened to this article in the past. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a "better" place, that's an additional place. The line was fine where it was added in this article. Trump's response to the term is relevant to the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a certain level of WP:MANDY to the whole thing, as far as I am concerned. I am not against inclusion in any sort of blanket way, but I think we could shorten it up even a bit more. I am also not sure of the "by Liz Cheney" attribution -- while it was certainly in the context of a rally in opposition to her, all the accounts I read seem to indicate his statement was more in the nature of general commentary than a personalized rebuttal. As ever, happy to bow to the wisdom of consensus whichever way it goes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I understand that you think the addition was fine, and that you think it's relevant. That's self-evident from the fact that you restored it. What's not clear, and what you might think about using the talk page to explain (rather than wasting your time and mine on silly warnings), is why you think those things. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I already did, both in the edit summary and in my comment above. Because the insurrection was instigated by Trump, his objection to the term is an encyclopedically relevant detail. That should be obvious. Maybe instead, you should explain why you think it isn't relevant. And as a single sentence, it does not violate the WP:UNDUE principle. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

}@Dumuzid and Arms & Hearts: I'll suggest that you need to come up with some substantive objections to the edit. That is, do you think that it is untrue or uncited, or just repeats something previously said, or ? So far all I see are procedural objections: e.g. it could go in another article (as if everything couldn't go in another article) and that there's no consensus yet (as if 5 editors can get consensus if the 2 people "against" won't address the substance of the issue) BTW Dumuzid's comment above suggests that he doesn't really have any substantive issues.

What's my major issue? There are no other quotes or statements on Trump's views after Biden's inauguration. You may disagree with him, but our readers deserve to hear what he says on whether there was an insurrection. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with something along the lines of "Trump has referred to the use of the word 'insurrection' to refer to the events of January 6, 2021 as 'a lot of crap.'" Happy to hear other thoughts. Dumuzid (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'll point you once again to my edit summary from the other day, and my comment above where I elaborated on it. Both explain my "substantive objections", though I'm happy to go into more depth if either is unclear. In a nutshell: you need to explain why, of all the many things Trump and thousands of other people have said about this event, this comment is significant enough to belong in this main article on the topic. Did it get significantly more media attention, for example? Did reliable sources comment on it long after the fact? Was it described as unusual or surprising? The answer seems to be no to all three. (It's easily fixable, but the case for including the content would probably be stronger if it was written more coherently to begin with: the sentence you added to the article twice, and BirdValiant and Anachronist added once apiece, doesn't tell us when Trump made these remarks, who Liz Cheney is (it doesn't even link her name), what she said or what she has to do with the attack – fairly basic things to include when trying to write encyclopaedically about politics – and it says Trump describes Cheney's comments as a "hoax", which is both a misrepresentation of the source and absurd.) Finally, I'm baffled as to why none of the three editors who want to add this material to this article have added it to Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack, where there seems to be a clear consensus it does belong, and where WP:SS more or less mandates it be mentioned if it's to be mentioned here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: "Did it get significantly more media attention" > this is an unreasonable requirement and is not used elsewhere either in this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. "Did reliable sources comment on it long after the fact?" > You already know the answer to this question as the comment was made last Saturday and the article published on Monday. Besides: is it a requirement for news stories to wait until "long after the fact" for inclusion? The answer is no. "Was it described as unusual" > It's not unusual for Trump to describe various things he doesn't like as "hoaxes" but it is unusual and shocking for a politician to do so. "it doesn't tell us who Liz Cheney is" > Representative Liz Cheney is already mentioned twice in this article, where she has a wikilink.

As to why the single-line addition is a worthwhile inclusion: 1.) Trump is the main character involved in this whole thing, 2.) It is therefore important to know how he characterizes the event, 3.) this characterization is relevant in the "Analysis and terminology" section, and 4.) calling it a "hoax" is shocking. BirdValiant (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to zoom out here. You agree, presumably, that not every single detail on the topic that can be relably sourced belongs in this article (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SIZESPLIT, etc.). And you agree, I imagine, that there are some more important topics that belong in this main article, and other less important details that can be covered in the other articles (the Aftermath one, but also Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack, Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, etc.) (WP:SS). So the question is, what criteria do we apply in determining what belongs in this article and what belongs in one of the others? I've suggested some criteria that I think are viable (depth of coverage, coverage over time, qualitative description in coverage, etc.). I don't know whether to take the four reasons you've listed as criteria that could be generalised in that way or just as arguments for including this sentence, but either way they're very unconvincing: #1 and #2 are in fact a single point, as #1 is meaningless on its own; #3 tells us it's worthwhile because it's relevant (and presumably it's relevant because it's worthwhile, and so on all the way down), and #4 seems to be an appeal to your personal emotional response to the content. I'm open to any proposals for compromises—I've no strong objection to Dumuzid's suggestion, really—though, to repeat myself, an addition to the Aftermath article still seems like a precondition and a basis to work from. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: I see that you did not reply to any of my rebuttals, but instead chose to suggest that my reasoning is based on an appeal to personal emotional response. All this for a single sentence addition. Why should I reply to anything you have written if you do not extend the same courtesy to me? BirdValiant (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to ascertain some common ground as a basis for a compromise struck me as more likely to be productive than trying to respond point-by-point. I didn't say that your reasoning is based on an appeal to a personal emotional response, but it certainly includes such an appeal, unless I've misunderstood what you meant when you said calling it a "hoax" is shocking. Some input from others to avoid going round in circles would probably be useful at this point. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me for saying so, this seems like quite a lot of tsuris over a fairly small spectrum of disagreement. Arms & Hearts, while I largely agree with you, you're verging on a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument (even if I think it is one that makes sense). And BirdValiant, while I do think Trump's reaction writ large is notable, I am not sure the particulars of the Wyoming event have really garnered that much attention, and again, I think there is some level of WP:MANDY applicable. As such (without tooting my own horn), I think something like my pared down sentence would work (though I am happy to have others rework it), and we could indeed leave a fuller description to an article with a different focus. But I am just an old guy killing time on a Saturday, so feel free to disagree. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Consider the inclusion of an article on the Robb Elementary School Shooting. Imagine in a discussion on whether to include the article on the main page, an editor suggests that it should be included due to its shocking nature; then imagine another editor replying "Objection! you have turned to an appeal to personal emotional response!" But just giving the barest benefit of the doubt, the first editor's logic really is: "the shooting should be on the main page because > it's notable because > many global news agencies worldwide have reported on it because > it's shocking".

@Dumuzid: I'm fine with your sans-Cheney sentence. I would've assumed that it's better to specify the context and recipient of Trump's comments, but I'm not opposed to leaving it out either. BirdValiant (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.opb.org/article/2022/06/06/proud-boys-charged-with-seditious-conspiracy-in-capitol-riot/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)