Wikipedia

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 14

< Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack
(Redirected from Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 14)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Guy Macon in topic Recent changes...7 dead? 4 dead? or was it 5 dead?...
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Requested move 23 January 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago328 comments95 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved to the proposed title. There is definitely a consensus against calling this a "riot", mostly for being overly vague and for not being a direct enough word. There is not exactly broad satisfaction with "storming" per se, as it is not a particularly common word, but no other alternative received broad support in this discussion.*

The chart posted of the popularity in reliable sources for the various names was important and useful, and it showed "riots" in the lead, but many editors voiced concerns that the subject of this article is not the overall unrest that occurred in Washington D.C. that day, but rather specifically the "insurrection" (their words, not mine), or in other words, the breaching and trespassing of the Capitol itself. In other words, WP:COMMONNAME was conceded by many editors in favor of "riot", but "riot" was dismissed regardless by the consensus that developed below for not capturing the scope of what actually happened - that is, the subject of the article. (Needless to say - although many did say it - per our titling policies, the entire point of an article title is to capture the scope of the subject of the article.)

*There might be a chance to develop a consensus to move this article to a title containing the word "attack", as anecdotally many people supported it in the discussion and I didn't see much opposition to it; however, I would never presume a consensus for it based on the discussion below. Lastly, there was a noteworthy thread throughout the discussion as well of "wait and see", since sources are still perhaps deciding how to describe what happened. I cannot say that consensus will never develop to use the proposed title or a similar one. I can only judge that a consensus has developed not to use the word "riot" in the title of the article describing the breaking and entering of the Capitol. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol riot – Improved title per WP:NCE and WP:COMMONNAME

  • WP:NCE — "2021 United States Capitol riot" is a "when", "where" and "what" title
  • WP:COMMONNAME — Of the most common descriptors (protest, storming, riot, attack, insurrection) riot is overwhelmingly the riot and attack are names that are most commonly used.
JaredHWood💬 21:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To the RM closer: Please consider the #Survey of proposed titles for proposed and discussed titles for the article, along with the discussion when determining consensus. JaredHWood💬 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (requested move 23 January 2021)

It's neither too early or too late, this is the ideal time to improve on the current title. — Alalch Emis 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Time will tell better than any sources to date or opinions on this page (including archived). What is the length of the string to measure the time in units of weeks or months, expecting up to five more years for historical perspectives to consolidate, and perhaps a further five for revisionism to take up the baton? Meantime, the ever-changing tabulating - Survey of proposed titles,[1] not yet closed- (adding, shifting, hiding, meta-stasing) is more muddling than helpful, in ways that others have already remarked, but may have helped to demonstrate the divergent range of views of !voters.[2] Qexigator 09:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC) revised) 10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC), Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Further Comment 1 If the proposed move happens, the first sentence could read:
"The United States Capitol riot was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."
or (more simply) "The United States Capitol riot was a violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."
Either way, while the word 'storming' occurs in at least 15 places of the body of the article's current version it seems that all these places could be reworded with 'riot' or 'attack' instead. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Further Comment 2 Retaining the use of 'storming' in the name is fatally flawed vulnerable because of the unfortunate ambiguity noted below,[3]: as if storming of the United States Capitol could be read as implying that the Congress then in session within the Capitol was in a state of tempestuous anger. Qexigator (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC) revised in view of another's later comment.[4] 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Czello: The information given by Chrisahn is what I based my assertion on. I would add these counts of occurrences in the article itself.
    • riot: 245 mentions with "capitol riot" 69 times
    • storm: 105 mentions with "storming of the capitol"(and derivations) 32 times
    • attack: 58 mentions with "capitol attack" 11 times
The exact search term "Capitol riot" is the most common name for the January 6th event at the US Capitol. JaredHWood💬 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Another approach yields basically the same results: Set region to US and language to English in a search for "capitol" on Bing news search or Google news search and count the terms used for the event in the headlines of the first 50 search results: "Capitol riot(s)": 70-80%; "Capitol attack": 20-25%; others (e.g. "Capitol insurrection"): less than 5% each. (I didn't count terms for perpetrators, but "Capitol rioters" is clearly most common.) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is what I have thought all along the article should be called. It is straightforward and easily understood; everybody knows what a "riot" is. Much preferable to "insurrection" or "storming," which could be challenging to those without fluent and well-educated English. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Beat me to it. I would support the current suggestion. Support both attack and riot equally per really good analysis below. However, I would suggest United States Capital Attack is better. First, I think we need to understand what is actually WP:COMMONNAME. Doing a google news search and searching for the terms in title combined with Capital gives us, Riot used 67,700 times, attack is used 193,000 times, insurrection is used 15,400 times and storming is used 6,340 times. That is extremely strong evidence that the current title is not aligned with WP:COMMONNAME and we should use attack. Next we must weigh precision and disambiguation. I think what gets you there is United States Capital Attack. I don’t think you need a year, as what occurred isn’t common enough to confuse people. I do think you need to clue the reader into the country. I would argue that this title meets Wikipedia standards for a title far better then the current and, even through we just had a move discussion, we take the time to look at this again. As noted in the orginal move, this was a temporary solution.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Your search is not convincing. You misspelled "Capitol", and for some reason you used "Capitol Hill" instead of Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
That is sad. Give me a second and I will fix it.Casprings (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
And fixed. It’s the same results. Google is smart. That said, no one likes typos.Casprings (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Also updated to be Capital versus Capital Hill. I would note, the overall result is the same. Attack is the the common name.Casprings (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Your results are still totally weird. Maybe it's because you are still misspelling Capitol. Here's what I get, searching for each of the four words together with (quote marks) "U.S. Capitol". The result: Riot 84,300,000. Attack 82,700,000. Insurrecton 42,000,000. Storming 23,600,000. Riot and attack are the most common, but riot is slightly more used than attack. To the extent that Google searching means anything (debatable), riot is the common name. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It is spelled right, if you click the links. What you are seeing is that I am searching to see if it is used in the title. That gives you a better idea of journalist are using it as a name.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thank you for explaining that you were searching for the word in the title. I missed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Was originally just going to comment but as I typed my feelings became more clear. My concern is that the term "riot" doesn't really encompass the breaching of the building, or the specific political aims of those who did so. This wasn't just destruction of property, those leading the group were specifically searching for congresspeople to, seemingly, take captive or even execute, or at the very least to stop the electoral certification. The current title, "storming", shows more of that intent. "Attack" might also work. I like "insurrection", but I feel like that's unlikely to win an RM in any form given the last one. I guess I'll back "2021 United States Capitol attack" or variants for an RM per WP:COMMONNAME. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously this was simply a riot—"storming" is laughably NPOV and clearly designed for dramatic effect. Equally important: the "riot" article ought not to include the speeches, marches, etc. that included many thousands of people. Now that we know that only about 800 people entered the Capitol,[5] and that the vast majority of those were peaceful and committed no crime at all, it's high time to put the numbers in perspective. These were the actions of what's likely less than 150 bad actors—out of tens of thousands of people in DC on January 6 for a day of peaceful marches, speeches, and protests. Lumping this together with the larger events of the day completely distorts the truth of what happened. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The primary topic of this article is the violent attack on the capital by white supremacist extremists and other far-right actors. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to minimize that, or the culpability of those involved in the day's events. Given your talk page admonitions regarding edits at Race and intelligence, I would discourage other editors from taking your attempts to do so in good faith. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If more such comments appear, it will mean that "riot" is trending as a revisionist term. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The primary topic of this article is not a violent attack on Washington DC (as had happened several times 2015-2016 and at the time of Trump's inauguration[6]} but a riotous intrusion on the Congress building and its debating chambers so as to disrupt the proceedings of the Senate and House while in session. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Procedural close is not appropriate, as the embargo was only on "insurrection" nominations. The closer specifically says "Other move requests (like "Riots," etc.) may be launched immediately.". BlackholeWA (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Irregardless of the previous RM closer opinion, it is MY opinion that the previous RM discussion stand for 30 days. We cannot keep junking up the article with RM tags and perpetual RM discussions -- it's disruptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair, although I think(?) that procedural closures only apply to processes closed because the process itself violates a given rule/procedure rather than due to editor consensus. Maybe there'll be basis for a snow close, but too early for that I think. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is already move-protected. It won't be moved unless and until consensus is reached here, and then an admin will have to move it. That does not prevent discussion, since a lot of people don't think the current title is "fine". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Descriptive is not the right adjective here. In general, the title needs to convey "what", not "what did it look like". and if there's a real and specific word for that "what", that is sufficiently common – that is the best choice for the name. — Alalch Emis 01:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for now, because it's better than Storming ... but it was an Attack, on the Capitol, on the Government; using the term Riot doesn't encapsulate the most important feature of that day. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment would it be possible to run a simultaneous RfC on "2021 United States Capitol attack", or would editors prefer we see this one through first? The "attack" phrasing seems to be more encompassing, and is a good WP:COMMONNAME candidate per the stats upthread. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging MelanieN; I don't know the procedure on 2 RfC's. Also, should "attack" be capitalized? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That could have been done in the form of Option A/B (Support A / Support B / Oppose (both)), Somedifferentstuff. I don't think it's a good idea, but that's how it can be done. — Alalch Emis 00:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: See this RM as an example of how to suggest and maintain a table of proposed titles all users can vote for. -> Talk:List_of_works_similar_to_the_2020_Utah_monolith#Proposed_Titles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Might be a worthwhile approach, although it makes me wish we'd taken it in the last RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. As for whether "attack" should be capitalized, no it shouldn't. As for whether it is allowable to run more than one RfC at a time, I can't answer that one. My hunch (speaking as just another editor, not an admin) is that it would be best to finish with one before starting another. And that there is no ban on starting another right away unless the closer imposes a moratorium - which they specifically didn't in this case. As Alalch Emis suggests, it is not uncommon to have RMs with more than one choice, but in my experience they rarely result in consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: since there is so much diversity of opinion it may be impossible to hold an up-or-down vote on any single choice. Maybe something like the below table, where all the choices are presented and people can register themselves as "prefer", "accept", and "oppose", would be the best way to narrow down the community's actual preferences. Just a thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: Insurrection was discussed. It is known that it will not gain consensus. There was storming, there was rioting, there was attacking, and there was insurrection, but the title has to be set based on Wikipedia policies. I urge you to support this title based on NCE and COMMONNAME. Perfect is the enemy of good. JaredHWood💬 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There was no consensus against "insurrection" there just wasn't enough consensus for "insurrection". Per my calculations, in the future this article will bear "insurrection" in the title, there's a way to go. — Alalch Emis 00:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ribbet32, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Riot" does not convey that the Capitol building was breached. It might just have been a rioting mob in the grounds. I support options like "storming" or "attack" which convey the violent breach of the building. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
WWGB, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table below will not represent "consensus", it is just a bank of votes. That table has no relevance to this RM, which is purely about ONE requested change. The table just serves to cloud this standalone issue. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support riot, then attack, then protests in that order. Oppose any charged language such as storming or insurrection or infiltration or anything else charged someone may come up with. I have no strong preference for the year being included or not, but I feel that it should likely be omitted if possible - i.e. if "riot" is chosen, to my knowledge, no other event could potentially qualify as a Capitol riot, thus omit - but attack would require the year as the Capitol was attacked prior - same with protests. My !vote for is based on WP:COMMONNAME - as those three seem to be equally prevalent in my view. My !vote against is per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME - we cannot use charged words such as storming, and in fact none of the "charged" language being proposed are even remotely near common name. I'll point out to all that this is not a vote - the table is useless, as just as the admin who closed the last move discussion brought up - it's not even necessary to count votes and any such counts may be wholly ignored if there are stronger policy reasons on one side. I also feel that any vote for "insurrection" specifically (without any other options) should be struck - the admin who closed the last RM made it clear that there is a discretionary arbitration sanction on this article for at least one month for moving it to that title - thus this discussion, by definition, cannot even remotely entertain the title "insurrection". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Based on the analysis in #Ongoing analysis of naming trends, and my personal analysis that leads to the observation "insurrection" was used mostly in the week following the attack, and is not as commonly used now as opposed to "riot", it is clear that 2021 United States Capitol riot is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources at this point. This also avoids the need to discuss whether "insurrection" or "storming" are WP:NPOV, because even if they were, they aren't the common name so the point is moot. I'll note that arguments based on "what I saw happened" or "that's what happened" are original research and do not hold any value whatsoever in determining the title of this article - I hope whoever closes this takes into account that many of the answers arguing that "storming" is better than "riot" are based on their own opinions and not based on our policy for naming articles. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to fact that "riot" is more a plural word "riots" rather than singular instead. Many sources like The Daily Telegraph and Hindustan Times refers it as "riots" (plural) instead "riot" (singular). Most riots article have standardized word (XXXX [city or place] riots) such as 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 England riots, etc. Aside from this, the current title is till better for now. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support but 2021 Riots at the United States Capitol would be better.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan "2021 Riots at the United States Capitol" would give the idea that this event happened more than once, since "riots" is plural. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. (Given that COMMONNAME is use by the requester, I will explain with quotes.) Under COMMONNAME, Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Use commonly recognizable names, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The issue with 2021 United States Capitol riot is using the word riot. It fails WP:CONSISTENT of CRITERIA, The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. Using riot would not be consistent with events like King-assassination riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots which were events that mostly took place of city streets. By contrast, this event occurred on the grounds and inside the Capitol. Additionally, there are sources that question what we should call the event: 1, 2, 3, 4. This seems to go against there being a single, common description for what happened. However, using a description that waters down what happened does not seem to be the best way forward. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    Update: Oppose using Attack as well - Honestly, this proposal has fallen apart with the removal of options from the table below. I believe that using attack is trying to water down what happened along with counting sources like "Attack on the Capitol", "attack on Capitol", and "in attack on Capitol" as equal to the proposed "Capitol Attack". If anything, I believe that using attack would violate WP:CONSISTENT as riot does above, in addition to WP:Precision as it is ambiguous over what attack refers to. It also isn't made clear how using attack would follow WP:NCE: When the incident happened is 2021, Where the incident happened is the United States Capitol, What happened is attack. What attack happened though isn't clear by the title. At least riot incorrectly tried to explain what the event was. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. But it's a step up from storming. Attack is the genus for insurrection (obv. the right term), and even though incredibly imprecise, still correct. Storming is not correct (omits crucial facts and aspects that fall outside of what is generally understood by "storming"). I completely share your rationale for opposing "attack", but the same rationale in my case renders a "neutral" position. — Alalch Emis 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It is not easy to see how using 'attack' in the article's name could be NPOV acceptable here (that is, outside contentious political or media lanuage). Templates at the pagetop use the words 'personal attacks'. The link mentions that There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack, but some types of comments are never acceptable. Much the same could be said of 'attack' relating to the violently riotous conduct that has occurred at the federal and other Capitols. So let us look and see whether Wikipedia's Attack helps. Top of the list is 'Warfare and combat', and the others are not relevant here. Of the six W&C, the nearest is Offensive (military), while 'Offensive' links to 'Fighting words'. None of that seems to be better suited to renaming this article. Use of 'attack' in the name would be literary overkill, unsuited to an encyclopedia, except as a redirect. Qexigator (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That is your opinion as I feel it is a step down. I don't like using storming, but it is more accurate to what happened than the vague and unclear 'attack' being used. The only reason we should use attack is if there is no COMMONNAME like with September 11 attacks. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The proposer, User:Jared.h.wood, posted an update to the proposal above that changed the discussion from Riot to Attack. Said update is no longer in the proposal, but this should remain due to the table listed below as for my discussion as to why I opposed Attack. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I again would make the point above. Look at what WP:RS are using in their title of their articles. This is using google news search and looking at articles titles.
That is a very good logic to use attack. Moreover, this is one of the most important events to occur. I think we can drop the year.Casprings (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Casprings This is a completely uninformative and unusable set of rudimentary google searches. You didn't limit the search to relevant sources, didn't limit the period, didn't differentiate the verb from the noun. IMO it's a bad idea to reuse this and base arguments on it elsewhere. Please look at my analysis further below. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is better than the proposed one. "Riot" vs "protest" are both more subjective terms, while "storming" is a more objective and descriptive term. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The word "riot" does not fully capture what happened. It strikes me that riots tend to be more spontaneous, often without any planning or direct incitement, and can sometimes be relatively trivial (such as riots that follow sporting events). My experience of watching lots of TV news over the past two weeks is that this event is not being described by reliable sources as a riot. I would rather we waited to change the name of the article until a term asserts itself beyond Wikipedia by public consensus -- much in the way that the US terrorist attacks of September 2001 were not right away called "9/11" but only coalesced as that name after some time had passed. (Yes, before anyone asks, I do know that's not the title of the Wikipedia article about 9/11.) In the meantime, I think "storming" is an apt (or apt enough for now) description of what occurred. Moncrief (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the comment above. "Riot" is not an all-encompassing description and fully-accurate description of what happened. Also there is precedent on Wikipedia for the use of the word storming. See: 2020 storming of the Kurdistan Democratic Party headquarters, Storming of the Bastille among others. - kyyl0 :) (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A riot - as defined by Oxford Languages - is "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." This was more than a riot, this was an organized assault on a seat of government. Whether or not the majority of the mob intended to breach the Capitol is immaterial, the breach happened, people died, legislators and their staff and various police & security personnel on site were in serious fear of life and limb. Guns were drawn on the floor of the House Chamber - this was a much more serious event than "a riot". Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Moncrief. Love of Corey (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A "riot" could mean anything from an unruly protest to an armed coup. "Storming" is a more descriptive term that describes what happened (the building was breached and people unlawfully stormed it). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, storming of the Capitol is factually what happened, riot is an inadequate description of the breach of a government building.Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose I have now noticed that entries for storming' in Roget's Thesaurus[7] indicate that there may be some degree of ambiguity in the words "storming of the United States Capitol", as if "the United States Capitol" was being used as a metonym for Congress in session, as "the White House" is often used as a metonym for the president and their advisers.' Some of those Roget's entries: are: 'angry [adj] being mad, often extremely mad' / 'p____ off, affronted, annoyed / 'tempestuous / wild / stormy / agitated / blustering' / turbulent / unsettled / raging (referring to weather), agitated, bitter, wild, intense, stormy / wrathful / very angry / beside oneself / displeased / enraged / furious'. However, "The Table for consensus" that has been posted below is more likely to add confusion than otherwise. It shows that so far there is little agreement for any other title, and the comments on this page, and as archived, show that support for any other title is based on divergent thoughts about the meaning of any of the proposed alternatives. it is quite clear that riots can be more severe and deadly than 2021 at the federal Capitol, such as the Gordon Riots, the March Unrest and many others, such as those mentioned in 11 of history’s biggest riots and why they happened.[8]Support While still unsure But in the case of 2021 at the Capitol, 'storming' is also acceptable, and at least second best or maybe first equal of any so far proposed. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC) revised Qexigator (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC) revised 10:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed title is certainly better supported than the current title. Protesters storm the capitol a lot. BLM did it back in June. It wasn't even that big a news story at the time. 5440orSleep (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
BlackholeWA "Protesters storm the capitol a lot" ... another comment of the said type. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A riot is what it was, and its supported by numerous RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that most or all of the above discussion occurred when the proposed move was to "riot". I don't know what to make of the "update" which now proposes a move to "attack", or when exactly it was added. Adding a new proposed title in the middle of the discussion has completely muddled the discussion. It means that when people above talk about "the proposed title" it may be unclear what proposal they are talking about. Bottom line, this RM is probably now confused beyond repair. The "table" below is also misleading if not worthless - because we don't know in what context people were responding, when they posted the comment they are tallied as making. For most of the above discussion this was presented as a two-fold choice, either "riot" or the existing "storming". "Attack" was suggested by multiple people but was never discussed as a support-or-oppose proposal, so its popularity, or lack thereof, cannot be evaluated by the above discussion or the below table. (For my own part, I would accept "attack", still prefer "riot", and oppose "insurrection". But I don't think any decision can be made on the basis of this constantly-changing RM.) BTW I think the table idea may be a helpful approach, but it would have to be started from scratch and not as part of an existing RM. Also it should have three columns: "prefer", "accept", and "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The Update has been removed as too many people have already commented when it was just discussing riot. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Somedifferentstuff! I agree with 99% of what MelanieN said. But since only one comment has been added after Jared.h.wood added the "attack" option and it clearly supports "riot" (Slatersteven above), I think we have repaired this RM and can finish it the usual way. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good Chrisahn   -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The RM may be salvageable. The table below is still a good concept, but it would have to be started over from scratch - since it currently tallies what people said in a "storming vs. riot" discussion, it does not reliably evaluate people's opinions about all the possible titles. But it could be a good general survey of people's opinions. It should only ask about what NOUN to use (riot, storming, attack, insurrection, etc.). Once the appropriate noun is chosen we can decide about details like including the year or not. It would not have to be a table; it might be more readable as a text sentence where people rank the choices, or describe the various options as "prefer", "accept", or "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree 100%. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree 100% with MelanieN and Chrisahn, substantive support for "attack" can be drawn from this and the previous RMs. The table covers everything needing covering at this stage (including year and phrasing detail). This RM should result in a move as there is consensus to move away from storming. This was better discussed in meta subsections below. — Alalch Emis 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Maybe whoever closes the discussion will agree with you. As I said, this RM might be salvageable. The outcome here will be decided, not by my opinion or yours, but by an uninvolved closer. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there would need to be a group of closers to decide this, especially with the mess involved with the table. (Good idea, but the execution didn't work) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Agreed. This should be put out of its misery as soon as possible. Someday when I have more time, I'd like to try and figure out why there has been such a push to change the title of this article. What's so terrible about "storming"? Moncrief (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
What's bad about storming is that there is consensus to move away from it to a different name. Amazingly, that's why there is a push to change the title. Asking why storming is bad now after thousands of words of prior discussion where it was argued how it's bad (you don't have to agree but the answer is out there) is kinda bad form. — Alalch Emis 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, someday when I have more time, I'll try to read through the many thousands of words on this page to piece together the rationale. I didn't say the discussion wasn't out there; I said I didn't have time to try and figure it out right now. Moncrief (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Both this discussion and the table below are proving useful for gauging where editors are at regarding a title change. Many editors are sharing their thoughts/opinions, both here and below. Give it a chance, there's no rush on our way to eventually gaining a general consensus on an appropriate title for this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Somedifferentstuff: But there's no reason to have a discussion about a better title within the context of a RM, which has prescriptive timelines and is formatted to establish if there is consensus for a specific move. If you want to do a straw poll, call it a straw poll and stop trying to shoehorn it where it doesn't fit. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@VQuakr:, that's a good point. Shall we separate the straw poll into a new section? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Somedifferentstuff: Removing the table would be OK, but moving it would be wrong. The table was filled by various users with data gleaned from this discussion. To avoid misrepresenting users' opinions, we would have to start from scratch. If we do that, we should take into account these three suggestions. But I think we shouldn't start another kind of vote. We have this messy RM, we've had that table, now we have an RfC (that more or less tries to achieve the same thing as the table)... a new table would only exacerbate the chaos. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
We don't have a straw poll to separate. We have a table that represents a mix of votes and user names added to sections against their wishes. It should be tossed because it is not and will not be usable for anything. The RfC below fulfills the actual need. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A separate straw poll should've been started before, super useful when done correctly, but the fact that names were added to the table by other users is hilariously depressing. The RfC below is a hot mess that isn't going anywhere (unsurprisingly), but that's another story. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: as Bill Watterson said, a good compromise leaves everyone mad. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Everyone is equally a little mad for a brief while, and then everyone is generally happy. :) — Alalch Emis 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "Riot" is a word that fails to convey the fact that the building was breached and invaded. "Storming" is adequate. "Coup attempt" and "insurrection" are plausible, indeed very plausible, interpretations of the intentions of those who stormed the Capitol, but then we enter into the realm of legal characterization and qualification of what happened (domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition, coup attemp, violent protest). Those qualifications are better discussed within the article and not as its title. So "storming" is better, and it is a word that does convey the gravity of what happened. Antonio Basto (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Vastly oppose: "Riot" is a common word, a crowd of people behave violently in a public place, for example they fight, throw stones, or damage buildings and vehicles. They behave violently in a public place.
    An insurrection is violent action, rebellion, or revolt by a large group of people against the government and/or an established authority of their country, usually in order to remove them from office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    "The Trump insurrection".... that literally made me laugh.... that is so biased.
  • Strong oppose. As per above, riot is non-specific, storming is far more accurate. Riot implies disordered chaos in public; Capitol was significantly more ordered in that it was a large number of people with a common goal, rather than wanton violence in the streets. Also, storming doesn't necessarily mean violence, it is near synonymous with overrun. Also, regardless of if protestors were peaceful, police officers were hurt in order for them to gain entrance, and they were trespassing; I'd say this warrants "storming". The article title is by no means perfect, but storming is about as good as we're going to get. Editor/123 21:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Where do I comment? Here or somewhere else? Here's my comment. The entirety of the event was not the storming. That is only part of it. A riot is more encompassing. So that is the 2nd choice. The best choice is protest because there were lots of people protesting, some of which didn't even enter the Capitol. If we look at BLM protest articles, they are deemed protests even if some had a component of looting. On the other hand, it is possible that some people may accuses anyone who supports "protests" as being a Trump suppporter, which is not true. Vowvo (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Vowvo: Sorry, the structure of this move request has become a bit confusing. I moved your comment here. To make clearly visible whether you support or oppose this request, please add a prefix like Support, Oppose or Comment. See the comments above yours for examples. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to "attack" title. I supported "riot" in the previous RM, and still prefer it to both "storm" and "insurrection" (which are less common and/or more POV), but this above discussion has convinced me that "attack" is the best as being clearer and more comprehensive, while still being relatively common. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I've warmed on the idea of moving the page now.Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment How many times have there been riots at the US Capitol, and/or how many times has the Capitol been stormed? In other words, it seems that the year in the article title may not be in line with article naming policy – that it may be excessively precise? -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius: a year is recommended per WP:NCE. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@VQuakr:I think WP:NOYEAR applies here.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It only applies to insurrection, as these things already happened at least once: attack, storming, riot — Alalch Emis 03:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This event could be commonly referred to a year from now as the "January 6 [blank]," with no mention of the year but rather the month and day, à la the September 11 attacks. I wish we could wait to rename until some more time has passed and a national media naming consensus has emerged. Moncrief (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose riot. I was originally in favour, but Casprings has convinced me that it is not the common name. I support "Attack", as per the argument that it emphasizes the systematic intrusion inside the building instead of a rioting outside the building.--LordPeterII (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by "it is not the common name"? "Capitol riot" is currently the most common name in WP:RS by a large margin. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: I was referring to the google search comparison by Casprings above, where "attack" resulted in ~2x as many results as "riot". Of course this is only a quantitative assessment, and cannot tell if the weight of reliable sources might favour riot after a manual count. "Riot" is still the second most common name, so it's a valid consideration. But I'm hesitant because it also gives the impression of a "random" violent outburst, when in fact it seems like this incident was planned beforehand - attack would, imo, better show this. But it's a difficult decision, which probably is why reliable sources could not decide on a single name (riot/insurrection/attack) as well. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose there have been many proposals for a name change since this article was made and all of them failed. Just keep "storming", I don't understand what's wrong with this word. Super Ψ Dro 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose to riot. 'Storming' feels most apt in that it's probably the most consistent, commonly-used term for this incident. 'Attack' works as well. 'Insurrection' may be too heavy-handed, not neutral. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose riot. "Storming" seems good to me as descriptive, I'm also not opposed to "attack". "Insurrection" also feels emotionally laden as "riot" does, there are more neutral words that carry the same meaning without the baggage. --Jayron32 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Insurrection would be the first in WP:RS preponderance. Riot seems to come 2nd that way; "storming" was correct for WP:RS coverage when the last title change occurred, but there have been many WP:RS publications since then. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose move and strong support for the current title. The OP says that the article title should describe what the event is, which is what the current title does. It was a storming, which took place on the capitol. It may have been a riot, but that's a more general and less specific term, which doesn't encompass the specifics of what happened here. I would also say anecdotally from my own experience that "riot" implies something a bit less targeted than this. We had riots in London back in 2011, but that was largely mobs going around destroying property and setting fire to things. The events of Jan 6 had a specific goal of entering and perhaps taking control of the capitol by force. Again, attack does describe it, but is less specific than "storming" and I would oppose that too. I tentatively suggest this RM be closed down early, as it seems to be generating a lot of heat without there being much prospect of any consensus forming. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Prevalence of "storming" in reliable sources is around 2-3%. For proof find my post below. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insurrection is the most appropriate title. It's not a "storming" because most people are interested in staying outside, whether peacefully or not, and of those people, indeed, there are many who have chosen to remain peaceful. Insurrection will not force those who are not being violent to be included with those who are. Call it an insurrection and mention in-article the division, that there are a small group of the "protest" who have turned the effort into an insurrection, though they are just that, a small group within. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:UCRN states that ambiguous or unclear names should not be used even if used by reliable sources, and "Capitol riot" strikes me as ambiguous and unclear. To someone who is unfamiliar with the events, "Capitol riot" can be taken several different ways. The current title is concise and immediately understandable. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment neutral on the status quo title. I think attack is simply too vague. Insurrection and riot both adequately describe the event, insurrection probably better (and it appears just anecdotally on my part to have the highest growth in usage, both irl and in the news media... yeah I know this isn't the best argument but still :) ). --Calthinus (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a user said above, "riot" does not convey that the Capitol building was breached. So its was more than a simple riot that took place in Washington DC many other times in the past – it was a invasion and ransacking of the Capitol, something that didn't happen since the War of 1812.--MaGioZal (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and wait. "Storming" suggests that this was a military storming like D-Day, which it clearly wasn't. A lot of protestors were also let in by police who opened the/some gate/barricades. These points alone speak against using "storming". However, there were clearly protestors who trespassed the Capitol by moving/forcing themselves inside. I suggest using "occupation", "breach" or "intrusion" instead. Addendum: Please consider PolitiFact's wording. Lukan27 (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think people are appreciating that "storming" is both an uncommon and hard-to-understand word for non-Native English speakers, and its conventional usage is almost entirely the taking of a location by a professional military or police force. It is very confusing when used to describe this incident. I support attack, breach, or riot as clearer descriptions, and if nothing else, incident is better than storm. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment To date, the table in the section 'Survey of proposed titles' below shows that of the titles listed, the first uses the word 'storming' (the version now current) while the others propose instead the use of one of the following: attack, breach, incident, insurrection, protests, riot, riots. But given that there is no consensus on what to do with the table, and that some contributors think that users should not add others' names to the table while some think the table should be deleted entirely (as noted by another contributor), I am one of an unknown number that, declining to accept the usefulness or validity of the exercise, are continuing to abstain from entering their names anywhere therein. The table was initiated 01:15, 24 January 2021[9] Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC) first sentence addedQexigator (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not the greatest fan of the word choice "storming", but this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As per say, riot of the united states capital is an extremely descriptive and better term then storming. I opposed the term "Insurrection" but it's clear this is an extremely good title, as oppose to "storming" which could mean a lot of things. We make clear it's a riot it clearly is the best term. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current name uses the terminology I've seen most commonly in mainstream reliable sources. ♟♙ (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think "storming" actually does capture the event most accurately, until an academic/popular consensus builds on what to call the event—which will take much longer. As for the claims that this is an uncommon use of the word or that it implies professional military action, the dictionary definition disagrees. It states that to "storm" is to "to rush about or move impetuously, violently, or angrily" and that it can be used as a transitive verb just fine. Since it was the temporary occupation of the US Capitol that makes this event most notable, I think "storm" remains appropriate for now. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "Riot", "Insurrection" or "Attack" in that order. These terms reflect what reliable sources use (riot seems to be most prominent); I rarely come across "storming" and its use by insurrectionists is concerning.
Procedurally, I think it makes sense for editors to just plainly state which names they support or oppose. Adding additional surveys or RfCs isn't going to solve anything. –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I !voted "support" as well, but I'm confused by your rationale since the Capitol building was literally breached. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not reflective of the event. Word frequency is a poor stat to justify this. YallAHallatalk 10:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Note: I'm repeating part of my comment from 15 days ago: "Per WP:COMMON NAME , 'attack' and 'riot' are the terms most used by sources. Due to the planning, I prefer 'attack' and think this discussion should be closed. 'Insurrection' is fine within the body of the article. Propose: Attack on the United States Capitol. IP75 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)." Per IP75, I still feel the same ;) IP75 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Analysis. I don't have an opinion to express at this time, but I made the table below to show the Google Search result counts of different exact queries in high-quality perennial sources. I hope it serves to inform the discussion here. Feel free to make suggestions and comments. — Goszei (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. After some thought, I support the proposed move. There have been several opinions expressed in this discussion about (1) the circumstances of this event (2) the implied scope and meaning of the word "riot", and very few attempts to defer to reliable sources to make such judgements. Based on my work below and that of Alalch Emis, this view is roundly debunked by a review – major sources like NYTimes and WashPo have clearly coalesced around "riot", "attack", and "insurrection" as common descriptors (in that order, and with a strong movement towards "riot" by key sources like NYTimes, WashPo, and BBC).
In addition to this boosted prevalance, I also think "riot" is also the most neutral name. "Attack" and "insurrection" are loaded words with respect to the organization and intent, respectively, of the perpetrators; these are fuzzy topics that should be discussed in the body, not in the title. In other words, "riot" conveys chaos and violence only, but "attack" and "insurrection" convey additional information that reliable sources clearly have editorial trepidation about moving towards.
I would also like to note the completely incorrect citation of WP:CONSISTENCY by several editors above. There is zero obligation for us to make this article title consistent with King-assassination riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots; these events are called "riots" because that is what RS call them, not because of a Wikipedia naming convention. — Goszei (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Self-collapsing, as I believe my second analysis table below is more complete/targeted. — Goszei (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: I have redone the results from scratch at time of this comment to use "after:2021-1-5", to limit to recent results; this revised search culled thousands of false positives (the previous results have little use; thanks to Alalch Emis for pointing this out). — Goszei (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Source "Capitol riot"
"riot at the Capitol"
"riot at the US Capitol" 		"Capitol attack"
"attack on the Capitol"
"attack on the US Capitol" 		"Capitol storming"
"storming of the Capitol"
"storming of the US Capitol" 		"Capitol insurrection"
"insurrection at the Capitol"
"insurrection at the US Capitol"
AP 661 results
386 results
567 results 		241 results
460 results
509 results 		0 results
250 results
261 results 		274 results
543 results
353 results
BBC 248 results
72 results
58 results 		9 results
331 results
116 results 		3 results
147 results
313 results 		1 results
2 results
3 results
The Guardian 1,010 results
212 results
197 results 		1,980 results
1,370 results
1,210 results 		6 results
537 results
541 results 		168 results
223 results
357 results
NYTimes 5,230 results
428 results
298 results 		427 results
915 results
524 results 		2 results
491 results
377 results 		8 results
107 results
4 results
Reuters 1,290 results
56 results
79 results 		230 results
499 results
440 results 		9 results
415 results
711 results 		3 results
143 results
3 results
WashPo 6,140 results
781 results
749 results 		1,860 results
1,780 results
1,340 results 		5 results
559 results
620 results 		367 results
631 results
679 results
Combined 16,700 results
2,230 results
1,970 results 		4,660 results
5,610 results
3,620 results 		76 results
3,110 results
3,090 results 		935 results
1,340 results
1,180 results
Here's another way of approaching it – for the following table I used the Reliable Sources Search Engine (WP:RSSE). All queries had "after:2021-1-5" to limit to recent results. I think what can be gleaned from my two tables is that "riot" is the term with the strongest prevalence in titles, while "riot" and "attack" see a similar prevalence elsewhere in the text. — Goszei (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Query Anywhere in text Title matches only (allintitle:)
"Capitol riot" 10,100,000 results 74,400 results
"riot at the Capitol" 410,000 results 362 results
"riot at the US Capitol" 430,000 results 7 results
"Capitol attack" 1,030,000 results 15,900 results
"attack on the Capitol" 6,030,000 results 953 results
"attack on the US Capitol" 4,080,000 results 9 results
"Capitol storming" 19,600 results 642 results
"storming of the Capitol" 264,000 results 609 results
"storming of the US Capitol" 250,000 results 548 results
"Capitol insurrection" 440,000 results 6,800 results
"insurrection at the Capitol" 330,000 results 638 results
"insurrection at the US Capitol" 322,000 results 4 results
— Goszei (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
One, I like links to the results to check. Second, are we talking in the article or in the title. I think, if we are thinking about naming an article, in the title is where to search. Casprings (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Goszei WP:RSSE doesn't work sadly for result count. The actual links may be narrowed down by it, but the number of results stays the same, or is even bigger (illogical). In any case, there aren't 74,400 separate articles (imagine that) written on this subject with all the possible titles combined. The actual number is in the hundreds. I have been reluctant to criticize this method of "discovery" for the past few weeks, as I'm not the most technical person, and expected someone else to jump in (no one did), but It's useless. It doesn't produce the real number, sadly. The links need to be counted "manually" (or by going to the bottom of the last page, that's when Google actually counts them for the first time, the "About x" number is a preliminary crapshoot) to get the real number of results. The number of results appearing under the search box becomes more wrong the more complicated searches you make (using operators). — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I got 2,710,000 results for "stormed the capitol" after:2021-1-5 which isn't yet included in the table. Coin (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It's storming (gerund) not storm (verb), so "stormed the capitol" is not a relevant query. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Analysis (limited to relevant period, only title, and no verb/noun mixup). This analysis uses advanced operators, includes a vastly greater number of perennial sources, and is much more relevant than Goszei's.
Update: I updated the table to include the true search results included only at the end of the last page. When there's more than cca 100 results, the results shown under the search box are just an approximation that can be wildly off. Update2: added more sources, added incident and managed to condense two-part searches into a single search, updated results — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Riot, attack, and insurrection are the only real contenders. Storming must be changed to something else. It's unsupported by the majority of RS, who've maybe called the event that in the first few days, but now they are using these three major denominators, but also to some extent siege. Storming is only in the sixth place! The conclusion I derive from this analysis is in alignment with my comment on the move request, posted above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Update3: Added Google News results since Jan. 20 (a longer period doesn't work as it cuts off the number of results at around 200, since it tends not to provide more than 3 pages of results). Insurrection is trending — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a better search if you keep it simple Don't add words to the verb. Just search it in the title. Second, don't define the RS's on your on.Casprings (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You state something bizarre when you say that I'm defining RSs when all of the used sources are defined by the community as such. I'm sure you know about this list, and are familiar with all of these sources, so why say such a thing? A simple search will produce what you have done: didn't limit the search to reliable sources, didn't limit the timeframe to the relevant period (since Jan. 6), didn't differentiate the verb from the noun (attack, riot, storm are all verbs, and attack is a particularly common verb). That is completely useless. My analysis gets close to a good answer to a question of: "Which descriptor is used how often in the titles of articles published by RSs?". A simple search can't even get close to answering that question. — Alalch Emis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand they are defined by consensus. However, the list you have is not exclusive. There are other WP:RS out there and a simple google news search provides a better measure because the sample is larger. Moreover, it has the benefit of being random. Google news doesn't, generally, return sites that wikipedia considers non-RS. I would also argue that we should search the title for the word alone. Not in a phrase like you have it. Casprings (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course the list is not literally exhaustive, but it's representative. Anyone who thinks I should include more reliable sources from the list from those that are reliable in this area (politics), and not irrelevant perennial sources like TorrentFreak, can ask and I will do it, and update all the numbers in the table. A simple Google News search most definitely includes all kinds of rubbish. I understand you argue that we should search for the word alone, but you didn't say why, while I have given a very good argument why not, and you have not refuted that argument. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Update: These are some of the remaining sources on the perennial sources list that could ostensibly be included, as they are reliable for politics: The Weekly Standard, Vox, U.S. News & World Report, The Times, Time, The Diplomat, Der Spiegel, South China Morning Post, Politico, The New Yorker, New York (Daily Intelligencer), The New Republic, National Geographic, The Nation, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Le Monde diplomatique, The Hill, Haaretz, Forbes, The Economist, The Daily Telegraph (UK), BuzzFeed News, Axios, The Australian, The Atlantic. (added: Bloomber, The Intercept) Tell me if I missed something. This list includes weeklies and magazines, which I've excluded from my analysis, and there are many other sources around the world such as national newspapers of record not on the perennial sources list, as they aren't used so prominently on wikipedia, for example, The Sydney Morning Herald. If you can tell me how adding anything in this regard would improve the analysis I've given above, I'm extremely likely to rerun the analysis with an expanded list of sources. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
There might be some non-RS sources included in google news searches. If so, I rarely come across them. That said, providing the type of limits you provide takes a random sample and make it non-random. It introduces all sorts of possible bias. For example, most of the sources are US or European. We should just use a larger and more random sample. Moreover, we should just use the verb in the search and not put it with other words. We should keep the sample as random as possiable and I don’t think what you did does that.Casprings (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of non-RS sources in google searches, that is a fact. The "limits" I provided are the limits of WP:RS. In controversial matters only reliable sources are weighed, not reliable together with non-reliable, especially since biased sources can to have an intentionally different naming scheme (some non-reliable sources still push "protests" for example). There must be a way to differentiate reliable from non-reliable, and that's what advanced operators provide. Most of the sources in the perennial list are American and European and I can't do anything about that. There must be amazing Malaysian and South African papers of record and quality public televisions, but they're just not on the Wikipedia's list. And finally why should we use a verb if we are looking for the noun (WP:DESCRIPTOR? This is the third time you repeat the same point without a backing argument. Please provide this backing argument so we don't waste space like this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Here's a list of non-NA/Europe English-language newspapers of record: The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Star, The Cambodia Daily, The Phnom Penh Post, South China Morning Post, The Hindu, The Times of India, The Gleaner, Daily Nation, New Straits Times, The New Zealand Herald, Dawn, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, The Straits Times, The Financial Gazette, Zimbabwe Independent. Should I include them? Will that make the above analysis better? I'll do it if you say so. Update: I ran the analysis separately for the abovementioned non-US/Europe sources. These are the results: storming: 19, riot 49, insurrection 5/10, attack 28, protest 4, breach 15, siege 29. Riot is prevailing in these sources, followed by siege and attack. If someone wants proof, I'll make the same table as the above one, just using these sources. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Like what and what percentage of sources? I would just argue you introduce more bias by selecting a few sources then taking a bigger sample, even if a small precentage might be non-RS. Of course, what is WP-RS is contextual. Would be really interested to know what sources in google news fail in this context. I also still think there is a problem in using more words then the simple verb we are searching for.Casprings (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You haven't provided concrete arguments against the analysis above. Calling a large assembly of reliable sources (ranging from WSJ to NPR), that are deemed reliable precisely for their relative lack of bias, biased makes exactly 0 sense. You have repeated for the fourth time the point I've successfully argued against, and you haven't even attempted to refute the argument. I think we can conclude this exchange. I have provided solid proof that riot is used more than attack, and explained how your previous research using rudimentary google searches is deeply flawed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Analysis updated with more sources (added to the bottom), removed international sources as they probably make the table a little confusing — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: Casprings I added Google News to the analysis after all, tell me what you think now — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Alalch Emis:Given the remarks in sections Word frequency and Visuals support 'storming', your analysis and assertion that 'Storming' must be changed to something else is far from convincing. It was considered at the time the article was being written 6-7 January that as against other words Storming was the one to choose. Nothing has happened later to require a change from it, nor does the current content of the article as later expanded. Re-running the visuals confirms 'Storming'.
Further, there are numerous comments on this page (including Archives) which do not accept the need to move from 'Storming' at this time, if at all. While it is evident that the 'Rally' (the word in the article's name before 'Storming'), moved up to the Capitol area, it was a non-violent protest demo waving flags and boards like countless others. It appears to be a fact that by the time most of the rally crowd arrived, the storming and break in was already happening in the distance, by persons many of whom are now known and some of those have already been charged with certain offences, based on their own pleas or other evidence.
On the basis of currently available information, it is not yet clear to what extent the storming was concerted and pre-planned, or when or by whom and how many. nor whether the event was actually one of 'insurrection' and if so, by how many of those who engaged in the storming. Note that the Article of impeachment does not charge insurrection but incitement to insurrection, and that this is not an allegation supported by any evidence as sent to the Senate for trial, a trial that as far as we know may never happen (Snow in Wikipediaspeak) or may result in acquittal. The USA is a country where the rule of law requires trial by due process Qexigator (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC).
  • Oppose: too limited; an attempted overthrow of the US government is not a riot. Would prefer "attack" or "insurrection" (1st choice). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but breach is better. Storm is just not commonly used. "Riot" is better than storm, my only problem with it is that this is really more so about the Capitol being breached than a riot. "Attack" is bad in my opinion because it's not very descriptive and is inflammatory, which could make a NPOV concern. However, "breach" is perfect, it's been commonly used since the beginning. Its very neutral and accurately describes the details of the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Agree re "breach." I think it's a great option. Moncrief (talk)
  • Support. Aren't all the media outlets calling it an "insurrection" anyway? That's what I hear every day the topic is discussed on TV or online. Maybe it's better to change the title to fit their direction? Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Riot is better than Storming. In the wake of the riot, I've read a lot of pro-Trump media sites & social media posts and they describe what the rally attendees were going to do after the rally as "Storming the Capitol". I don't think Wikipedia should use the language of the rioters to define what happened. "Storming" is also seen as heroic and I don't think that image is appropriate considering the destruction and loss of life that occurred on that day. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I have never once outside of this page seen this event referred to as "the storming" of the US Capitol. The page should be called January 6th United States Capitol Riot. The date of January 6th seems to have taken on some significance in all the big news outlets (i.e. CNN, FOX, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.110 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Goszei's exhaustive research (good work btw), which I had noticed myself. Very few sources refer to this event as "the storming of the capitol." Even we start off the article with "The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot..." Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support over storming, but "protests" is the preferred word. The entire event written about in the article clearly encompasses more than just the storming. For example large protests that were extensively covered by news networks occurred outside the building both before and after the actual storming took place. Fights between the protesters and police also took place during the outdoor protests. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose : As this cannot be just called "riot" because of its effects and aftermath. -- Wendylove (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose : "Riot" is vague and unspecific, riots occur at many levels, this attack was far more than a simple riot, the vagueness of "Riot" waters down the magnitude of this major historical event. Wikipedia:Article titles states that ambiguous or unclear names should not be avoided even if used frequently by reliable sources. "Riot" does not accurately capture what happened on that day, it fails to convey the fact that the very buildings of the nations government were breached and invaded in a premeditated assault on one of the highest seats of the United States democracy. Storming of the Capitol is factually what happened, the current title remains more descriptive of the attack. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support as person who first suggested the idea. Storming is too rosy and downplays the actions that several of the actors in the event were planning to do, which were by all means violent. Swordman97 talk to me 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that was on day one, at 20:48, 6 January (→‎Requested move 6 January 2021)[10]. I can see that riot (not attack) should replace storming, but I'm not sure about calling 'storming' 'too rosy', given that Roget's synonyms for rosy include 'cheerful, hopeful, alluring, optimistic, pleasing, promising, reassuring'.[11] Qexigator (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose : "riot" is accurate as one was declared by the police on-scene commander, but insufficient. There was an explicit intent to disrupt a constitutional process, and a plan by some to harm members of the legislative branch at the behest of the executive branch. "Storming" at least indicates intent, but the correct word for this action is "insurrection". Insurrection also includes non-violent resistance to the Constitution, so it's accurate to all the related demonstrations that commenters are saying "riot" doesn't apply. Just leave the article here until our collective spines stiffen enough to use accurate terminology. - Featous (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
What supports asserting (1) 'a plan by some to harm members of the legislative branch at the behest of the executive branch' and (2) 'insurrection includes non-violent resistance to the Constitution'? Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Riot" leaves out crucial features of what happened: that this was a planned attack that aimed to overthrow an essential part of the governing body and kidnap, or more likely murder, its members, and succeeded in halting the peaceful transfer of power, albeit briefly. "Attack" also leaves out crucial features: that this was also not a planned attack, but instead one that drew a whole ton of its manpower from people doing it for the 'gram or because the President told them to march in the direction of the Capitol, who milled about briefly and then went home. Don't you just hate a good contradiction? I'd support "f---ing mess" were it not for its practical difficulties. I'm content with "storming" as an accurate title. --Kizor 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Storming" is very bad but "riot" is not much better. This was a planned attack with bombs planted the night before to draw police away from the Capitol. Wikipedia should tell the truth and call this what it was, an insurrection. If Wikipedia did as good a job of banning those who are working to incite violence as Twitter does, it would be easy to get consensus for insurrection.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was not a riot but a pre-planned incident to storm the Capitol. Plumber (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I would support the Riot at the Capitol or the Attack at the Capitol. If we look at the 9/11 page it is called the September 11th Attacks. This can apply as well I believe. Wollers14 (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving to "Riot" for two reasons: 1) I don't think there is, at present, any widely accepted label for this event that satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. The data tables and energetic debates on this talk page, considering whether to prefer "attack", or "riot", or something else, provide good evidence that a common name does not (yet) exist. In this situation the sequence at WP:NCE#Maintaining neutral point of view applies: Is there a common name? No. Is there a generally accepted word? Again, no, as the discussion shows. We should be conscious of WP:CRYSTALBALL too; it's not our job to predict what a common name will be, or what reliable sources "seem to be standardizing around" (as a couple comments above imply). Hence, WP:NCE guides us to "use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications". That brings up the second reason: 2) "riot" is not an accurate description of the event. To me a riot implies a scene of general violence and destruction, often motivated by a specific grievance but having vague aims. Contrast this what actually occurred on January 6th: a crowd of partisans were inspired to assault and breach the Capitol with the aim of disrupting the political activity happening inside — a storming if ever there was one. To my knowledge there were no separate scenes of rioting, and once expelled from the building the crowd dissipated without much resistance. In the interest of consistency, Wikipedia already has several other articles on very similar events that also use "storming": see Storming of the Bastille, Storming of Kempton Park World Trade Centre, and Storming of the Legislative Council Complex. (I think there's a good debate to be had over whether a more neutrally descriptive term like "breach" is appropriate, or something more generic like "attack". But that's out of scope for this RM.) – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 20:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NCE#Maintaining neutral point of view there is a generally accepted word and it's insurrection. This comes not out of our discussions here but is external to wikipedia: consensus of scholars. The scholars agree that it was an insurrection. Insurrection is also possibly a common name, as there may be more than one common name. Simultaneous usages of different terms such as insurrection and riot don't have to be mutually exclusive. Storming (gerund) is not possibly a common name. It's an uncommon term, not frequently used in reliable sources to name the event. This was not a storming if there ever was one; this was a half-storming because the chambers weren't significantly ransacked and crowded by the mob, and one of the two chambers wasn't even breached. The key part of a storming of a legislature is violence in the chamber, or something important happening in the chamber, not so much in the hallways and offices. The listed examples of past stormings are not similar to this event. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree that "insurrection" should be considered for the title — the resulting impeachment charge is for incitement of insurrection, so that term has merit and may well gain currency in the press (again, though, crystal ball caution...). My main argument is not that "storming" is a common name, but that since there is currently no consensus for a common name (in the strict sense of WP:COMMONNAME), we need to use a descriptive one, and in the scope of this RM I think "storming" is more descriptively accurate than "riot". Your points on "storming" are valid, but we also shouldn't be overly pedantic about half-stormings and the types of scenes needed for a properly conducted storming — nor does incompleteness as a storming make it more of a riot.– The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move This process is no longer a requested move; it's morphed into a free form discussion of some kind, with bad graphics. And interpretive echos. Ping Pong is a bad look for Wikipedia. Let's stop it. Stop with the RMs for now. We just had a well-attended one 2 weeks ago. Tonight PBS NewsHour leads its article: "The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6 was a shocking moment...". BusterD (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose a move. The newsworthy event was the breach of the Capitol which was the objective of the rioters. The riot itself is much less notable than the storming of the Capitol, which distinguishes January 6 from a variety of DC riots. The networks did not cut from CSPAN to a feed of the rioters until they had began attempts to breach the building. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. I believe "storm" is the single best word being considered to describe this incident. Yes, the word "riot" is appropriately used within the article itself. As others have pointed out, these words have overlapping meanings and connotations. But on balance, "storming of the Capitol" best captures the planned-by-some, spontaneous-by-others, incited-by-many nature of the event, including the violence, vandalism, and general atmosphere of mayhem that seemed to reign once the perimeter was breached. Point raised by BusterD about PBS NewHour using the phrase in today's lead sentence on the story shows that arguments that "storming" is clearly *not* a common name are misplaced and/or outdated. We've got the right name. Overall, I agree/endorse with nearly all the "oppose" points made on this page already, and add my comment here merely to "weigh in." Engelhardt (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll add here that today's Washington Post includes multiple uses of "storming" which I think clarify the issue:
"The discussions between Edmonds and her friends continually got more heated as Trump continued to assert the election was stolen, then gave the speech that preceded insurrectionists storming the U.S. Capitol. They intensified when Edmonds continued to support Cheney after her impeachment statement. Now she’s losing friends."[1]
"Hours later, Trump’s new defense lawyers filed a 14-page response to the House article of impeachment that denied that the former president incited the crowd at his rally on Jan. 6 to storm the Capitol and “engage in destructive behavior.” The brief also disputed that Trump’s claims of voter fraud were false."[2]
"Besides the friction there, Thomas has drawn outrage among liberals for public political commentary on her “Ginni Thomas” Facebook page. Her comments there celebrated Trump’s supporters who assembled in D.C. on Jan. 6, hundreds of whom stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people."[3]
I think taken together, it's fair to say that the large rally preceded the march to the Capitol, which then was followed by riots that included storming the Capitol---all of which were participated in by some insurrectionists. Thus broken down, it becomes clear these are all slightly different things, and so the question becomes what's the most important, most newsworthy aspect of this to be covered by this article. I think it's the storming of the Capitol, which all coverage agrees was the most significant breach of the Capitol since 1814. So as I originally said: strong oppose.Engelhardt (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd say that what made the riot exceptional is precisely the breach of the building. It was not simply a riot in the street before the Capitol. Psychloppos (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word "riot" downplays what actually happened, as if an unruly crowd of sports fans set a car on fire after their team won the game. "Attack" may imply that this event was more centrally coordinated than it actually was (or that we know of, at least). I think that for now, storming is a good middle ground. --haha169 (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, this was clearly politically motivated and so I think insurrection is the more appropriate for the title. I will accept attack as an alternative. But storming does not imply motivation unless we add something like "election result oppossers storm capitol". A'kwell (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It wasn't a riot. Riots are not directed. They are people jumping about and are completly chaotic, angry at everything and anything. This was a coordinated directed action. It was planned and was coordinated attack. Sedition and insurrection are accurate terms to use, as people died and it will be recorded in history as such. The current title while quite strong, is accurate. scope_creepTalk 19:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Riot doesn't cover it; attack or storming are more appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is too much politics involved in this, too much arguing from the point of personal perspective and not enough consensus building on finding points of agreement towards a stance of neutrality. Some people dislike the current name "storming" because they think it paints the situation in a positive light somehow, like the storming of the Bastille. I don't see how using a word like that romanticizes the violence that occurred that day, if it's an accurate depiction of what occurred. Similarly, people who support "riot" to minimize the magnitude of difference between a riot and what occurred here (violent acts against political institutions, eg). Also, "insurrection" may be a valid word, but I've seen proposals to call it the "Trump insurrection" -- which, well, even if that's a fair argument, Wikipedia is not the place to make such arguments or conclusions. I think there may need to be a cooling of heads and a rethinking of purpose and intentionality from all parties involved, if this is ever to reach any conclusive finding, or even better, perhaps this process should be restarted somehow. 2600:1012:B0E9:E727:7C98:C2F6:7EB3:5C76 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • STRONG Oppose. Riot doesn't even come close. This was a premeditated coup attempting to install Trump as dictator and was instigated by him. If anything, this should be changed to "2021 United States Capitol insurrection" or

"2021 United States Capitol attempted coup". Seven Pandas (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Samuels, Robert (2 Feb 2021). "Rep. Liz Cheney's vote to impeach Trump prompts a voter rebellion in her home state". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 Feb 2021.
  2. ^ Gardner, Amy; Demirjian, Karoun; Itkowitz, Colby (2 Feb 2021). "Trump's actions described as 'a betrayal of historic proportions' in trial brief filed by House impeachment managers". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 Feb 2021.
  3. ^ Barnes, Robert (2 Feb 2021). "Ginni Thomas apologizes to husband's Supreme Court clerks after Capitol riot fallout". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 Feb 2021.


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

Survey of proposed titles

(table meta-discussion is underneath – comments posted under this section title are moved to the bottom of the meta-discussion to keep table visible)

Please add your suggestion for each proposed title. Feel free to propose other titles. Please remember this is not a substitute for discussion. You should still discuss your views in the discussion section above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC This section heading is of a purely techical nature (so that the nominator's post could direct to this tally), it doesn't form a topic of discussion unto itself. Critical discussion of the tally is being had underneath. The closing administrator will assess the soundness of the tally method, and it's utility with a critical eye.— Alalch Emis (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WARNING Disobedience to the directive above has incurred a request report for possibly punitive sanction for vandalism[12] [13] Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above post by Qexigator has always, in large part, been a misrepresentation (they would not frankly discuss it, despite a decent attempt at my part), and distortion ("disobedience", "directive"), but particularly now – it's almost certainly no longer even current matter[14]. I don't intend to reply here, so if you wish to reply directly, please do so anywhere else, thanks. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Article Titles
No. Proposed Title(s) Support Oppose
1 2021 storming of the United States Capitol @Octoberwoodland:
@Dylanvt:
@Rreagan007:
@WWGB:
@Antonio Basto:
@Jayron32:
@Moncrief:
@Amakuru:
@Bear6811Wiki:didn't comment
@Elijahandskip:didn't comment
@Super Goku V:
@DolyaIskrina:didn't comment
@Plumber:
@Wollers14:		 @Soibangla:
@Alalch Emis:
@Somedifferentstuff:
@Casprings:
@GreenMeansGo:
@99.178.127.90:
@MelanieN:
@StAnselm:
@Darryl Kerrigan:
@Lukan27:
@Jmill1806:
@Guy Macon:
@K.e.coffman:
@2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838:
@Tsavage:
2 2021 United States Capitol riot
2021 riots at the United States Capitol
– year exclusion to be decided later
– word order & riot/s to be decided later		 @Jared.h.wood:
@MelanieN:
@Ekpyros:
@Darryl Kerrigan:
@Dylanvt:
@Berchanhimez:
@Casprings:
@Bear6811Wiki:didn't comment
@Calthinus:
@Jmill1806:
@Wollers14:		 @Octoberwoodland:
@BlackholeWA:
@777burger:
@Soibangla:
@Ribbet32:
@WWGB:
@Alalch Emis:
@Somedifferentstuff:
@36.65.43.72:
@Super Goku V:
@Rreagan007:
@Shearonink:
@Antonio Basto:
@99.178.127.90:
@Jayron32:
@LegendoftheGoldenAges85:
@Amakuru:
@Gam3:didn't comment
@Guy Macon:
@K.e.coffman:
@Plumber:
3 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol
– year exclusion to be decided later
– note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb		 @Soibangla:
@Alalch Emis:
@Casprings:
@Super Goku V:
@Darryl Kerrigan:
@99.178.127.90:
@LegendoftheGoldenAges85:
@Calthinus:
@K.e.coffman:
@Plumber:
@A'kwell:		 @Somedifferentstuff:
@Dylanvt:
@WWGB:
@MelanieN:
@IP75:
@StAnselm:
@Jayron32:
@Bear6811Wiki:didn't comment
@Lukan27:
@Jmill1806:
@Guy Macon:
@Wollers14:
4 2021 United States Capitol attack
2021 attack on the United States Capitol
– year exclusion to be decided later
– "domestic" inclusion & word order to be decided later		 @BlackholeWA:
@Octoberwoodland:
@Somedifferentstuff:
@Jared.h.wood:
@Dylanvt:
@Berchanhimez:
@Casprings:
@WWGB:
@Anachronist:
@Darryl Kerrigan:
@IP75:
@StAnselm:
@LordPeterII:
@Jayron32:
@Jmill1806:
@Guy Macon:
@K.e.coffman:
@Tsavage:
@Wollers14:		 @Soibangla:
@Super Goku V:
@Amakuru:
@Moncrief:
@Calthinus:
@Lukan27:
@Dswitz10734:
7 2021 United States Capitol breach @Lukan27:
@Jmill1806:
@Super Goku V:		 @Alalch Emis:
@Somedifferentstuff:
@MelanieN:
@Guy Macon:
@Shearonink:
@K.e.coffman:
8 2021 United States Capitol incident @Jmill1806:
 @Alalch Emis:
@Super Goku V:
@Somedifferentstuff:
@MelanieN:
@Guy Macon:
@Calthinus:
@Shearonink:
@K.e.coffman:

Survey of proposed titles – 24h w/o support

  • Note: these options remain valid – table is split for technical reasons
  • Per analogy to WP:SNOW, and to make the table smaller and quicker to edit, these options were split after not gaining any support and gaining unanimous (except proposer) opposition during the first 24+ hrs. These are still valid options, and if you support them or oppose them you can put in your name, and give your rationale in the discussion above. — Alalch Emis 05:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
^Who wrote the above? Please, for the nth time, sign your posts. Moncrief (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Moncrief That post was signed, I don't know why the signature disappeared. I assume it got caught in a subsequent collapse/revert/table-coding mishap/whatever. I've restored the missing signature. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposed Article Titles
No. Proposed Title(s) Support Oppose
5 The Trump insurrection
– note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb		 @Octoberwoodland:
@Yallahalla:		 @Soibangla:
@BlackholeWA:
@Somedifferentstuff:
@Jared.h.wood:
@Dylanvt:
@Casprings:
@WWGB:
@Moncrief:
@Super Goku V:
@Darryl Kerrigan:
@99.178.127.90:
@Ben8142:
@MelanieN:
@IP75:
@StAnselm:
@Jayron32:
@Lukan27:
@Guy Macon:
@Shearonink:
@2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838:
6 2021 United States Capitol protests @Berchanhimez:
@Dswitz10734:
@2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838:		 @Casprings:
@Somedifferentstuff:
@WWGB:
@BlackholeWA:
@Shearonink:
@Alalch Emis:
@Super Goku V:
@Darryl Kerrigan:
@99.178.127.90:
@Ben8142:
@MelanieN:
@IP75:
@Jayron32:
@Lukan27:
@Guy Macon:
@Shearonink:
@Jared.h.wood:

Table meta: similar title consolidation

@Darryl Kerrigan: Please consider removing your proposal from the table, it's too similar to the existing one. It can't be riots (plural) instead of riot, because "riots" means the event lasted multiple days, or there were riots in several locations, and if this is treated as a riot, then it's just a riot – singular. Word order should not form a separate table entry in my opinion (just my opinion). I consolidated my entry with another users' to make the table easier to work with, it's really important. Your preferred exact wording is still listed in your comment, that the closing admin will read. — Alalch Emis 04:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We should allow any editor the freedom to propose any title they wish. They need to have this freedom. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it will work then.
Also admin talked about year exclusion presenting as a (potentially) separate issue — Alalch Emis 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It will work. calm down. Also, don't archive the discussion below this one. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't resist the urge to do it. It's better now. — Alalch Emis 05:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Casprings: Please consider consolidating your "riot" and "attack" proposal with the existing one by adding the "– year exclusion to be decided later" comment like I did for my proposal.

Yes, this would be helpful. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I did it for his "attack" with no oppose and 1 (his) support. — Alalch Emis 05:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


List of consolidated titles
returned when "2021 domestic attack on the United States Capitol" was changed to it – still no supporting comment and can be removed

Table Meta-discussion

Octoberwoodland VQuakr Berchanhimez It doesn't have to be construed as a vote. The table can be supplementary/consultative and/or a mere aid – there could be a precondition that you must make a substantive comment first. The table is hard to edit because of conflicts however. I think this needs to be discussed more. People posting in it so far have all input their comments first, and everyone seems to like the table, and uses it in good faith. — Alalch Emis 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not collapse the table but I agree with the collapsing. Tables are only useful when there is no policy-based question to answer (i.e. voting on a subjective/arbitrary coloring/etc). The admin (or other person) who eventually closes is free to use a table they create - but having a "running table" encourages people to "pile on" to options which appear to have more !votes, and encourages people to !vote without reading the entire discussion. I am not aware of any policy explicitly prohibiting a table, but the potential negative impact on the discussion is that even if a consensus emerges, the question will always remain: "did the presence of the table unduly influence some people's discussion and/or the close itself" - and beyond that "was the table ever accurate given that anyone can edit". I do not feel that this RM requires a table, nor do I feel it provides any beneficial addition, and I encourage everyone to discuss on their own. I will not be adding my name to any table, and I encourage others who support discussion to also not allow their name to be used in such a table - as the discussion is what's important, not any preliminary/early "vote tallying". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Gonna add as a separate comment that I believe the table was originally created/added to by anyone who did do so in good faith - I simply disagree that it's even useful, and think it may be potentially harmful to have continue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
These reasons are not solid enough. Table should stay for 3 days, and then it can be closed if abused. It's easy to see if people post in it without making a substantive comment first. Table helps determine interest for alternatives. There appears to be consensus to move away from "storming". — Alalch Emis 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There was absolutely not a consensus to remove the table. It does not have to be taken as a straight vote, but as a manner of measuring support for particular candidate titles. It is a method that has worked well for other RMs and was embraced by the nominator. Why has it been unilaterally closed with no discussion? BlackholeWA (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be consensus, this is firm discretionary terrain. The table is very novel and runs counter to decision of closing admin from previous RM. BUT it's not bad, it should be researched. — Alalch Emis 03:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
At the very least there should be a venue to put forth titles on equal terms instead of RM instigators simply choosing their favourite to headline each RM. The table worked well at that purpose. If people also comment their rationale I see no reason not to include it. This is WP:NOTAVOTE but let's be real - consensus will ultimately fall along the lines where the most editors are convinced and chip in in support. Policy should take precedent over that, but that still gives us several fairly evenly placed options, such as attack, insurrection, and maybe riot, which all have WP:COMMONNAME arguments etc BlackholeWA (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table is useful for determining consensus of multiple titles, which is allowed according to WP RM policy for WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and allows editors to quickly glance over possible titles. It's extremely useful for getting editors to reach consensus quickly with a complex subject which may have many title options. I have used it in other RM discussions and it is extremely useful and it works. It's not a substitute for discussion, but who feels like reading over 500K of confusing and contradictory comments to attempt to glean an editor's viewpoint. WP:RM closing instructions clearly state that multiple titles are required to be considered, and removing the tool which is being used to easily determine that and relegating all of us to RM one title at a time will result in this article being in perpetual RM mode -- which is has been in near continuous RM status since it was created. Editors must be allowed to dialogue on potential titles and not be stifled by a minority who disagree. So please restore the table, it's a valuable tool and we need it to determine the best title. If anything, that table will result in more discussion as new titles are proposed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table is functionally in line with the less novel Option A/B method which was recommended by earlier admin, and we're still in the same process, just a later stage. Yeah, someone with enough authority just needs to add two and two — Alalch Emis 03:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
From what I've seen so far, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I see too many people giving their own opinions without regard to WP:POLICY. I personally like the table idea, but I see that in an official RM it exacerbates the problem and does not aid in determining consensus based on sound reasoning. Is there a proper channel for the RM to close early? With some users vehemently advocating titles like "The Trump Insurrection" and others accepting nothing but "The Mostly Peaceful Protest" I don't see how anything reasonable can prevail at this time. JaredHWood💬 03:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I advocate for anyone !voting for "insurrection" to have that portion of their comment, or if they only mention "insurrection" the entire comment, struck from this discussion. This is not the place to overturn the prior requested move and discretionary moratorium. I will not be striking those comments myself as I do not feel I am the right person to do so, but I feel that any admin who happens across this discussion should likely do so. I'll also point out that a closers job is to read the entire discussion - not use such a table - and any !votes based on such a table are automatically "less valid" (but not invalid) - as they don't take into account the entire discussion. A table is not a dialogue - you are perfectly allowed to dialogue within the RM itself and the discussion of it - but a table is by definition not "dialogue". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table will help us get consensus on a name. It's useful because it adds another metric, since it allows editors to select more than one choice. It also shows where editors will reject more than one choice. ignore all rules applies here. The opinion of a minority of editors attempting to impose excessive bureaucracy which is contrary to WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and which is preventing us from improving Wikipedia can be overruled by editor consensus. Removal of the table is overruled. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors are more than capable of supporting more than one option, and opposing any/more than one option(s), in a discussion format, while explaining their choices in doing so based on policy/other discussion points. Ignore all rules does not apply here, as the table does not improve the encyclopedia, in fact it helps people violate our core principle of "consensus" for deciding things here. There is no "excessive bureaucracy" by requiring people to participate in a consensus building discussion rather than simply voting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The table instructions specifically state it is not a substitute for discussion and editors are still required to discuss their views. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed; straw polling is not a problem, as long as it's used responsibly and in conjunction with discussion [15] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Whoever added my name to the table (against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it) illustrates a prime example of why a table is both unreliable and unhelpful - they added my supports, but not my clear opposition to some of the names that are present there. I won't collapse/uncollapse the table, but I think that it shows clearly that the table could potentially be manipulated by someone who wants to show more/less support/opposition for something, because I don't think most people are going to be checking, and many may not even add their name to begin with. I don't think whoever added me did it in bad faith... but it goes to show how it's less than useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Then change it. There is no rule that an editor may not come along and update it with your clear choices since it is not a vote but an informal tally. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved posts located here (from the instruction area atop the table) — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This table should me removed, because it implies that we have a vote instead of striving to reach a consensus. The problem I see are the names as listed, suggesting what I see a vote count. Consensus, to editors not used reaching it, instead of the brute force of the numbers, is one in which a lonely editor, but with the better argument, gets the many to agree, what ever their initial position was. Any editor should refrain writing lines like "Oppose per other_editor" or "Support per other_editor" which as such are votes. Voting is editing like Committee, i.e. no neutrality, which is bad for a Encyclopedia. --Robertiki (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robertiki:I moved your comment here, because it's the correct section and we're not supposed to write comments in the table section (like someone before you did in bad form). Please read the above "meta" discussion, it's relevant to what you're saying. — Alalch Emis 05:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Qexigator:The status quo option is the first option, which is the current title — Alalch Emis 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding others' names @Chrisahn: We can add others to the table. The table uses pings so people can remove their names. It's important to add people soon after they've added their comment, so as not to inconvenience them with pings too long after they've moved on to other things. You didn't do right to revert. — Alalch Emis 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Per the above discussion of people who actually set the table up, which discussion ended with an uncontested assertion that other's names can be added, I will manually revert your revert. — Alalch Emis 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"uncontested assertion that other's names can be added" — That's bullshit. See e.g. this. But whatever. Add any names you like, I'm not going to revert them. It just means that the table will be completely useless because we don't know if people actually know that their names have been added, whether they know what that means, whether they would have chosen additional options, etc. This is getting silly. Sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well and otherwise you're doing a good job, but it looks you're getting carried away a bit... Well. No big deal. We'll have another RM in three to six days, I guess, and it will hopefully be less chaotic than this one. Take care! — Chrisahn (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You could read a little more carefully. against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it – there is a general presupposition that other's votes are added, and what it takes for a vote not to be added is specific request (and the user whose name you removed did not make such a request). User you quoted did not contest that names are added, just expressed a doubt as to how it will work out in the end. Thanks, you too! — Alalch Emis

The following instructions express the opinion of one user. There is no consensus on what to do with this survey. Several users have argued it should be deleted. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And the instructions are unsigned! Who wrote them? Of all the things to be unsigned! Moncrief (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Chrisahn Moncrief I moved your comments to the appropriate section. The first paragraph of the instructions was written by whoever put the table in, and the other two paragraphs are written by Chrisahn and me, who reformulated his concern by expanding on the existing instruction. The way I reformulated it is strictly based on the above discussion, so be so kind to look it over. Comments can't be put in that section on top of the table, but below – here. This is to save space and to not actively demotivate people from entering their names. No one has a right to obstruct the current set up. If this keeps being a problem it just means we have a dispute, and we'll resolve it accordingly. — Alalch Emis 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, these other two paragraphs were NOT written by me and you. I had no part in writing them. You deleted what I had written and replaced it (not "reformulated") by something very different. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, and I answer this further below — Alalch Emis 22:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

May we know who wrote the instructions below? It's customary on Wikipedia to sign any post. Moncrief (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moncrief: Looks like multiple editors; OctoberWoodland started it out, and it was expanded by Alalch Emis. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I answered this in the meta discussion below. I "technically" expanded it but it was a logical reformulation of a concern expressed by Chrisahn, and I did it to accomodate his concern but he keeps posting here, as well as Moncrief. I raised the issue regarding comments in this section here. Can you help, Anachronist? Comments posted here cause only more comments to be posted, even such that should be in the pertinent discussion above. I've moved one or two. — Alalch Emis 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, these instructions are NOT "a logical reformulation" of what I had written. I said that several names in this table have been added by others. You replaced that by your ideas of when it's OK to add others' names to the table. That's something very different. But thanks for finally signing your stuff. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It's saying that the sky is blue. Of course people have been putting and will be putting others' names in, per the functionality of the table tally method that uses pings; it's already been proofed for this purpose. Your scaremongering comment adds absolutely nothing but erode trust in the process, and doesn't deserve to hold the distinguished spot of being the first thing people see when they arrive to this section, put in their name, and move on with their life. But I still valued your comment in good faith looking for it's best possible meaning – an expression of a relatively valid concern that peoples' names will be entered when it doesn't coincide with their true intent. A logical consequence of this is making sure this doesn't happen by adding clear instructions. — Alalch Emis 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not a logical consequence. I think users should never add others' names to this table. But we obviously disagree here, and that's OK. That's why I didn't add instructions saying "never do that" at the top of the table. But you wrote instructions saying "yes, you can do that", and added some criteria that you thought were OK. The thing is: There is no consensus. You should accept that. You can't decide on your own how the table should be used. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, we remain in disagreement and I have asked for a sanction to protect the area atop the table from intrusive comments. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC) | Update: this is probably no longer current. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

----For that reason, I had already declined to accept the usefulness or validity of the exercise, and continue to abstain from entering my name anywhere therein. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WARNING Disobedience to the directive above has incurred a request for punitive sanction for vandalism[16] [17] Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is an untruth. Although what is happening is clearly vandalism, and has been reported, no such sanction has been requested. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The actions involved of some users do need to be looked into, especially those adding the names of other users to the table. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the line, Critical discussion of the tally is being had underneath. The closing administrator will assess the soundness of the tally method, and it's utility with a critical eye should be crossed out. It seems to go counter to the line above it that the table is not a substitute for discussion and may cause users to misunderstand the purpose of the table. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Super Goku V How do you think that line should read? I don't mind at all changing it to something better. What do you think about the other user's line above it? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: I had some computer troubles, but my issue was that it could be a source of confusion for some editors. If you want my opinion of the other edits, the only one that might be vague is Qexigator's reference to "the directive above", but they linked to some dispute you had with them where you removed their comments for "vandalism" despite not being anywhere close to vandalism. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Super Goku VI didn't remove them, I moved them from under that technical heading (intended to link up the table with RM opener) to the existing subsection for table discussion underneath, not as anti-vandalism but as a permissible off-topic>on-topic move. I did that in order to protect the table from the tactic of discrediting it (and after other users' legitimate inputs to the table were reverted). My attempts were directed to re/starting the discussion to come to an understanding, by which I didn't even insist that the table keeps functioning, only that the tactic itself isn't cool. I loathe that there are negativist comments on top of the table, where originally only one line of simple and neutral instructions stood, and that someone felt empowered to unilaterally alter this setup inherited from previous RMs. I used the word vandalism in a certain context but I called it a "subtle form of vandalism", and didn't ask for "punitive sanctions" (really, that's just totally wrong). Qexigator is not the user primarily involved, and it's not someone I complained about directly, they came upon the situation later and didn't completely understand it. I ceased my activity in this regard but I still consider myself to be at leas 119% in the right. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: Understood, though that was my perspective as requested. Regardless, this is off of the topic of requesting the text above be stricken as it may cause users to believe they just need to sign their name in the table instead of discuss and sign their name. (Which reminds me that there still seems to be users whose names are signed in the table above when they didn't do it themselves.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals

Guys we just had a RM close. This RM should be closed, for the same reason that a 4th revert at 24 hours 5 minutes would still be in violation of the 3RR. Rather than endless churning move proposals, let's focus on the article content and have a RM after a clear name for this event has emerged. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been my view from the get go, but I figured it might be worthwhile to get consensus on a title. It appears we have a winner - "2021 United States Capitol attack". Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If anything, we just learned there is definitely rough consensus to move away from "storming". Hard to simply put a stop on everything now, seeing that people feel there is room for improvement. Incremental progress good. — Alalch Emis 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that, over time, we will settle on "attack" as the action word, but still need to work through alternatives like 2021 attack on the United States capitol, 2021 United States Capitol attack, Attack on the United States Capitol and United States Capitol attack. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Anything with "attack" requires the year, as there have been attacks in history other than this one. That being said, the more concise will always win, thus "attack on the" will fail to "attack" always. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Let's get an admin in here and move the page and close the RM with "2021 United States Capitol attack". After that all of us should agree to a 30 day moratorium on further RM requests. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm okay with that, despite attack lacking specificity. Better than "storming" after all (bombing? attempted hostage taking?). Insurrection is a more specific form of attack. It has a little bit of bearing here too. Semantically speaking, we're standing on a more common ground. Year issue is neutralized with "attack" which helps a lot, and it's short. — Alalch Emis 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
As the nominator is there anything I can do to assist in closing the RM early or making "riot" or "attack" a valid option for support? JaredHWood💬 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
We just need to ask an admin to move the page for us. We could request it an WP:AN Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You can do it J.h.wood. Don't alter the original request to retroactively infuse "attack" — Alalch Emis 06:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think any admin will move a page on the outcome of a straw poll. The above RM was about changing storming to riot, nothing else. I think you will need a fresh RM to have the page moved to attack. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
An admin is not going to move the article title based on the very limited discussion here. (Am I reading correctly the request above?) You'd need to do a fresh RM with that specific proposal. Moncrief (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither of these statements conform to what WP:NOGOODOPTIONS says. A closing admin MUST consider other proposed titles and consensus for those titles. We don't need to keep having RM discussions over and over again with this article. Let's put to rest the title for good (at least for the next 30 days). :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You don't need a new RM. Admin needs to get a feel on the nature of the naming controversy beforehand and read everything (all of the big RMs: the storming one, the insurrection ones /the abortive very early but not insubstantial one too/ and this one). He needs to look at arguments present here, which are ok. Then he needs to look at things in context and understand what caused the lack of consensus-forming in the last RM. He will be able to notice that "attack" is simply a genus proximus for "insurrection" (unlike "riot" which isn't a type of attack). Then, based on the prevailing support (rough consensus) for this agency-driven semantic pole of the naming matter, as opposed to entropy-driven ("riot"; "storming" is in the middle but there is consensus to move away from it) admin can concede there there is a rare window of opportunity for precious incremental progress, and do the move. Then the torrent of RMs stops. Later it could only be a linear issue of whether to go from "attack" to a more specific type of attack, except storming. — Alalch Emis 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say an admin couldn't move the article title without an RM. I said I think that an admin is not going to do so. I say this due to the level of user participation and interest in discussing the title of this article. Moncrief (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I rather have a 6-month moratorium for moving this page in order to prevent any distruptive page move in the future and makes the article more stable. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This topic is so recent that I'd go less more like 2 weeks if needed. Things can easily change significantly in less than a month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the stress here; just let the process play out and see where we land in a week or so. The straw poll above (Proposed Article Titles) has already been useful in gauging where editors are at regarding titles and it's been up for less than 24 hours. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to stop discussion. Actually get consensus. Pretty clear there isn’t right now. I would suggest move request or RFC with the options of riot, attack and storming.Casprings (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The option to support attack has been added. Thanks for all your innovative ideas and discussion on this. I am hopeful this option will move the discussion toward consensus. JaredHWood💬 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jared.h.wood: I'm afraid that's not going to work. There are dozens of "support" and "oppose" comments already, but they support/oppose "riot", not "attack". Could you remove the option to support "attack"? It's only adding more confusion. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Chrisahn is correct. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought an RFC with options might be a better means to gain consensus here. I opened one at the bottom of the page.Casprings (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's great that it looks like we might be able to agree on "attack", but we should try to do it in an at least somewhat orderly fashion. Otherwise we might have a WP:move review soon. Let's find a title that we can live with for at least three to six months. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Maybe it doesn't have to run for the full seven days if it's clear there's not enough support. But I think three days should be the minimum. After that, we can start a new RM for "attack". If it gets enough support, we might be able to finish it sooner than in seven days as well. We've had "storming" for 17 days now. We can live with it for another week or so. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn’t start a move request. I started an RFC. Can’t move review an RFC. The point of the RFC is to bring order to this. Need clear votes and options if this will move forward.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't responding to you, but to the discussion in this section "Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals" in general. I indented your comment like the ones above it to make that clearer. I hope that's OK. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Make it 6 months and while we're at it, those who propose it should be blocked from editing this page because it does nothing but disrupt. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It needs a six months moratorium in order to ensure that the article was stable. Anyone who have proposed to requested move within 6 months time should be blocked without question from editing this page. 110.137.190.132 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Having just tried to understand what has happened in this RM discussion I think a break is definitely needed. Unless someone has been following from the beginning, this RM is almost incomprehensible. —WingedSerif (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Let us say, with all this mess, that I don't know where to place the following:

Comment - This is an excellent opportunity to explain to newcomers the difference between deciding by vote, versus consensus. At one point, JaredHWood stated that insurrection won’t gain consensus. Alalch Emis answered as JaredHWood had implied that there was a consensus to not choose insurrection, which is not what JaredHWood wrote. I understand that Alalch Emis (and not him alone) has taken consensus as a wikipedian synonymous of deciding by vote, which is not. Example: let us say that 20 editors believe that insurrection is better, but that 10 editors, maybe also only 5 editors, are staunchly against insurrection wording. That means that, because of that minority of editors there will be no consensus what ever over insurrection and any further discussion is simply pointless. Under Wikpedian rules that is fine, things remain as they are. Deciding by vote (as the disgraceful table is trying to frame) would instead impose a wording unacceptable to a minority. That may be good if there is a objective need to take a decision, for example behind the wheel of a car, to go right rather than left, because the road ahead ends in front of a wall. But, otherwise, is bad. Let me explain why. Wikipedia is not a news outlet and has no duty to uncritically repeat what the news report. If the news say it is a insurrection but that is debatable (for example, because 70 million persons have doubts about that ?) Wikipedia, as a encyclopedia, should put that in a frame: Newspapers (most newspapers ?) says it was a insurrection. That is what indisputably happens, what we read on the media. But if it is actually a insurrection should be let to the reader interpretation of the facts as described; editors should refrain forcing their interpretation from what has actually happened. This is the difference between a newspaper (and/or propaganda) and an encyclopedia. And how do we distinguish between facts and interpretation ? By consensus, because only the minority can highlight what is not obvious. And if a minority highlights that is not obvious that it was a ‘’insurrection’’, then we will never reach a consensus about that. So it should be let to the reader decide about that, and we, as editors, abstain to place such a title. That is Wikipedia (IMHO). --Robertiki (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis this, Alalch Emis that. Nothing I've said gives cause to believe I, or pretty much anyone I've seen posting in recent days doesn't know what consensus is. If you think you have a lesson to teach me, write it on my talk page. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment While agreeing with Chrisahn's Let's finish this RM for "riot" first (above), I would not support 'attack'. After taking into account what others have been supporting and opposing on this page (including archives), I now see 'protest' as the least bad instead of 'storming', for reasons in my edit protest v. insurrection below (10:27, 1 February).[18] Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

+At the time there were two protests at the Capitol followed by a third protest. The first had openly been pre-planned by some Senators and Representatives as a protest against accepting the certificates of some states at the Congressional election certifying session (a not unprecedented process). The second was the protest of the crowds outside the Capitol, and the unprecedented entry by some of them into the Capitol and interruption of the Congressional session for some hours, until the session reassembled, letting the first protest be peacefully continued until the session's business was completed, in an orderly way. Meantime, many contributors here were composing the Wikipedia article, and discussing it on the Talk page. Came the dawn, and the editing and discussion continued as more information became available for sober assessment, and now, weeks later, we are where we are, before the impeachment trial of citizen Trump by the Senate has begun. The impeachment is a third protest, this time by a coalition of interests in Congress and indirectly by their admitted supporters in the wider world- another event in the history of U.S. factional politics. Qexigator (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Word frequency

The article text itself does not seem to show a pressing need to move from 'storming' to 'riot' as RM proposed, or 'attack' as has some support. The word frequency is, roughly:

  • storming 25 in the text and 1 caption, and nearly as many in the refs.
  • riot 18 in the text and 1 caption, and about as many in the refs.
  • attack 10 in the text and 1 caption and 15 in the refs. 00:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)corrected typo from 8 to 18 Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I think your numbers for riot are at least an order of magnitude too low. I count 40 occurrences of riot or riots in the article (not counting cases like riot gear) and ca. 60 occurrences of rioter or rioters, and there are roughly 100 occurrences of riot(s) or rioter(s) in the references section. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC) correcting from 8 to 18 Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. On my recount, on riot only, there are 18 in text and 1 caption, and 26 in refs. In my view, the noun is the significant indicator here. Qexigator (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
First problem with this analysis: Present participle form of storm and gerund of storm are different, and you didn't differentiate them. (edit: I rechecked and it appears that you have). Second problem: The choice of words in the content of the article tends to conform to the title to make everything more cohesive. Arguing inversely that the choice of descriptor in the title should conform with the word choice of the content is problematic because the existing title has "propagated" itself throughout the article and may look much more supported than it really is. Upsate: WP:CIRCULAR would apply here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, It's a fair point, but in my view (while I can see that others may consider otherwise) that point is not determinative in the context of this discussion. Qexigator (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added two further comments near the top of the 23 Jan RM and would like this section to be considered closed, unless anyone has a reply to the above. Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Visuals support 'storming'

Whatever descriptors traditional RS (to satisfy their owner's editorial policy), and their imitators swelling Google counts, may repeatedly use , we may suppose that the images and footage of the event at the Capitol have been seen by millions in America and around the world. But I have only now noticed that while the images accompanying the article show crowds of people outside the Capitol. there is nothing that looks much like a storming of the Capitol, or a 'riot' or 'attack'. The current article name was adopted by those writing it up on 6-7 January who could also see for themselves the stills and footage that showed large crowds milling about harmlessly in the foreground at a distance from the Capitol, and a smaller part of the crowds nearer the building that, in broad daylight, engaged in

  • clambering up the walls[19]
  • violent breaking in
  • violent assault on the steps.

If there were nothing more, that would match the word 'storming' better than riot or attack. But in addition, there could also be seen stills and footage showing riotous conduct and wreckage[20] by the part of the crowds who went inside, consistent with describing the whole incident from break in to clear out as a 'storming', which ended when the crowd inside was ejected and order was restored for the Congress to complete its interrupted business. Qexigator (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added two further comments near the top of the 23 Jan RM and would like this section to be considered closed, unless anyone has a reply to the above. Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple common names

Lots of data has been collected as to how the event is referred to in reliable sources. It is very difficult to get a statistically accurate and meaningful sample of those mentions, and it is unclear to me that if one term is say, 15% more common in those sources that Wikipedia should adopt that term in the article title. Some media outlets choose words for headline simply because they fit the space available; for example "riot" is shorter than "insurrection". Outlets with different audience political demographics also choose different words. How should we weigh those? Some outlets do more stories on the topic; should we count by number of stories or number of outlets? I'd argue a less problematic approach would be to take the reported data as evidence that there are currently multiple common names for this event, including "attack", "riot", "insurrection", and "storming". In choosing among those, Wikipedia might benefit by picking the term that is least ambiguous and most specific while still being generally applicable. -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to get a meaningful statistical analysis, I've done a detailed analysis of headlines from a sample of ~25 reliable sources, and these are the results: storming 7%, riot 27%, insurrection 20% (median between two search methods), attack 23%, breach 9%, siege 15% (protest, incident 0%, mentioning them because they're in the survey). The common names for the event are names such as "Capitol riot", "Capitol attack", "Insurrection at the Capitol"; "siege" is less common, and the other ones are not common. "Storming of the Capitol"/"Capitol storming" is most definitely not common. For example the common ones you can hear spoken on the TV or radio (just "insurrection" very frequent, "capitol riot" too), but you don't hear real people saying "the storming of the Capitol" or similar, it's just not natural. People say the Capitol was stormed, yes, they say that people were storming it, yes, but they don't use the gerund (the storming) that much. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Challenged close

Note to all that I've challenged this close on the user's talk page, as I feel that it does not adequately explain the reasoning behind the result, the fact that the closer explicitly violated an AC/DS by considering and not ignoring mentions of "insurrection", and the fact that the closer does not provide a reasoning for their consideration of !votes based on the editors' own opinions as to what the title should be. If the close is not overturned by the user, I intend to seek review by administrators per WP:BADNAC (The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator and the NAC instructions for RMs which require that The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days) - in this case it is not clear at all that there is or is not a consensus. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC) moved outside closed discussion -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What AC/DS provision was violated? Closing discussions doesn't really relate to AC/DS except in very rare cases where explicit restrictions have been set to manage a discussion (again, very rare). It doesn't otherwise play a role in content decisions. As for BADNAC, it's an essay which is applied very loosely in practice, and the RM closing instructions explicitly say closes cannot be overturned on the basis of it being closed by a non-admin. As for the close itself, I'm not sure about the rationale (I probably would've used different reasoning, and I think some mention of the research exhibits and editors' thoughts on the evidence was warranted, though much of the evidence on headlines was foul of WP:RSHEADLINES) but there was evidently no consensus to move and no reason to think relisting would've produced a different outcome, given the high participation and stacking opposes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The AC/DS explicitly forbids discussion of "insurrection" for a month - the closer didn't seem to take this into account, and in fact uses "insurrection" !votes in their finding of no-consensus, when per the moratorium such votes should be at a minimum ignored. There was an explicit restriction set by the admin who implemented the AC/DS against discussion of "insurrection" for a month. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, AC/DS just covers politics since 1932 onward and there is nothing in the talk page templates above that even state there is a restriction on "insurrection" at all. (Which, why would there be if we are going to have move discussions now about where the article should be named?) Can you link to what you are talking about? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
They're talking about El C's logged restriction: I have also imposed the following move moratorium: one month until an "insurrection" move request may be attempted again, barring any significant legal outcomes, whichever comes first. Also noted that other move requests (like "Riots," etc.) may be launched immediately. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
User:El_C Can you explain this? There is no warning on this talk page at all that anyone can get a DS for taking about moving to insurrection at all. I knew that the last request was defeated because of the new request here, but I am in disbelief that there is no active link to something that important. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
My understanding, based on the fact that AC/DS are for conduct problems, is this: El C placed that restriction to attempt to avoid the problem of people who were !voting for "insurrection" based on bias reasons or reasons outside of policy - which was primarily what occurred in that RM and in this one. This led to massive derailments of both discussions because time, space, and effort was given to countering these biased and completely useless comments that had no basis in policy - which led to the lack of consensus in the previous RM discussion. That is a conduct problem - people attempting to !vote based on reasons completely outside of policy which derails discussion - and I feel that is the conduct problem that the DS was likely crafted to address. I think that the restriction was well crafted - it (should have) prevented discussion of the one title that was primarily leading to these non-policy-based !votes, while still allowing discussion of other titles - however it wasn't enforced. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
So my voice should not count because of a restriction that I didn't know about and for participating in a "Survey of proposed titles" under the belief that everybody was trying to come up with a title to get concensus and not attempting to backstab other users? I at least explained supported or opposed the titles, but now that leads to my opinion being silenced because not everyone was partipating in good faith? This isn't a conduct problem in my eyes. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Super Goku V, as I mentioned, this should only apply to responses that "wholly or primarily" advocate for "insurrection" - which I don't think yours does by a long shot as you actually explained policy-based reasons for your !vote. I also don't think that an overturn of this close is "silencing" you necessarily - closes don't always end in any one editor's favor, and that doesn't mean they're being silenced. I am merely advocating for a re-close that discounts !votes that should be discounted and reconsiders all (including your) !votes that are appropriate and policy-based - even if it results the same. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez: I just want to let you know that I have relaxed a bit due to El_C's reply to me and that I have stricken some comments that I made earlier. Regarding your challenge above, it seems to conflict with what El_C has stated regarding the ACDS, so I do not believe it will succeeded. If it does succeed, then it does and things will move on from there. Either way, I kinda don't feel like continuing this given things, but I do want to apologize for any trouble caused. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, El-C, but I am beyond mad at this point. I participated in the move discussion above in the belief that we were trying to fairly decide where to move the article to. I am pissed that my trust was violated and that my vote and reasoning should not count because I participated in what was claimed to be a "Survey of proposed titles". I was already upset that some users were adding others names to that table, but I am livid that my voice should not count and I violated DS because I signed my name to an already proposed title and explained my reasoning. At this point, I feel like the RM was a trap rather than an actual attempt at a move request. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
AC/DS is a system to manage conduct. I see El C's thinking but I think one has to be careful not to override content discussions. If another RM is brought up, and editors point to evidence saying a name which is under moratorium is far more popular in RS, that's a valid argument to oppose. Believing otherwise would be tantamount to endorsing a "forced compromise" close which and is invalid in content closes. imo that restriction should be construed very narrowly, as not allowing a move request to that title, but opposition on that basis in another title's RM being expressly permitted. AC/DS can never factor into what a content close should be, or used to discount votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
That would be great, if editors were arguing for COMMONNAME as "insurrection". Unfortunately, the majority (not vast majority, but a majority nonetheless) of editors who advocated for "insurrection" in this prior RM were advocating for it based on no policy at all, but their own opinions. I believe this is exactly the behavior El C was trying to avoid with their moratorium, and unfortunately no other admin stepped in to enforce it (El C told me on their talk page that they didn't have the time to, which is understandable) during the discussion, but it certainly should've been considered in the close. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit conflicted with you on editing my cmt but address your response in my edit (diff). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Saw that - can we stop reading each others' minds? My view is this: the policy being violated by advocators of "insurrection" is WP:OR and WP:NPOV - they are advocating for it based primarily on their own research and/or political opinions/views, and very rarely on policy. This behavior derails a RM discussion, and that is the behavior El C was trying to prevent in this discussion - yet it occurred anyway and unfortunately that derailed this discussion greatly. I think that the close needs to take into account the behavior that El C was trying to prevent with their DS, and needs to discount any !votes that have no or very little substance other than behavior that violates this DS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This is completely false, and you can't prove it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: I, and probably the other major contributing user Z22 would like to keep working on the research exhibits on this talk page, for the purpose of the current (just started) RM. Can, perhaps, you give me/us guidance on how to proceed? Is it possible to extricate/copy all/parts of the content from the closed RM? Exhibit C is new, hasn't been seen by many people and it's very informative, and not foul of WP:RSHEADLINES. I want to prevent rudimentary worthless google searches to dominate again on the talk page (as they tend to), keep swaying editors in arbitrary directions, and undo the progress in developing better techniques. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This was not my first WP:ACDS-imposed move moratorium and I doubt it's going to be the last. I have deemed trying-insurrection-again-right-away (and with defining "right away" as being within my discretion) to be damaging to the stability of the editorial process in this key WP:AP2 page. Now, as mentioned previously, within reason, I'm not going to stop editors from still arguing that trying-insurrection-again-right-away is the way to go now. The prohibition, above all else, applies to the available RM question and the possible RM outcome (the article is move protected at an admin level, which is set not to expire, so only an admin can execute a move at this time, anyway). El_C 05:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'm sorry to belabor this, but it sounds like based on this that comments which are wholly or primarily advocating for "insurrection" would be prohibited as they are "trying-insurrection-again-right-away" as opposed to arguing that it's the right way to go. I think, personally, that if this is not covered by the DS, that it's toothless and doesn't solve any conduct issues - as it's clear that the same conduct in the prior RM occurred here, and if the DS doesn't do anything to prohibit such conduct, it needs to be improved or it's useless. Note I am not saying that editors should have their comments ignored simply for saying "insurrection", but that editors whose whole or primary argument was "insurrection because that's what it was and anything else is unacceptable" or similar should be struck from consideration per your DS. Obviously this will be within the discretion of the closer, but I feel that the closer should explain what comments that mention "insurrection" they considered versus did not consider. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
You can't censor opinion like that. An editor maybe opposes the proposal because he thinks the insurrection is the only good or best proposal, so... is their !vote censored? It's unacceptable, and doesn't contribute to anything in the end. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Berchanhimez, you are obviously free to think what you wish, but this isn't the place to challenge logged ACDS action or enforcement. That venue is WP:ARCA or WP:AE, respectively. El_C 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@El C: All I want is to not get banned for violating a DS over a move discussion that wasn't even listed in the talk page notifications above. Am I correct to understand that starting a move request to a page using "insurrection" and a user closing an RM with a move to a page using "insurrection" to be the only way to violate your DS? (Aka, it was okay to participate in the survey above and it is okay to talk about the word on the talk page?) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Super Goku V, that is correct. El_C 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Then I will try to relax and calm down. Sorry for the trouble as I was upset and felt a bit betrayed regarding some of the above. I struck out a number of my comments as they are not needed now. While I don't like the moratorium, I believe I understand the intent and will abide by it. I do want to mention that I added the moratorium to the "Current Consensus" talk page template above, so that users are at least aware of it. El_C, would you be willing to modify the wording to explain it better? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Super Goku V, I empathize with you. I had an inkling of similar feelings as you, but I simply ignored the misinterpretation of the DS. Another thing can be corrected in the template, the name consensus part should probably read like this to better reflect reality – Current consensus: The page's title was decided by this move request to *not* be 2021 United States Capitol protests, and by this move request to *not* be 2021 United States Capitol riot. The current name, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was decided upon as a stopgap, until consensus on a name has formed. And then, the insurrection bit can be mentioned. edit: Notably the name was not decided to not be "Insurrection..." because a rough consensus against it has not been determined at the time of closing of taht RM (just a lack of positive consensus) — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Alalch Emis I actually didn't see the closing, but I did see the new move request, so I knew it had failed. I did see a mention of a moratorium, but I just figured it was a discussion I had missed and figured I could wait until the 23rd if there still was not a new article name. (The whole 'violation of discretionary sanctions' thing above got me confused and angry as I didn't understand.) Anyways, rambling aside and to the point, anyone is free to edit the template to make the wording better (especially the part I added). I just asked El_C since they were the one who imposed the ACDS and would likely have a better way of phrasing it than I did who only just understood. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The moratorium expires in less than 2 weeks. Personally, I wouldn't devote that much time and energy to it, beyond adhering to its most basic dictates (RM launches, closures). Yes, the note about it at the top of the talk page seems fine. Also, ACDS is not a blunt instrument. We don't hand out AE blocks and bans without ample warnings (and warnings again) — it isn't meant to be a minefield, so breath easy. El_C 13:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think the first question that needs to be answered in any RM is: what's wrong with the current title? I don't think there is a less Trumpy Wikipedian than me, and I don't see an issue right now. I think we can easily afford to wait for the as-yet unwritten books and scholarly articles.
I mean, I am sure Dinesh D'Souza has already written the definitive history of how democracy was stolen by the evil baby-eating radical far-left cabal of Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, but I mean real books and articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy, my main concern was with an "insurrection" RM being attempted, say, a week later (and failing again), and then maybe a week after that, and so on and so forth — a practice which I view as an abuse of process. I'm a bit wary of using ACDS to ban all RMs for this subject at this time, but I admit to be starting to see the utility in that. While I did enact such a blanket RM prohibition for some of the George Floyd protests articles (example), like in this case, it was only for a month. I also note that my own preference is actually for "insurrection" as the best available title, by far (as I noted yesterday here), but until I become dictator of Wikipedia (working on it!), I must bow to consensus (or lack thereof). El_C 14:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
El C, agree. I think you were right, and further, I think, with the benefit of a couple of weeks of hindsight, we can afford to be even more conservative. We don't need a DS based moratorium, but we can, and I think should, have a business-as-usual moratorium, as we have done for multiple RMs in the past (e.g. Kyiv).
This has the great benefit of avoiding entrenchment (and the "oh no, not this shit again" problem) and reviewing only when we have genuinely new information, rather than just another week's worth of talking heads on the Sunday shows. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
We have aggregated new information since the closing of "insurrection", such as this Exhibit C — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy, I actually did invoke ACDS in my (one year) move moratorium of Kyiv (see my log entry at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Eastern_Europe), but I didn't do so at Tulsa race massacre (6 months), for example. Probably because I couldn't — not that it stopped me (when possible, I just prefer ACDS because the log provides a record). El_C 14:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
El C, heh! So you did. But we didn't with Sarah Jane Brown I think. My reluctance to use DS is primarily that this invites AE, which is a bit of a blunt instrument. But it's not a Hill I'm going to storm. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Had to look her up, Guy. Married to Gordon Brown — that is not a plus! Also, Exchequer always sounded like the name of a horse to me. How did you Brits even managed to invent the English language (and produce Shakespeare, et al.) with all of that silliness? El_C 15:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
El C, yeah. A handful of people who are unable to accept anything other than parenthetical disambiguation have been trying to move that article for years. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was the independent "Ongoing analysis of naming trends" rolled into this RM close? The intention of that section was to be used as a collaborative space for editors to find out whether there is any clear COMMONNAME that exists or not on an ongoing basis outside of any decision on any RMs. Please put that section back as an independent section so that editors can contribute to the ongoing analysis. Z22 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It was part of the discussion. The 'close' signifies all the discussion that was directly considered in making the closing comment, and so shouldn't be changed after the close. I think it's best to copy it into a new section for brainstorming, or make a sub-page like Talk:Kyiv/sources & User:Levivich/Kyiv (which were used for the Kiev -> Kyiv RM). [cc Alalch Emis for the similar question to me above] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: It was not part of the discussion for this RM. It was totally a separate section. It just happened to be right after this RM. You can see from a snapshot before this RM is closed here[21]. The RM is section number 2 and the "Ongoing analysis of naming trends" is section number 3. Was that rolled into RM section by accident what the RM was closed? Please clarify why you think it was part of the RM discussion. Z22 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Z22: Given that Red Slash was the user who closed the section and the RM, I decided to send them a message to confirm if it was intentionally closed or accidently closed. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's best to follow this advice and simply copy or make a subpage. The closer did comment on the results, and there are certainly some positives to "attaching" them in their form at that time, but a negative would be a shutdown of further work; well, shouldn't be a problem, since options exist. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pixelnacht" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pixelnacht. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Pixelnacht until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

More splitting/shortening of the article?

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I see we're beginning to approach 500 citations for this article again. Though development on this article is coming along more slowly compared to the hours and days after January 6, I sense this article is about to become quite lengthy again by the end of the month, at the very least. Should a split or shortening be in order by then? What is everyone's thoughts? Love of Corey (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It is quite a long article: I don't think we have a problem yet, but, sure, if it grows further, good to think about these things. There are several points where there is a spin-off article, but we still retain quite a lot of text here, e.g. in the "Events outside Washington, D.C." > "State capitols and cities" section and in the "Completion of electoral vote count" section. Trimming there would seem easy. We have an "Investigations and prosecutions" section at the same level as the "Aftermath" section. The "Aftermath" section points to a spin-off article that includes details on investigations and prosecutions, so some combining and trimming of those 2 sections looks easy. Those are my suggestions of where to start in terms of shortening. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the "Events outside Washington, D.C." should always remain in this article, as they are an integral element. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Remain, yes. In that much detail? I think one could summarise the current text. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Bondegezou I refactored that section (diff [22]), you can see how compact it is now. It doesn't actually contain any real detail (not now or before my edit) — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Do we need to detail here the minor events in states like Tennessee and Kansas? We could just list the major confrontations and say, "Minor demonstrations also occurred in...", pointing readers to the full article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that that section needs some shortening. I also feel like we could spin off the background section into an article like Planning of the Save America Rally or something along those lines; that section is getting pretty lengthy in of itself. Love of Corey (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Remain or stay, events outside D.C. are peripheral not integral. Qexigator (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
They're all a part of the nationwide insurrection; there were even some nasty incidents at those demonstrations. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You're going off topic, this article is about the event at the Capitol not insurrection in USA. The present editing exercise is to trim the article for its core topic, not to expand the scope of the topic. Qexigator (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC) 11:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As we now have it, applying the contents numbering, THE EVENT (2021 storming of the United States Capitol) is described in sections 2.3 to 3.2.2, while BEFORE THE EVENT is described in sections 1 to 2.2.1 and AFTER THE EVENT in sections 4, 5 and 6, leaving the article to finish with section 7 for Events outside Washington, D.C. I have added the time span to the location in the heading 2- Events in Washington, D.C. January 5,6,7, but may be that should be January 5-7. Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As others have indicated, the State capitols and cities section should be condensed to one or two sentences. Basically a link to 2021 United States inauguration week protests and a short description. Copying the details here is unnecessary and, as Qexigator said, off-topic. But of course, that won't make this article significantly shorter. Maybe we could remove some details from the Background section that are already explained in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? But that would only trim a paragraph or less. At the moment I don't see a good way to split any major part into another separate article. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It will be good to trim what little we can, to allow some space for what may be disclosed as further information about the event in connection with prosecutions of malefactors and the impeachment proceedings. Qexigator (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced refs

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

§Capitol breach starts:

Just after 2:00 p.m., windows were broken through, and the mob breached the building[1][2] and entered ...

References

  1. ^ "Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority". Title 18 of the United States Code. p. § 1752. Archived from the original on January 23, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2021 – via law.cornell.edu.
  2. ^ "Parading, demonstrating or picketing in the Capitol buildings". Title 40 of the United States Code. p. § 1504 Unlawful activities. Archived from the original on January 16, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2021.

I expected the refs to support the timeline, but instead they are links to 18 U.S.C. § 1752 and 40 U.S.C § 5104 (typoed as "1504"). Those are the statutes criminalizing the behavior mentioned, but the article's text there is not addressing the legal issues. Is that an appropriate use of refs? (Refs were added by User:Ancheta Wis on 2021-01-19: Special:Diff/1001151743 & Special:Diff/1001202177.) Should they be removed, or if we want mention of the statutes there, should they be converted to footnotes? -- ToE 14:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The refs might better be off as notes. The event of breaching the Capitol is an overt breach of the law. The time of the breach can be verified by videocamera time stamps. But the citations defend a statement that there was overt breaking of the laws cited, with statutory consequences for the perpetrators, including those who climb through windows, those who walk through doors which were previously locked by the Capitol police, and those who are carrying flags and picketing. These remain unlawful activities by those carrying tools or flags, including flags or fire extinguishers used as weapons. To state the obvious, carrying these tools is an indication of intent which was previously proscribed by the laws cited. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
... the citations defend a statement that there was overt breaking of the laws cited ...
What stuck me as incongruous was that the references were not proximate to such a statement.
I suppose a statement of illegality could be added parenthetically, but I thought that would break the flow, hence the suggestion of footnotes.
Also, some folks might object on WP:OR grounds to simply linking the statutes vs. also linking an article describing their applicability to the events. -- ToE 20:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic issue taken up by Qexigator in separate section below
It appears that citizen Trump's answer to the charge of 'incitement' is denial that when holding office as POTUS he incited any of the perpetrators to any such violation of the law. That is a credible defense to the article of impeachment - as well as 'void ab initio'[23] - until held to be proven at trial. If the Wikipedia article is implying otherwise - it reads as if it is based on that supposition - and given that it is not WP to preempt a finding of guilty as charged on the basis of opinion repeated in RS, then it may need to be revised. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Qexigator: Just to ask, how does that apply to the sentence, "Just after 2:00 p.m., windows were broken through, and the mob breached the building[1][2] and entered ..." and in what manner? Your comment appears to be off-topic, which is technically a violation of policy. If it does not relate to the sentence, did you mean to post this somewhere else? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure I have understood why you mention the article's Capitol breach section. Breaking in etc is a fact widely seen on TV, Youtube et. al. But my point is lack of evidence that POTUS Trump, as he then was, incited the malefactors, and, while incitementt has been vehemently asserted against him in the impeachment, it has been denied and is as yet unproven. For that reason, the statute is a caution to us not to let the article wording imply in Wikivoice that he is guilty as charged. The second sentence of the lead reads 'Called to action by Trump..' and the rest of the paragraph mentions a series of facts acceptably supported. But 'Called to action by Trump' following on immediately after the first paragraph reads as if he had incited them to the action there descrbed, that is, to take the Capitol by storm and riot and engage in violent attack against the Congress on January 6. That tends to govern the way in which the whole article is to be read and understood. It is not a good look to see Wikipedia written like a hatchet job against him. Qexigator (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
SGV mentioned that section of the article because it is the exclusive subject of this particular talk page section. -- ToE 13:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If there is an article that mentions the statutes, then I think we can then source the statutes themselves without issue. As it is now, it might not be acceptable as a reliable source should be cited there to state that the group forcefully entered the Capitol. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Beer Gut Putsch" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beer Gut Putsch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Beer Gut Putsch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Us insurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Us insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Us insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Draft:Mike Lindell Day" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Mike Lindell Day. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Draft:Mike Lindell Day until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Storming again

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • Here is an Independent article, [24]. It seems that storming was used as a call to action by the seditionists and will be used in evidence against trump. Here is the Guardian [25]. There are several more sources in that vain, they're will probably be more as the evidence is presented. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted that the Guardian article rehashes the interpretation of an academic study published in The Atlantic (Feb 2 2021), that was discussed on this page on that day in a section headed 'New study' (Archive 12). A comment of 17:58, 2 February pointed out that other experts might see their interpretation as circular reasoning, given that, if the storming is seen as a protest that got out of control, then that explains why people not prone to political violence were involved. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

+This leaves open an uncomfortable question which may also be undergoing investigation: if any of the malefactors were pre-meditating seditious or subversive action, and this was known to the security services, why was the Capitol not adequately secured against attack? Perhaps more about this will be disclosed while the impeachment trial proceeds.This could affect the content of sections i-Background and 6.2-State capitols and cities. Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wonder if anyone feels like reaching out for more footage and photographs to be donated to Commons? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remove opinions Bengiamino1 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done - Please explain specifically what parts of this article you believe are unsourced opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Undoing "bombing" removal from infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments15 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per WP:SNOW. No need to expend any further volunteer resources on this dispute resolution request. El_C 00:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the recent manual revert that entirely removed "bombing" from the infobox be undone - either by adding "bombing" or a similar word/s (please say what specifically) back to the methods line?

('Yes' means it should be undone: planting of bombs represented in the infobox / 'No' means it shouldn't be undone: planting of bombs not represented in the infobox) — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the edit and summary whereby it was removed by Yodabyte diff. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the manual revert (right side; first revert) that was manually reverted (above diff; revert of revert) in above edit - diff — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's enough of that. Drop the WP:STICK everyone. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please mind WP:OWN now that you're unblocked and posting so much here again. Moncrief (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
It's inappropriate to make such insertions into an RfC. You're both poisoning the well and targeting me personally — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC
@Moncrief: Would you kindly remove that post so that the RfC can proceed neutrally and without such distractions? You may remove these two replies of mine in the same go — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
What Moncrief wrote was reasonable, useful and appropriate. It should stay. Alalch Emis, you don't WP:OWN this article or this talk page. If you keep acting like you do, you'll probably be blocked again. Pipe down. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Chrisahn Would you also remove your post at the top of this RfC that in no way contributes to the course of the RfC but deals with unrelated matter (me). Also please don't think it's possible to threaten me, I am impervious to such mild forms of psychological pressure.— Alalch Emis (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. I didn't post anything "at the top of this RfC". I won't remove anything. I'm not threatening you, just stating the fact that you might get blocked again. See e.g. this warning that you deleted from your talk page yesterday. And if you don't want this current sub-thread to become a distraction, just stop commenting on it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Alalch Emis has escalated the above to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ganging up on RfC starter because of previous block. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Chrisahn, if that was a solution I'd have wholeheartedly embraced it, but it's been a distraction since the first post targeting me in relation to something unrelated to the RfC. If it was about neutrality, CoI, anything of such nature I'd respond positively, but it's just something alien to the purpose and working of an RfC. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis:@Chrisahn: While I can understand worrying about Alalch Emis commiting WP:OWN violations, I’m thinking that he doesn’t seem to be trying to own the article or talk page, although his post towards Chrisahn was a bit blunt, and it does seem like he misunderstood Moncriefs intention. Overall, everyone in this conversation is being a bit blunt with their interactions regarding Moncrief warning Alalch Emis about WP:OWN.4D4850 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No - The explosive devices were found at other locations (blocks away), not at the Capitol. No sources show any explosive devices found on or in the Capitol during the event. It appears unrelated (except as a possible distraction?) to the storming event itself. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If this article is titled "riot", "protests", or something more general that can expand past the Capitol Building then sure. If the article is titled "storming" or "attack" etc, then no, because the bombs planted were not part of the attack on/storming of the Capitol, but instead being a part of separate events during the same day (i.e. the protests/riots in general). For those arguing for a "precise" title of "attack" or "storming", this should be kept in mind that once the other events of the day are considered, it is no longer precise to call it that - and this is one example of such. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No, per Adolphus79. Moncrief (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No. There was no bombing. There were attempted bombings at the RNC and DNC, but they weren't part of the storming. Note: There are several other claims in the infobox that are unsourced, incorrect and/or misleading, e.g. "alleged: hostage-taking and lynching". They should be removed as well. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No, per Adolphus79 and Chrisahn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No, a "bombing" is a bomb going off, which did not happen. The unsuccessful placement of the bombs (whether not exploding or not drawing police away from the Capitol in relevant numbers) does not merit mention in the infobox although it should of course be covered in the (or a suitable) article. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No At this point no direct connection has been established between the planting of pipe bombs and the invasion of the Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No, per Adolphus79, Chrisahn, and Mirokado. No bombs went off so there's no "bombing", the explosive devices were found blocks away from the capitol at both the DNC and RNC buildings, and it's debatable whether Trump's rally was really even a deciding factor for the perpetrator. Leaving it in the infobox implies the bombs were directly involved and related to the storming (i.e. rioters had bombs), which it does not currently appear to be so. It's a tangential detail at best. RopeTricks (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No Anything about bombing or finding explosive material is outsidre the scope of the article, that is, the very ugly single event of malefactors storming the capitol on 6 January. I had given this little attention before the RfC, but the response must be No for the reasons given above. Qexigator (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No, but not for quite the same reasons listed in the other !votes above. Multiple reliable sources have connected the placed bombs with the capital riots, even though they were not placed on the capitol grounds. So they are clearly relevant to the scope this article, regardless of its title, and warrant mention in the body. That does not mean they need to be mentioned in the infobox, though: as noted here, the infobox's purpose is to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. Also, not everything needs to be an RFC; hopefully someone uninvolved will snow close this soon. VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's not archive sections on this talk page too quickly

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This talk page was extremely active right after January 6. To keep it manageable and readable, discussions had to be archived quite quickly. But a month has passed now and things have slowed down. We're sometimes discussing editorial changes that need more time. Recently, two sections were archived but restored soon after because they were still ongoing: the RfC about "terrorism" and shortening the article. (Two more were archived although I'm not sure they had run their course: discussing problems with the lead and image size. Maybe they should be restored as well?)

I think we should keep discussions open a bit longer than we used to. I went ahead and increased the age for automatic archiving from one day to three. (Maybe it should be even longer?)

I think manual archiving isn't necessary anymore and should be avoided. (It's OK to archive obvious cases like this one, but even that isn't really necessary anymore – there's not much danger of this talk page becoming cluttered with lots of sections.) — Chrisahn (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The bot saw the template below that one and archived things again, so I fixed it. Sadly, this means that Ongoing analysis of naming trends likely cannot be restored. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: Thanks! I didn't know there were multiple bot configurations and fixed only one of them. :-( Of course, we can still restore anything we want, but it has to be done manually and is a bit tedious: Find the wikitext on the archive page, copy it, insert it back into this page (preferrably in the correct position), delete it from the archive page. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, it also will need a revert to the original text as well since it an edit was made to it after it was closed, but I can do my best to unwind the edit and bring back the section. I just thought it might be a bit too much, but will give it a go.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: I have created a subpage for the ongoing analysis of naming trends, following the advice of ProcrastinatingReader.[26] Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Ongoing_analysis_of_naming_trends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: I didn't get this ping either, but in this case you didn't sign your post, so the ping wasn't sent. I made a reply above, but if you feel like keeping the subpage, then maybe we can just directly archive the section so that we do not have to wait three days. Whatever allows for more discussion should be the best. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Were there actually bombs near the Capitol grounds?

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The lead currently says: Improvised explosive devices were found near the Capitol grounds, as well as at offices of the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, and in a nearby vehicle. The problem is: the latter three incidents are well documented, but the first one isn't.

The more detailed section Planting of pipe bombs doesn't mention any bombs on or near the Capitol grounds. (The RNC and DNC are roughly one or two blocks away from the Capitol.) The sources for the claim in the lead are these CNBC and NYT reports. Only CNBC mentions "on the grounds of the Capitol". The NYT only mentions the bombs at the RNC and DNC.

I did a rather thorough search but didn't find any confirmation that there actually were bombs on or near the grounds of the Capitol. Details:

  • CNBC (Published Wed, Jan 6 20214:30 PM EST / Updated Wed, Jan 6 20216:27 PM EST): "The FBI said it had dispatched with two suspicious devices that were uncovered in Washington after reports of improvised explosives on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol during Wednesday’s rioting."
  • NBC News (Jan. 6, 2021, 7:07 PM CET / Updated Jan. 7, 2021, 3:42 PM CET): "...at least one improvised explosive device was found on the grounds, law enforcement officials said. [...] Improvised explosive devices were found on the Capitol grounds, several law enforcement officials said. Officers were in the process of destroying the devices, and it was not clear whether they were functional. At least one was made of a small section of galvanized pipe."
  • Metro (6 Jan 2021 9:09 pm; Note: not a reliable source per WP:RSP#Metro): "One pipe bomb was found at the Beltway headquarters of the Republican National Committee and another in the Capitol complex, both of which were safely detonated. A suspicious package was also discovered at the Democratic National Committee headquarters although it was not immediately thought to be an explosive."

Many later reports confirm the bombs at the RNC and DNC as well as the Molotov cocktails in the pickup truck, but none mention bombs on or near the Capitol grounds. Examples:

  • NBC News (Jan. 7, 2021, 4:52 PM CET / Updated Jan. 7, 2021, 6:32 PM CET): "Two devices were found after police received reports of a pipe bomb. Chief Sund said that the devices were determined to be "hazardous" and were disabled and turned over to the FBI. A suspicious vehicle was also found and its driver was arrested."
  • ABC Denver / AP (Posted at 4:29 PM, Jan 06, 2021 and last updated 6:38 AM, Jan 07, 2021): "The Washington, D.C., police chief says pipe bombs and a cooler with Molotov cocktails were recovered [...] Chief Contee said during a press conference Wednesday that officers found two pipe bombs, one outside the Democratic National Committee and one outside the Republican National Committee. [...] ...a vehicle that had a long gun and Molotov cocktails on Capitol grounds."
  • AP (January 12, 2021): "...two pipe bombs found just blocks away at the offices of the Republican and Democratic national committees. [...] ...were called to the Republican National Committee’s office after a pipe bomb was found outside. About 30 minutes later, as the agents and bomb technicians were still investigating at the RNC, another call came in for a second, similar explosive device found at the Democratic National Committee headquarters nearby." And about the pickup truck: "near the Capitol ... 11 Molotov cocktails".

It looks like during the chaotic afternoon of January 6, some law enforcement officials and/or journalists heard that bombs had been found on or near the Capitol grounds, but the pipe bombs had actually been found one or two blocks away, and the Molotov cocktails (usually not called "bombs") were in a truck on Capitol grounds. Unless we find later sources confirming that there were bombs on or near Capitol grounds, we shouldn't make that claim. I'll go ahead and remove it. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yodabyte, I reverted your change to the infobox, certainly made in good faith based on the above (100% valid) post by Chrisahn. The point here is not to consider the planting of bombs as not a constituent part of the event anymore. This is just about clarifying the location in the lead (mix-up between pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails; Molotov cocktails were found on Capitol grounds but they are not bombs, even though some people lump them together with bombs). Bombing wasn't added to the infobox based on a belief that bombs were planted on the Capitol grounds in the first place. Please remember that even the protests and incidents in other cities on Jan. 6 are still considered a constituent part of this event. Update: @Yodabyte: I see you reverted back to bombing removal – please respond to the rationale I've given. Think about this: bombing was in the infobox in one form or another for a month before you removed it completely. And it wasn't controversial (only some disagreement on how to phrase it). Based on what did you remove it? — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
— Alalch Emis it was actually removed from the infobox on Jan 19th so it was only incorrectly included for about 12 days. Regarding your question please read my edit summary for why it does not belong in the infobox. Yodabyte (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yodabyte I already replied to your previous edit summary prior to your subsequent manual revert both in my edit summary, and in the post right here, above yours. Could you now reply to the reasons I've given? Update: (attempted) bombing was added on Jan. 8 (diff); it was removed briefly at one point but was almost immediately readded. All in all my statement that it stood in the article for a month is true. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Yodabyte (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
We aren't making progress here so an RfC has been started — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Don’t include what I’m about to say without finding a reliable source, but I do vaguely remember hearing about bombs at other buildings in D.C. Don’t put this in the article without a reliable source though. So depends on what you consider to be near capitol grounds. 4D4850 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Three dead, not five.

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

This currently says "Five people died from the event, while dozens more were injured." But even the cited article acknowledges two of the five died from unrelated causes at unknown times:

"Greeson died of an apparent heart attack at an unknown point during the events"

"Phillips ... had a stroke and died, although authorities have not confirmed at what point during the attack" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.145.116.109 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed to say "Five people died during the event", so as to remove the concerns raised here. Love of Corey (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Sicknick did not die "during" the event, he died the next day. WWGB (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I manually reverted it to "from". In general RS tend to phrase it as a causal relationship. It's customary to use the "but for" logic in dangerous events such as this one (had the event not happened at all, would the same people still have died?). When we say "from the event" it just means this, it's very minimal. It's less emphasis on causality than when Politico says: "Five people died as a result of the riots".[27] — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
US law defines two types of causation: factual causation (“but-for”) and legal causation (“proximate cause”). You need to show both, but here you can't show either.
Factual causation asks but-for an act (storming of the capitol) would the harm have occurred (Greeson’s death). The answer is easy since, as Terjen points out below, Greeson was declared dead shortly before the breach. Likewise, there is nothing to indicate that Phillips would have avoided a stroke “but-for” the event.
Proximate causation asks whether an event is sufficiently related to an injury that it can be deemed a cause. It’s designed to catch situations where there is but-for cause, but no reasonable person would actually deem it a true cause. For example, if someone dies in a car accident on the way to get a Covid vaccine, Covid might qualify as a “but-for” cause of the death but it is obviously not “sufficiently related.”
Whenever you have an event with a large crowd of people, some of those people are likely to die from natural causes like heart attacks and strokes. That’s why you often see ambulances parked outside of large sporting events. It’s incredibly misleading to say, without context, that “five people died from the event” in the first paragraph.
“Three people died from the event, while dozens more were injured.” The other two deaths are entirely irrelevant and shouldn’t even be considered notable Marcus Wing (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
That's very interesting, but irrelevant, because it's not for Wikipedians to "show" what a reliable source says. If reliable sources say these deaths were related to the events, then for our purposes, they are. Your personal disagreement with those sources, no matter how logical you think it is, is original research and synthesis, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This isn't original research or personal disagreement. The causes of death are stated clearly in the cited article. If you have a reliable source explaining how either of these deaths was caused by the storming of the capitol, please add it. At the very least, the statement should read "five died at the event, two from natural causes." It's extremely misleading as currently written. Marcus Wing (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Neither "from" nor "during" are quite right. As 192.145.116.109 pointed out, some of the deaths may not have been caused by the riot, and as WWGB said, Sicknick died "from", but not "during" the event. Anyway, isn't "died from the event" a bit unidiomatic? We say someone died from cancer or another illness. But "died from" isn't commonly used for events, is it? I'm not quite sure – I'm not a native speaker. But I just looked at several sources, and none of them say that anyone died from the event. We should find a better expression. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, all of the people who died did so by participating in the event in some way, whether in support or in opposition to the forced entry of the Capitol. Maybe something like "Five people died in relation to the event" or something similar? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: "Five people died in relation to the event" sounds good to me. It's much better than "from" or "during". If there are no further objections, I think you should go ahead and edit it into the lead. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Forgot about that. Love of Corey (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Greeson was declared dead at 2:05 shortly before the breach, after suffering a heart attack outdoors on the Capitol grounds. Phillips separated from his group around 10:30 in the morning to park, then suffered a stroke plausible shortly afterwards, as he failed to rejoin the group he had organized.Terjen (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Phillips reportedly died at George Washington University Hospital.Terjen (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Why aren't the suicides of Capitol Police and DC Police officers being mentioned? They have been reported in relation to the event, as, according to Politico, "Acting Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee told House appropriators during a closed-door session on Tuesday that Jeffrey Smith, a D.C. Police officer, and Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood both 'took their own lives in the aftermath of that battle'.” Liebengood died two days later, and Smith after that.<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/second-officer-suicide-following-capitol-riot-463123> Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Parkwells, see this prior discussion which brought up the BLP issue of making an attempt to connect their deaths to the events here. Furthermore, even if it wasn't a direct BLP issue, such a claim would require multiple high quality sources - not one comment that is hearsay from a closed-door session. The news can report what they will - but Wikipedia is not just a site designed to parrot the news. The information that is permissible is already included in the article as part of the prose - but attempting to add them to any "tally" of deaths is inappropriate until such time if/when reliable sources overwhelmingly state that the event was the reason for their deaths. Simply occurring after the event doesn't mean the event caused their death - and attempting to suggest so without exceedingly well sourcing is a BLP violation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I do understand the reasoning. Their deaths, along with the others, have haunted me.Parkwells (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

People charged/USA Today ref

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There's an issue with this web page. From the UK https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/ redirects to https://eu.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/ - this, when I loaded it about half an hour ago, only listed 87 arrests, not the 195 that others are seeing. Now on trying again it only lists 61. Presumably it is cached on more than one server, and out of date on the two I have accessed. It would be useful to have an Internet Archive link added to this ref. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

Here is a suitable archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210208225452/https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
As of 8 hours ago, CBS and NBC are reporting that 211 people have been charged by federal prosecutors.
"Last month, acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said, "The scope and scale of this investigation in these cases are really unprecedented, not only in FBI history but probably DOJ history."
So far, federal prosecutors say they've charged at least 211 people for their alleged roles in the riot and opened over 400 investigations into possible criminals." [[28]] I have updated the infobox to 211 people charged. Best, IP75 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the web page fails to provide Cache-Control causing it to not timely expire in caches. Terjen (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

American decline

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Should this page have links to American decline per sources like [29], [30] and [31]?--Mhhossein talk 06:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Global Times is a propaganda outlet, and the Bloomberg article analyzes the propagandist discourse. Reliable sources that deal with this topic in a matter-fact-way are needed. On the other hand, Democratic backsliding is a 'see also' in the broader 2020–21 United States election protests article; by translation, it could be added here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No. America isn't in decline. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Support In American decline, the article is clear that American decline is an idea, not a concrete fact. The Capitol attack is a reason to believe America might be in decline, so it should link. Twiinarmeggedon2 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The main, largest picture in the infobox, is problematic

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The main picture carries the most weight. Currently it's some guy in a flag jumpsuit holding a flag. Yes, it was part of what took place that day, but certainly doesn't capture the most noteworthy aspects of what took place. For example, at September 11 attacks, the main picture shows the smoking buildings. Are there no pictures in commons showing rioters breaking windows? trying to force their way into the Capitol and attacking cops?[32] scaling the wall? The jumpsuit guy should not be leading the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, I agree that the largest picture is not actually of the storming, and does not illustrate the topic at hand. Soething like File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol 2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09265-2 (50821579347).jpg might be more appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy, thanks for your reply, but that picture doesn't capture the violence. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff, feel free to suggest a free image that does. That was the most obvious from my brief review on Commons. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Somedifferentstuff: I agree that it would be better if the main picture captured the violence and the incursion (because without them the event would have been far less notable). When you raised the issue before, I looked through commons:Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol and some of its sub-categories, but I didn't find any better image. The thing is: The current main photo clearly shows a volatile crowd of people at the Capitol. All photos I found that better capture the violent nature of the event don't really show that it happened at the Capitol. So while I agree the main photo isn't perfect, I think it's the best we've got. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the image suggested by @JzG: (Guy) is more suited to be the header image. --haha169 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

'Called to action by Trump'

Latest comment: 3 years ago37 comments9 people in discussion

The above words stem from the edit of 11 January 2021 (Changed 'Summoned' to 'Called to action'). But events have been moving on and the article has been catching up. The same words, now standing as the opening words of the lead's second paragraph, are unacceptably tendentious.

The sentence begins 'Called to action by Trump..' and the rest of the paragraph mentions a series of facts acceptably supported. But 'Called to action by Trump' follows on immediately after the first paragraph so as to read as if he had incited the malafectors to the action mentioned there and expanded in the 'Capitol breach' section, that is, to take the Capitol by storm and riot and engage in violent attack against the Congress on January 6. Standing there in the lead the words tend to govern the way in which the whole article is to be read and understood.

We can now see that there is a lack of hard evidence that POTUS Trump, as he then was, incited the malefactors, in that, while incitement has been vehemently asserted against him in the impeachment, it has been denied and is as yet unproven. Meantime, while some may see the second impeachment, like the first, as a necessary tactic to realize a grander strategy, and others as a clumsy manoeuvre that will boomerang on its proponents, we may suppose that many are watching aghast from the sidelines.

For that reason, we should be cautious not to let the article wording imply in Wikivoice that he is guilty as charged. Leaving the article to read like a hatchet job against him is not a good look for Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is plenty of evidence he asked them to turn up and protest, that is a call to action.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
That is beside the point I have presented in my comment above. Responses to that will be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The point being made is not whether he asked them to come and protest, which is not in dispute. It is whether he asked them specifically to storm the Capitol, which at this point, is not supported by the evidence. There is an argument to be made in suggesting that his rhetoric was inflammatory enough to engender such a desperate act, but no conclusive causality to insinuate that his words and his words alone were sufficient to trigger the event.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's the whole paragraph:
Called to action by Trump, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 in support of the stolen election conspiracy theory, Trump's false claims that the 2020 election had been "stolen" from him, and to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Joe Biden's victory. On the morning of January 6, at a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, Trump repeated false claims of election irregularities and spoke of a need to "fight", saying "if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore". At the president's encouragement, thousands of the protesters then walked to the Capitol, where a joint session of Congress was beginning the Electoral College vote count to formalize Biden's victory.
It's not quite clear what the word "action" refers to. If it's just the rally, "called to action" wouldn't be incorrect (Trump repeatedly told his supporters to come), but the wording would be rather unusual (a rally isn't much of an "action"). The word "action" might also mean everything that follows in this paragraph (the rally and the walk to the Capitol), but for the latter we already have a similar construct: "At the president's encouragement".
In conclusion: I think we should simply revert to "summoned". The Wiktionary entry for "summon" says: "To call people together; to convene" and "To ask someone to come; to send for". That fits Trump's calls for his followers to come to the rally, without additional, potentially loaded connotations. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is as stated above, not so much the words that follow in the second paragraph, but the words that have gone before in the first paragraph, so as to make the second paragraph read as if he had incited the malefactors to take the Capitol by storm and riot and engage in violent attack against the Congress on January 6. In the lead the words there tend to govern the way in which the whole article is to be understood. Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the name of this linguistic construct, but I'm pretty sure a sentence prefix like "Called to action by Trump, ..." applies to what follows, not to what came before. (We have the same construct a bit further down: "Pressured by his administration, ...") But I agree that it may feel like "called to action" in some way also refers to the previous paragraph. I think this could be fixed by replacing "called to action" by "summoned", because the latter has a narrower meaning and thus can't refer to the broad overview given in the first paragraph. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Before this section disappears to Archives, I guess the linguistic construction may be due to ellipsis and the influence of Latin Grammar's Ablative Absolute[33][34], given the casual way English literature has developed from the time of Shakespeare, Milton, Samuel Johnson, Burke, and the 19c. novelists, poets and other writers, nearly all of whose schooldays would have been according to the traditional grammar school curriculum in preparation for entry to a latinized university, where they would enjoy termly residence in statu pupillari and under the jurisdiction of university proctors. The sentence in question could be understood as modelled on the construction: '(Having been) summoned by Donaldus the crowd rallied at the meeting place before proceeding with their flag waving protest march and demo.... Q.E.D. fwiw. Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
P.S.: Regarding the more general question whether Trump "incited" the storming of the Capitol: We may never have "hard evidence" that he did. What would constitute "hard evidence"? A successful impeachment? Probably not – it's largely politically motivated. A ruling of a court of law? Very unlikely to happen. So we'll probably never have "hard evidence" that he "incited" the storming in a legal sense. But I'm not sure we need that. In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to call Trump's speech at the rally ("if you don’t fight like hell" etc.) "incitement". Wiktionary about "incite": "To stir up or excite; to rouse or goad into action". Of course, my opinion doesn't matter. But I also think we have an almost unanimous consensus among WP:RS that Trump "incited" the storming. Even some Fox News commentators say so.[35][36] I think it would be OK to use something like "incite" in Wikivoice. (It just wouldn't make sense in the spot we're talking about here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
'Hard evidence' woiuld be the sort of evidence upon which prosecutors rely when presenting an indictment, and that is not rejected by the judge before the jury retires to consider its verdict. But the impeachment of a president or past-president is admittedly an exceptional political event. In this case we do not yet know for certain what evidence is being presented, nor what ruling the Senate, sitting as the tribunal of judgment, will make on the admissibility of such evidence as will be presented. Meantime there is only soft evidence of forensically unexamined hearsay, and anything Trump admits or is proved to have uttered before the event, and perhaps later. The impeachment is being defended, and the onus is on the impeachers to submit supporting evidence in the course of the process. Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you're setting the bar much higher than what's required by our policies (even by WP:BLP, which might apply here to some extent). If Wikipedia could only say what has been proven in a court of law, our pages would be pretty empty. :-) Maybe Trump is not guilty of "incitement" in a legal sense, but I think it's OK for us to use words similar to "incite" (we're already using "encouragement") as long as it's reasonably clear it's not meant as a legal term. (But I guess we should focus on "called to action" here and leave this more general question for another discussion.) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
In this particular case, the issue is too grave and too sensitive to let the emotive laxity of the moment determine the tone of the article. Again, let caution be the Wikipedia watchword until the ups and downs of the present political tantrums and media excitement have had a little more time to settle. Qexigator (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Just a note: Very similar questions have been discussed before, e.g. in this discussion which was closed as Word "urge" is not to be used in lead, but the proposal was rather vague (Did it only affect the the first sentence? Or the whole lead? What about words similar to "urge"?), and I actually don't see much of a consensus in the discussion... Just like most discussions on this talk page. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, given all the previous and continuing to-ing and fro-ing to bring the article this far, perhaps it's better for a while to attend to retaining 'storming' in the name to cover the event itself, in respect of which Trump is a peripheral figure, although not surprisingly he looms so strongly in the feelings of his fellow citizens that he may be having undue attention in this article, when at the same time there are actually a good many other articles which are about him in one aspect or another. But in this article, there is also a need to ensure that the sequence of events is clear enough to be followed, unemotively, especially when activity is happening in different places at the same time. I'm pretty sure that there will be need for a re-think as the impeachment documents, rulings and decisions become available, that may affect some parts of this article. My own view is that there are few people who take an interest in this who have not already made their own minds up too firmly to let their understanding be swayed. All in all, perhaps in the current version, the distinction between 'called to action' and 'summoned' is more a point of literary style than key significance in this context. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I would find it hard to imply that he is a marginal person in the event, given that there is a pretty clear connection between his rally that day and his supporters overrunning the Capitol later on. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
In a comment above I mention that in reality the issue is too grave and too sensitive to be treated lightly. But the custom is to balance the impact of a tragedy with the light relief of comedy. So here is the outline of a make believe Blame Game called 'Who is to blame for what and why? ('Whist' for short).
A crowd of 100 people attend a barbecue in a park near a mansion, the residence of a popular celeb who holds the title Top of the Game. She stops by and makes a speech encouraging the crowd to go to a Punch and Judy show a mile away, and then returns to the mansion, The crowd moves off to the show, and by the time they get there disorder has broken out and damage is done. Some of the crowd join in the disorder.
1. Members of the crowd at the barbecue would not have been at the disorderly event if the celeb had not encouraged them to go there. 2. The barbecue had been held to celebrate the celeb's claim to be the winner of a popular vote for the annual Top of the Game award (TOGA) which went this year to a rival. 3. The celeb claimed that the award should be hers and demanded a recount of the vote. 4. The Punch and Judy show was a traditional event to celebrate the winning of the award, on this occasion for the rival. 5. The celeb at the barbecue was not at the award ceremony and did not take part in the disorder. She was not part of the disorderly event, but she was not displeased that her supporters went to make a protest. She had not encouraged them to engage in unlawful behaviour. 6. The disorder was quelled and the award was presented to the rival who will therefore be entitled to occupy the mansion in place of the celeb who was last year's winner, and whose title had been bitterly and actively disputed by this year's winner and her supporters.
The Game is designed to let the players take sides, and each side to construct an argument to blame one of the two rivals and exonerate the other. The game can be played using either Rule A or Rule B. Rule A is that the current occupant of the mansion by the park is not to blame for the disorder and damage at the Punch and Judy show award event. Rule B is that the current occupant is to blame for the damage. To decide the winner, the Game has a system of point scoring. Qexigator (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite and join the silliness. Here's a comedy that's closer to the tragedy we witnessed:
A popular celeb who recently lost the title Top of the Game organizes a barbecue in a park near her mansion and invites a crowd of 100,000 people to attend. She makes a speech encouraging the crowd to go to a Punch and Judy show a mile away, using the word "fight" twenty times and saying "if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a Game anymore". The celeb then returns to the mansion, but the crowd moves off to the show, and when they get there, they smash in doors and windows, break into the building, try to attack the performers (who manage to hide just in time), and ransack the stage and dressing rooms.
[...] 5. The celeb may not have explicitly encouraged her fans to engage in unlawful behaviour, but even some of her colleagues and friends think that her words at the barbecue ("fight" etc.) certainly stirred up the crowd and encouraged the violent acts. 6. When the celeb won the title last time, many others were disappointed, but her opponent conceded right away and did NOT "bitterly and actively dispute" the election.
In conclusion: Some major aspects of your comedic analogy are quite misleading. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and your alternative version is a way to play the first under Rule B. Prospective players should also be notified of the Hi Ya! version that includes prime crime challenges (for either side) RS, OR and SYN and a stack of Polly cards for parroted phrases such as 'No there there', 'Stop thief' and 'Whadya mean it was stolen'. In the second phase of that version, a player can retire by calling 'I'll eat my hat' or 'I'll take my coat'. [37] Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Super Goku V: I hope you will have understood that the purpose of my attempt at outlining a Blame Game comedy above in response to you was to make a serious point about editing the article's content. While much has been asserted about then President Trump being impeachably responsible for the storming event, what he undeniably said to the crowd at the Ellipse rally, and what is public knowledge about what he said later, is at most equivocal and remains open to a finding of not guilty of incitng any malefactors who may seek for themselves some degree of exoneration or penalty relief by blaming him. Most law-abiding people (not only those having citizen status) dread the threat to life, limb, family, property and livelihood that usually mob rule entails. But a feature of what has been happening in connection with that day's storming, and more widely and generally for some time, has been using various ways of inciting mob-like attacks on individuals and groups, attempting to destroy their reputations and damage them and often their families. One of the things that Wikipedia needs is self-restraint to avoid becoming an accomplice as a result of undue reliance on deemed RS. Qexigator (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Qexigator: It all honestly, I didn't really feel like it was a serious comment and why I refrained from commenting. I have a bit of a hard time making light of anything that happened on January 6th, so that might be a roadblock for understanding your reply to me. I will say that I find it hard to believe someone can make a statement that is both undeniable and vague. Regardless, while some of the participants are blaming him, they are not reliable sources. It is what reliable sources say that matters.
Going back to your initial comment that trigger this discussion, you said that using "Call to action" was unacceptably tendentious. I want to point you in the direction of the FAQ created to deal with repeated issues at the 2020 US election talk page:

Q1: Why does the article call President Trump's statements about the integrity and legitimacy of the election "false"?

A1: Because reliable sources call his statements false. Though Trump often classifies these sources as "fake news", the consensus of other reliable non-news sources and Wikipedia editors is that they are reliable. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reflects these sources, which may not align with any one individual's statements on the matter. (See also WP:TRUTH)

I personally see the situation the same here as then. If reliable sources call his statements as a "Call to action" then we should do the same. If sources use another word or term, then we should use that instead. This discussion should be as simple as that. (At the very least, hopefully this gets us back on track.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that response. Given that the dreadful January 6 event happened as part of one day in a continuum stretching back for seven years and earlier[38] with an outlook from here that is none too bright, I can well understand that in the real world many feel its gravity and sensitivity to be more than allows for looking at an exercise in reasoning that my make believe Blame Game is designed to offer by way of caution about sources and article content. But in the real world, what are from time to time deemed RS as a criterion for factual information are not necessarily reliable in point of comment or interpretation. Nevertheless, the WP guidance operates as a useful inhibition on edits that rely on 'OR' and 'SYN'. The present case is one of those that may seem paradoxical. What has not yet happened will be a strong influence on accounting for what has happened. As I see it, this is one of an ongoing series of events that cannot be regarded as complete until the impeachment has concluded and some time is allowed for careful consideration, undeterred by whatever noise or clamour surrounds it, just as congressional security services and staff kept valiantly cool in the midst of it all. Given the standing of the U.S. in world affairs, this is not exclusively a concern for domestic politics. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC) link added 10:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

In view of above comments, and after looking for other wording that will make the least disturbance of the text following the first paragraph, I agree that reverting to 'summoned' would be acceptable, but only if 'had' is inserted giving the meaning that the rally on 5 January and the rally that he addressed at the Ellipse on 6 January, and the march to the Capitol, were of a piece with his summoning the crowd to Washington, but not the storming and violence that happened at the Capitol. So let the opening of paragraph 2 be reworded to read:

Summoned by Trump, thousands of his supporters had gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6...

Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposed rewording is consistent with your comment and covered by the article content. Qexigator (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose. Almost all WP:RS's have clearly stated that Trump incited the violence. There is sufficient evidence that the attack on the Capitol was planned. This is in addition to his extensive remarks at the rally. Further, he was impeached for his incitement of the attack. Please note that the article contains additional evidence. Two editors are not enough to change or establish a consensus. I will revert the edit and invite other editors to contribute to this discussion. Best, IP75 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Noted, but your comment is actually beside the point, as can be seen in the above discussion. The edit you have reverted is consistent with your comment and covered by the article content. Qexigator (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Your protest noted, but how does it make any sense given that, as can be seen in the above discussion, the reverted edit is consistent with the article's existing content, but improves its readability in fewer words, and will do even if the impeachers produce conclusive evidence in support of the impeachment and the Senate holds ex=president Trump guilty as charged? Qexigator (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Here is what he actually said [39]:
We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore... And we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them... So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

The crowd repeatedly chanted “Fight for Trump!” - “Thank you,” Trump said. And the people did storm the Capitol to get rid of them. So obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is typical Trump double talk. He either outright lies or does his "I didn't really say that routine." Gandydancer (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Trump summoned his supporters via the rally, and he used the term "fight like hell" in the middle of his rally speech. He undoubtedly riled up the crowd with that verbiage. But whether it was a generic, metaphorical "fight" for their cause via voting and civil protesting, or was he deliberately, intentionally telling the rally goers to specifically disobey police and invade the capital building to stop the congressional procedure with the "get rid of them...let's march..." comments will continue to be debated well after the impeachment trial, regardless of apparent RS consensus. RopeTricks (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I am in agreement with RopeTricks (see my latest reply to (Super Goku V above). This proposal is now obsolescent, but open to further comment, if any. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not obsolescent. You don't have and never had a consensus. You must revert your edit.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
What is your problem? I am not claiming consensus. I am not seeking to block any others adding support or oppose here, but I am entitled to be persuaded against the proposal by discussion here or what is happening in the real world. I am accepting that my proposal, to revert from 'Called to action' to 'Summoned', is, to my mind, no longer worth putting into effect, because it is becoming overtaken by the impeachment proceedings now being heard by the Senate. If the proposal were that 'Summoned', should replace 'Called to action' I might be neutral, depending on reasons others might give for the change Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fighting speech

While the impeachers rely on ex-president Trump's fighting speech at the Ellipse that ended before the storming event, it may turn out that he was there offending as a plagiarist. On the question (recurring here and elsewhere) about use of 'fight' in political oratory, there is a memorable occasion (by those old enough, like Trump, to have been about at the time) when Hugh Gaitskell, then leader of the British Labour Party, speaking at a party conference in 1960, said in an impassioned speech:

'There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness'.[40]

Gaitskell was opposing a left wing faction using a motion for unilateral nuclear disarmament. as a challenge to his leadership. His death aged 56 gave rise to a conspiracy theory involving a supposed Soviet plot that MI5 investigated for several years. Ex-President Trump is still alive and fit at the age of 74, but the comparison will have been obvious to the well-informed, and, we may surmise, within the knowledge of security services personnel, at least some members of Congress, and President Clinton and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Qexigator (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC) +10:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Storming

Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments14 people in discussion

I'm seeing some reactions to the word storming that it somehow it lacks colour, is vague and perhaps not suitable in this instance, or is attached to a specific meaning, which is writing. Examaning Storming is in the dictionary. From the etymology dictionary, it states "attack (a place) by scaling walls and forcing gates and has been in general use, since 1640. It is a perfectly suitable adjective to describe the situation here. I don't see a problem with it. It has been in use, in one form or another, since 1400, and has been in existence in its current form, at least 270 years before qanon came along. scope_creepTalk 13:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In my considered opinion, the above argument -- like all similar "it has an older meaning" arguments -- is invalid. The Swastika was in use by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains thousands of years before Hitler was born[41][42] but if you put it on an armband and go to a protest march you won't be sending a message of benign good luck. Likewise "stormer" and "storming" no longer stands for what they used to stand for. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
That's not just its older meaning, it's what it has always meant and means today. The most iconic usage is in the Storming of the Bastille, when an angry anti-government mob overran a government building. It was pretty violent too as several government officials were murdered and their heads placed on spikes. Can you find any example of the use of the term where it means anything else? TFD (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There's always The Daily Stormer and its idealogical ancestor Der Stürmer... Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Shearonink, I think the Fa would prefer to think of it as the storming of the Bastille, but you're closer. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The founder of the Der Stürmer said, "Since the paper will storm the red fortress, it shall be called the Stuermer."[43] TFD (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
An example from 1789 does not support the claim "it's what it has always meant and means today". Readers are expected to differentiate between someone using a Swastika in 1000 AD from someone using a Swastika in 2000 AD. They are expected to realize that a WWI reference to a "fag" is not the same as a 2021 reference to a "fag". And they are expected to realize that the use of "Stormer" and "Storming" by neo-nazis started after WWII and didn't become popular in the US until the 21st century. ("Stormtrooper", of course, goes back to the first Star Wars movie (smile)...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon, in the UK, "fag" is slang for cigarette. Yes, there has been confusion. No, it was not my fault. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems like a stretch to me to compare the co-opting of one meaning of a word by a few fringe groups to the appropriation of the swastika as a national symbol by a genocidal regime that killed millions. A more accurate comparison might be the appropriation of Pepe the Frog by alt-right groups, except that Pepe the Frog is probably more widely recognizable by the general public than the name Stormfront or QAnon's "the storm." Still, we don't let the sinister co-opting of Pepe the Frog have any effect on the naming of the Wikipedia articles on frogs or the admirable Frogmen.
Storm is one of those semi-rare English words of Germanic origin that has changed very little across all Germanic languages. It goes back a long, long way, to the proto-Germanic *sturmaz. Of course storming branched from the original meaning of storm as a violent weather phenomenon. It's a ripe word for metaphor-making, and the sense of a sudden burst of violence, whether a severe thunderstorm or a mob's uprising, all come from the original Germanic word. The sense of storming used in this article's title goes back in English at least to the 17th century. It's also true that the Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer and the far-right, violence-loving Stormfront ultimately trace the meaning of their names to metaphors made from comparisons of human violence to the violent natural phenomena of lightning and thunder.
And? Lots of words have branched off to have multiple meanings, have been appropriated and stigmatized by various groups, and so on. Why must that prevent us from using the most accurate word we can, even though forms of the word have more than one meaning to more than one group? It's probably worth noting that the German Wikipedia article on this topic starts with Sturm. If editors in the Sprachraum most acutely aware of the danger of far-right symbols and words can trust their readers to know that by using Sturm they are not giving credence or relevance or having anything at all to do with, say, Der Stürmer, then why can't we trust our readers to make the same types of distinctions? Some people will always read unrelated meaning or symbolism into everything (see also QAnon). We can't run around anticipating possible reactions to what we do. We can only decide on what's most accurate, NPOV, and precise for Wikipedia, and storming fits the bill. The word describes best what happened.
One more note: If editors here believe that we can't use storming because of its similarity to alt-right/QAnon imagery, I wish they would own that and be upfront about that being their rationale (some editors have done so, I acknowledge). I'd rather have a conversation about that if that's the real reason, than conversations about attack being the more accurate word or other distractions from what this is really about for them. Moncrief (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The opening words of the article immediately state that the storming was a riot and violent attack against the US Congress at the US Capitol. Those words directly, factually and succinctly inform the reader that the event named in the article's title as 'storming' involved rioting and was a violent attack against the Congress. No one so far has proposed a more serviceable wording. But every one of those words, like most in the English language, have a variety of meanings and usages, both at any one time and as changing, expanding or contracting over time. Today, one cannot count on it that most of the young people accepted for higher educational studies or as contributors to or editors of publications will have heard of such events as the Fall of the Bastille, but they should be adept with cell-phones or other digital devices to find out in a few seconds, even if they lack the extent of common knowledge which was not long ago widespread. For example here is an extract from an article in a back number of Virginia Law Review(p.535): 'Often some distinction between the forms of action is maintained, such as one between tort and contract; but where the forms of action have been most retained, there is some modification of the common law, particularly the abolition of the distinction between trespass and trespass on the case. [footnote 65: This is true even in Illinois, whose pleading and practice are not only derived from the common law system, but they are in fact that system, modified, however, by some legislation, which still leaves them the nearest approach to the English law of procedure, as it existed before the passage of the Judicature Acts, now remaining anywhere in the world. Some states provide merely for the joining of counts in trespass and case. The Illinois statute has been construed to permit simply of a choice between trespass and case; the chosen form must be followed]'[44] (See also Outline of the Law of Common Law Pleading, Marquett Law Review, 1920.[45]) Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Scope creep, agree, it seems like probably the most appropriate word for what happened. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't like "storming" specifically because the racist meaning is the meaning used used by those who did the "storming". I don't like "attack" because I don't think it is accurate . "Takeover" is slightly better, but did they really take over the entire building?
I also have an issue with "Capitol"; the word also refers to a city. In my opinion, our article United States Capitol should be United States Capitol Building.
After due consideration, my opinion is that this article should be called "2021 breach of the United States Capitol Building" or "2021 United States Capitol Building breach". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
"the word also refers to a city" – No, the word for the city is slightly different. The United States Capitol is in the United States Capital. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I also like breach, and prefer the first wording you mention, except I think "Building" is superfluous. The Capitol is not the capital. Moncrief (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If a mob/group of citizens/traitors/patriots/whatever attack a building, it is a storming. TFD (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to put this here randomly, because I'm not up for the main section on it, and I'm not totally sure how I feel yet about it. But what about assault: 2021 assault on the United States Capitol, or even NOYEARing it. Let's see how the 4 Feb RM plays out. It just strikes me that assault could be a compromise word and that it fits well, better IMO than "attack." It's not a top-three most used word in the media for the event, but I think it's been established that at this point, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't dictate that it must be. Moncrief (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
As soon as the most recent RM is closed, another one will pop up within 24 hours I bet. Honestly, the only way to proceed might be a discussion to determine if the article name is acceptable or not. If consensus is to change, then the only way to force a change might need to be with an RfC with more than one choice, barring storming as a choice. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I still personally think insurrection is the most accurate term SRD625 (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Breach isn't accurate. In this context, it is a military term and this wasn't a military action. If it was a military action, it would be ideal, "into the breach" but it is a civilian, entirely civilian action, so doesn't apply. When I was a child, I thought it meant into the breech of the cannon, of course in military terms, it means into the hole in the fortifications. In reality, it effectively means men into the breech, as you were likely shot full in the body with a cannon when you were charging, up a hill. So there is no effective difference. I don't think applies here. I don't think I have seen it mentioned anywhere in sources. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
scope_creep It's mentioned somewhat. Breach is the fifth most used descriptor after riot, insurrection, attack and siege. Breach is used more than storming :) /edit: a sampling of headlines/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. It seems more American newspapers than anything else are using the term. The top news outlet, AP News is using the term as well. Siege is used as well. I'm surprised at that. I suppose in a way it was a siege. I think the term, Storming must be more orientated towards European newspaper coverage. More and more I think we should wait until it dies down and a common term is accepted. scope_creepTalk 17:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Siege is super-awful. For accuracy investiture of the would be best, or investing of the, but "invest" is not a common term. Breach is a good attempt, but really only covers the forced entry to the building, not the occupation. Much the same is the only real issue with "storming", but the term seems to me to more easily stretch to cover more of the events. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

  • I contend that Storming is the best, most neutral-yet-accurate encyclopedic term available and we should stick with it. "Attack" is technically correct but not specific enough, "riot" is accurate but not specific enough, "Insurrection" is overly political, assumes too much, and likely recentism, "siege" is semi-accurate but too dramatic and has its own historical implications, "breach" or "breaching of the capital" is the most specific, but doesn't capture the scale of the event. "Storming" is accurate, succinct, and leaves enough room to convey the scale of the event, but a vocal minority of people seem to find fault with the connotation associated with it. RopeTricks (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on more recent information, storming will work better than breach. It now appears there were at least two forced entrances -- or breaches -- into the Capitol: at the main entrance on the West side, which has been the focus of most news attention (such as the video released by ITV News); a second to the north of it, where rioters broke windows & entered, forced the door open, & attempted to find Senators in their chamber (part of this is the familiar action of Officer Eugene Goodman distracting rioters away from the Senate chambers to where a group of his fellow officers were waiting). The second breach has been the focus of Rep. Plaskett's presentation in the impeachment trial. A more detailed picture of how the rioters entered the building & where they went is beginning to emerge -- although this information in itself may not be notable for inclusion. -- llywrch (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Add sentence or two about Wikipedia's coverage of the event?

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

The top of this Talk page has a small collection of sources about Wikipedia's coverage of this event. I'm biased because I am mentioned in a couple of the sources, but I'm curious if these 4-5 sources should be used to add a sentence or two about the development of the Wikipedia entry. Specifically, there are statistics about article length and the number of editors who worked on the page, and there's commentary on how editors struggled with the article title. Curious what editors think about adding here or to a related page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a short paragraph to Terminology used to refer to event about how Wikipedia and others tried to find the right word(s) for the event. A quick search brought up these additional sources: AP, NPR, Newsy, Poynter. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Chrisahn, the above editor (User:Another Believer) is talking specifically about sources that name Wikipedia in their reporting; I checked the AP source and they don't mention Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff, True, but I like User:Chrisahn's idea of mentioning Wikipedia in the "Terminology used to refer to event" section. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
In the absence of extensive media coverage specifically about WP's coverage, I am strongly opposed to any mention of this in the article. Our default should be to avoid navel gazing. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with VQuakr. No need to mention our coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
OK! I have a personal interest in how Wikipedia covers topics, but agree we don't want to get into navel gazing territory. Thanks for feedback, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article probably isn't relevant enough on its own, but the struggle of several media organizations (including Wikipedia) to find a name for the event may be worth mentioning in the Terminology section. Based on the sources about Wikipedia plus the sources I posted above, we could add a paragraph about it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Meh. I'd like to wait a year or two for some historical context before we start adding such meta content in general. And we are not, even remotely, anywhere close to the level of coverage that would warrant us mentioning WP's coverage in the article. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Chrisahn, we are not a media organization; we are a 501(c)(3) organization (encyclopedia in this case) that pulls information from published sources; don't get it twisted. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Whatever. Wikipedia has a lot in common with news media: we edit and publish text and other media. And in this case, we face a similar problem, i.e. choosing a name for an event. I simply chose the term "media organization" to refer to all of these entities. Nothing "twisted" about it. Cool down. This is juat a talk page. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense; the media are constantly publishing articles (headlines/titles included). Wikipedia has never created news/information. With that said, me saying don't get it twisted was inappropriate and I apologize for that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, no big deal. I wasn't quite happy with "media organization" either, but I couldn't think of a better term that includes both Wikipedia and news media. I wanted to use "content producers" first, but "media organization" seemed better. (Wikipedia is a "medium" in the generic sense of "a tool used to store and deliver information", but of course it's not a part of what's often called "the media".) — Chrisahn (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There are rarely reasons for Wikipedia to be meta. That’s what the Talk page is for. Trillfendi (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should only be mentioned if it becomes part of the story. Unless this article incited people to storm the Capitol, particularly if it provided information that was false or ignored in mainstream media, then it has no significance. TFD (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago103 comments60 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. I'm closing this as not moved, given the consensus here are opposing the move. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Based on the strength of most arguments, it is enough for me to make a decision. Regarding the moratorium, it should be in the separate discussion or RfC. (closed by non-admin page mover) MarioJump83! 01:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack – Now that the last RM has closed, and as discussed as a possibility before in a now archived discussion, I am opening a move request for the title 2021 United States Capitol attack. During the previous RM, there were lots of different potential names and phrases for this article suggested, with seemingly a consensus to move away from "Storming" but no exact consensus for a new title. However, I am starting a RM to this particular phrasing, using the term "attack", for several reasons;

  • The word attack has proven to be the word that has been disputed least with regard to describing the event. Alternatives such as "riot" imply a lack of coordination of the attack and as such might be less accurate. "Insurrection" is potentially appropriate, but this was voted down in a previous RM. "Storming", the current title, is technically accurate but has some potentially loaded political connotations, according to some editor opinions.
  • Various term searches and tallies have determined that there is no singular WP:COMMONNAME for this event, but maintain that "attack" is certainly ranked highly among the most commonly used terms in the media. A reminder that a "common name" may be just one of several "common names", such as there seem to be for this event.
  • In the consensus table of suggestions for the previous RM, editors could voice support or dissent for various names. Of these, "attack" received the highest amount of support from editors, and one of the highest ratios of support to opposition. This alone makes it the most likely follow-on RM candidate.
  • There was some debate over the inclusion of the year in the naming. Some people feel that the use of the year is unnecessary as the event was fairly unique. However, I will continue the argument I made in the now archived draft RM:

There have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE.

  • Edit: Furthermore, I think that the phrasing "2021 United States Capitol attack" is both fairly concise and also contains a natural phrasing of a description of the event.

In conclusion, the "attack" name including the year would seem to be the title that thus far has had the most support, is clear and unambiguous as possible, and would seem to be preferable over the current page title.

If you wish to suggest alternatives, please be aware that many such alternatives were extensively discussed during the previous RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: @Alalch Emis: pointed out to me that per WP:CANVASS it is permitted and may be beneficial to inform editors who participated in the previous RM of this new one. As such, I am sending a ping to those who contributed in that previous discussion, based on an extracted list Emis provided me. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC) @LordPeterII, Lukan27, MaGioZal, Malcolm L. Mitchell, MelanieN, Most Humble and Obedient Servant, Ohconfucius, Plumber, Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, Psychloppos, Qexigator, QuercusOak, Ramaksoud2000, Red Slash, Ribbet32, Robertiki, Scope creep, Seven Pandas, Shearonink, Slatersteven, Soibangla, Somedifferentstuff, StAnselm, Super Dromaeosaurus, Swordman97, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Tataral, The Fiddly Leprechaun, The Four Deuces, Trillfendi, Tsavage, Vowvo, VQuakr, Wingedserif, Wollers14, WWGB, XOR'easter, Yallahalla, and Z22:

If you have been pinged and do not wish to contribute to this new RM, simply ignore the ping. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit 2: @웬디러비, 5440orSleep, 777burger, A'kwell, Amakuru, Anachronist, Antonio Basto, Bear6811Wiki, Beland, Ben8142, Berchanhimez, Bodney, BusterD, Calthinus, Casprings, Chrisahn, Coin, Crouch, Swale, Czello, Darryl Kerrigan, Des Vallee, Dlthewave, DolyaIskrina, Dswitz10734, Dylanvt, EDG 543, Ekpyros, El C, Elijahandskip, EnPassant, Featous, Gam3, Goszei, Gouncbeatduke, GreenMeansGo, Guy Macon, Haha169, Hansen Sebastian, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, IHateAccounts, IP75, Jared.h.wood, Jayron32, Jmill1806, K.e.coffman, Kizor, Kyyl0, LegendoftheGoldenAges85, and Liz: Repinging some users as one of the previous ping requests may have been malformed. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  • User:BlackholeWA - I do not believe the previous close was correct, and I think a consensus may exist in that discussion for attack, so I'll please ask you to withdraw this until the closer has a chance to reconsider/reopen, and/or it is finalized on move review. These RMs that occur within hours of another one closing are not useful or helpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • If that close is successfully disputed and the old RM reopened then this will of course be procedurally closed, although I think at this point it might be better to start over with the attack title, as the previous RM became such a convoluted mess by the end it is difficult to ascertain what consensus if any could be drawn from it. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      User:BlackholeWA: I agree that "starting over" with the attack title is the best next step if that close stands and after people have time to recollect their thoughts. Part of the reason the last one was such a convoluted mess is because no time is being taken in between these RMs to discuss on this page. All I am asking is that you wait a day or two at least (and if it ends up at move review, wait until the conclusion of that process) before opening yet another RM. At this point, since the event, there have been maybe a couple dozen hours where a move wasn't being discussed, as compared to weeks where it was - a little more time in between won't hurt, and will likely actually help - regardless of the challenge of the closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      If anything the protracted process of that RM is what enables starting another one fairly rapidly; there was already discussion on what a follow-up RM should look like, although I fear that some of that discussion would/will get lost of not acted upon swiftly with another RM. I'm not sure what giving downtime following the RM closing would specifically achieve, as this "follow-on" RM was already discussed during the last RM, and as other discussion of the new name would mostly take place in the context of an RM anyway.
      Personally, I feel like that, as a RM closure is a closure until successfully disputed, and to ensure that discussion remains directed regardless, this RM should stay up so long as the previous RM is not actually re-opened. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that that disputing a decision doesn't delay the onset of procedural effects, such as the permissibility of starting a new RM in this context. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Two questions: 1. Is there a time limit for !voting in this RM? 2. Given that "Storming", the current title, is technically accurate what amounts to potentially loaded political connotations? Qexigator (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
One appeal to the above editor: In the spirit of WP:BOTTOMPOST, I appeal to you not to interpolate your posts in an authentically chronological discussion, on top of your disputants' posts (very convenient, I know) in order to give yourself a pulpit. This is not a conversation between you and the starter of the RM, but a flowing and formatted discussion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The proper place for preliminary questions addressed to the opener is before the !voting. It is no part of a 'flowing and formatted discussion' as you seem to imagine. Qexigator (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
1. Firstly, I'm not sure that as the RM instigator I would even have the power to set any time limits. Although, of course, as with all RMs, it may be closed after a week if there is no further discussion or if consensus is reached. 2. I was mostly thinking of sentiments along the lines of those of @Liz: in the previous RM: "Riot is better than Storming. In the wake of the riot, I've read a lot of pro-Trump media sites & social media posts and they describe what the rally attendees were going to do after the rally as "Storming the Capitol". I don't think Wikipedia should use the language of the rioters to define what happened. "Storming" is also seen as heroic and I don't think that image is appropriate considering the destruction and loss of life that occurred on that day." Now, I think that whether storming does violate NPOV in this way is potentially debatable - a lot of editors in the previous RM liked it. However, even beyond the NPOV issue, many other editors felt it didn't fully encompass the event (not everybody "stormed" the building, the building was not fully "stormed", the attack had other aspects such as the attempted bombings), and overall in the previous RM "storming" did fairly poorly across the table polling, hence this RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (requested move 4 February 2021)

  • Support proposed title has previously garnered consensus in previous RM discussions. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's natural that there is consensus to move away from "storming". A number of people so far have given arguments in defense of this provisional name ("stopgap measure" in the words of the closing admin back then), including "that's what happened", and "it's the most neutral title" which have not proven resistant to critique. An interesting detail: even the starter of the RM to "storming" advocated for another subsequent proposal. It was proven that "storming" as a descriptor (noun, gerund) has relatively little support in reliable sources. "Attack" is an adequate descriptor because it is essentially accurate and captures the scope of the subject of the article. "Attack" is unspecific but it not terribly imprecise as it's hard to put the events in the Capitol, outside the Capitol and the planting of pipe bombs under one umbrella, while also including the goals of the insurrectionists. The proposed title is well supported by reliable sources, and there is no indication that it would be considered controversial. I have so far advocated for "insurrection", and I still do; the proposed title is the only other good option. Changing the name of the article will make this article better, and will improve coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the best alternative, as it accurately and objectively describes the actions that took place. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Storming, a type of attack, is a more precise description of what occurred. In addition to its broad dictionary definition, attack has a strong modern connotation of a tightly coordinated and targeted offensive, usually with the goal of murdering as many people as possible in an indiscriminate way. See [46] for a group of Wikipedia's "lists of attacks." The events of January 6th wouldn't fit neatly into any of these lists, as far as I can tell. January 6th was a specific sort of attack in the dictionary sense: a storming or a breach. This article describes the full events of the afternoon that followed Trump's speech, and the semi-inchoate intentions of many of the law-breakers. Wikipedia is about precision, and storming seems to me a more precise and accurate word than attack. I would certainly reconsider if a clear common name develops in the media and through public usage, but that hasn't happened yet, and thus I don't see the need to change the title to "attack" at this time. If we do change to attack, then 2021 attack on the United States Capitol seems to me a more accurate phrasing than the proposed title. The proposed RM title, as phrased, sounds more like a singular, internal attack, such as a bomb going off. Moncrief (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let me redirect you to the previous RM discussion, specifically to a table that Goszei contributed. While a title mentioning "attack" has a fair amount of search results and title matches in WP:RS, a title mentioning "riot" is much more common. With that said, I don't think a title mentioning "attack" would be considered a WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Love of Corey (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    There is clearly no one COMMONNAME for this event, as multiple terms are used. I believe that attack better fits with Wikipedia policy, and also the previous RM to move to riot failed to achieve consensus for that title. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
But one would think the most commonly used term to refer to this event in WP:RS would be the closest thing one would get to a COMMONNAME such as this. Love of Corey (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Goszei's research is bad (sorry Goszei, hope you don't mind; maybe you even agree). A much more valid and comprehensive research to which multiple people contributed, and which was seriously scrutinized and debated is below. Please don't rely on earlier attempts to demonstrate a common name. Edit: as of Feb. 4: attack 300 results, riot 365 results, storming 90 results, so "riot" is only a little more prevalent than "attack" ~~ in more current articles, published in the last two weeks (Google News): attack 169, riot 172, storming 46 — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A table of google search results are not really all that helpful for determining a title. Google does not "read and comprehend" any of the articles on Wikipedia (despite their claims to using AI in their search engine), they just simply cache them then rank the results based on how many web sites backlink to a particular URL page. This is a far cry from an intelligent human being reading the content of an article and deciding on a title based on the content. What this means is that any results are skewed by how many other websites link to the page or search term. Wikipedia is not an automated web caching system like google. So using research of google search results and frequency means that we are relying on Google's ranking engine to determine an appropriate title. This is not a good method for picking a relevant title. There is no substitute to a human editor reviewing article content and proposing a title accordingly. Any reliance on google or another search engine is fatally flawed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice that other table. My bad. Love of Corey (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
For the very same reason I did not rely on such research when I started an RM a little while ago, but people just want something quantitative, and default to rudimentary searches that give off random numbers (guesses of results) that don't mean absolutely anything. What is provided in that research is much better than earlier attempts to use Google, but naturally, it's not a method of picking a title in itself. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Amended regarding the year: I do want to add that under WP:NOYEAR, The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur ... or murder or death articles that can only happen once ... Given that the Capitol has been looted and burned in 1814, been the site of two shootings in 1954 and 1998, been bombed in 1983, and had the events of January 6th occur, it is sadly hard to say that future incidents at the Capitol are unlikely to recur. Thus, I support including the year in this RM and any future RMs, if needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Note: If the argument being made is that the name would not be consistent as this event was not terrorism, a RfC at the head of this page found that this attack *should* be characterized as terrorism. With regards to the specifics of the event, bombs were of course found on premises, although they were not detonated. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest a 6 month moratorium on RMs here. This title is neutral and accurate so there's no pressing need to change it, and the next discussiuon is likely to be based on the consensus on yet-to-be-published books and scholarly journals, which should be easier to discern. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A riot is what RS call it a riot is what it was, lets not white wash what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm fairly in agreement with Guy here. I think we should hold off for at least 6 months to a year, until some decent academic research has been published. It is worth pointing out it was not a riot. It if was a riot, they would have stood out in the square, went mad and smashed all the building in every direction, cars, lampposts, signs, windows, everything. I've been in a riot and it wasn't that. For the 2nd time, this was a directed coordinated attack and word storming is an accurate reflection of what happened. Please leave it for the moment, until the experts do their work. scope_creepTalk 14:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy close, 1-year moratorium This is getting out of hand. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose speedy close. This is an important thing to consider and merits attention. The 1 year moratorium proposal especially is excessive and stifling. No, no way.--Calthinus (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Moncrief. Storming is a type of attack. It's used in a number of articles, such as the iconic Storming of the Bastille. It implies an action by a large number of angry citizens. Attack on its own could include an action by a small number of terrorists such as the September 11 attacks, which incidentally included the Capitol as an intended target. TFD (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. A long RM just concluded, and the current title is the best one. WP:DROPTHESTICK already.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Storming is an appropriate description and there is no convincing argument to change it. Polyamorph (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME status of this article is any more clear than the last RM. I think there's WP:NORUSH with this name change, and it would be better to wait for higher quality sources to arrive and for public consensus to also settle. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose again? How is "attack" better than "storming" in not sounding like a loaded term? I still don't know what is exactly wrong with the word "storming". It seems the most accurate and neutral term possible to me. Support 6-months/1-year moratorium and speedy close. Super Ψ Dro 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 2021 attack on the United States Capitol would be better phrasing; "Capitol attack" makes it unclear if the Capitol is doing the attacking or being attacked. I agree that there are multiple common names including both "storming" and "attack". I think the statistics which determine which common name is the most common are somewhat unreliable, and not the best way to pick a title. I prefer storming because it is more precise while remaining accurate. I don't see any political loading in the definition of the word, which is describing a physical military tactic. Perhaps the bias people perceive in the use of neutral terminology is bleeding over from the severe bias present in the political goals of the participants, which tends to produce polarizing reactions and paranoia that other people are trying to minimize or maximize some aspect of the event. -- Beland (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm equally at home with the current title and the "attack" title. I'd also be fine with a moratorium after the conclusion of this discussion. It is beginning to feel like the death of 1000 cuts with all of the debates over this. I'd object to terms like "riot" or "insurrection" which, from my perspective, carry too much baggage. --Jayron32 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Attack sounds like the best summary of events to me, as it encapsulates the notion of a planned, forced entry that happened. Riot suggests a general uncoordinated tumult, while storming suggests a coincidental result without prior planning. Insurrection on the other hand suggests a large-scale engagement bordering on a full-scale revolution, which isn't warranted as the event was quite localized in scope.
However, I understand the concerns that these discussions are too many in a row - I would not mind if we'd postpone the final decision by a few months, until the dust has settled, the prosecution ended and reliable sources might have decided on a more definite term. That does not mean I think the current title is best - no discussion has decided that, and there is no consensus on "storming". It was simply the better alternative to "protests" at the time. Eventually, we will need a proper discussion of the title; but maybe not right now. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support but I prefer 2021 attacks on the United States Capitol. These seem to be a series of attacks, most notably the placing of the pipe bombs the night before and then culminating with the riots and storming of the Capitol.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I also Oppose any moratorium. The title should be allowed to gradually change/improve. There was no overwhelming support for storming when the article was originally renamed (just consensus that it was better than "protests"). In the last move discussion there was more support for "attack" or "riot" than "storming". We shouldn't freeze the title in place when there was never any consensus for it in the first place.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as an imperfect option, but the best alternative to the current title. Strongly oppose any moratorium due to the numerous problems with "storming" indicated in multiple move requests. I would like to remind editors of the closing comments in the initial RM: "This is a stopgap measure, and is not meant to be a permanent solution." StAnselm (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as an improvement as decribed by the nominator. I will continue to support improved titles in upcoming RMs per WP:PERFECTION. To those frustrated with contiguous formal Move Requests, please relax and join the discussion instead of complaining. Refining the title through non-consensus producing attempts gives the same result as waiting another week. If this RM does not produce consensus, let it be known that my favorite title is United States Capitol riot and attack on Congress. See you in a week or so. JaredHWood💬 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, that should split the ! vote. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I was pinged to this RM and tired, anyway, I withdraw and I apologize for the sentence. --Robertiki (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Briefly stepping in direct attention to some of the interesting press that (uniquely!) this series of RMs has generated in third-party media, that was pointed out below. I wanted to include an explicit link to this article, which actually collates some interesting rationale as to why the term "storming" may not be ideal. Not that 3rd party news sources would dictate the course of this discussion, nor is this an appeal to authority, but I figure that the arguments made are just as relevant and valid as those being presented by other editors here. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I don't agree with the line of reasoning (to quote the article you linked) that "...storming had other problems: 'Given Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, not to mention QAnon’s repeated use of ‘storm,’ I really don’t think it’s a neutral choice.” We don't make our decisions based on how other people might interpret our choices. We make decisions based on our own guidelines and what's most accurate and precise for the information we convey. I would no more insist that someone remove the word "niggardly" from an article solely because of its coincidental similarity to an offensive word than I would insist that this article be named so that some deluded QAnoners won't possibly relish that the word "storm" appears within the title, if you take out the -ing. Words have multiple meanings, and this sense of the noun storming is not the same as the sense of the word storm as a weather phenomenon, interpreted metaphorically. In the quest to find the best and most precise title, we don't need to bow to any kind of external pressure, real or imagined. Words not only have multiple meanings, but they are co-opted and re-imagined by various fringe groups. That is not within the scope of Wikipedia to monitor or control. Moncrief (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree we need not let this influence the discussion - but I am quite fascinated that this "behind the scenes stuff" has resulted in a news story. An interesting read, thanks BlackholeWA! --LordPeterII (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Attack is not a good word to use in the same way storming - this is not a military attack or something similar by a coordinated force. Also oppose close - the calls for closing this is unfounded and clearly this is a controversial topic, shutting down discussion of this is not a good idea. At least wait until there is some kind of consensus here.
  • Oppose - Generally in favor of improving the title, but 'attack' is a step in the wrong direction. I find the above-mentioned opposition to 'riot' confusing as it almost sounds like we're trying to imply it was more coordinated than it was. Would support a close, with the recommendation that we maybe give it some time so that a common name can arrise more organically, when tempers have better settled. Thadeuss (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. This matter has been discussed several times recently. I don't agree there's a particular problem with storming. When I listen to NPR or watch PBS, they seem to use "storming" in the lead or when asking questions of interviewees. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support ---- [47] [48] ---- and storming will never stick which is why we keep having these naming discussions. There are 2 reasons for this; the term storming is generally understood in reference to a successful outcome, such as the Storming of the Bastille. The other usage refers to military, such as the Normandy landings which have been described as a storming [49] ---- What took place at the U.S. Capitol was neither successful nor did it involve the military. Also, I don't see the point of trying to shut down discussion; posting on this talk page is one way of forming consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: In the WaPo article you've linked, storming is in the first sentence. Never mind either way; we can all find media evidence for our favored terms. As for this storming necessarily being "successful," this event qualifies as a completed storming, even if the stormers didn't get the final political result they wanted. Similar to the Storming of Kempton Park World Trade Centre, with which January 6th has many similarities, the storming itself (the mass invasion into, and breach of, the building) was completed, even if the desired political outcome of the stormers was not achieved. In the more recent Storming of the Legislative Council Complex, the stormers did achieve their short-term political goal, but their long-term goal has not been achieved. I hope these examples show that stormings can qualify as "successful" (in the sense of a complete storming) due to the simple fact of the breach itself. Moncrief (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The storming wasn't completed because only one of two chambers were breached, and in the Senate chamber there weren't many people, and they didn't do anything noteworthy (browsing through papers, taking selfies, talking to the police...). Calling it a storming makes the attempt seem much more energetic and efficient than it was. Storming of the Legislative Council Complex was an incredibly energetic effort, and things of great consequence happened in the chamber which was filled with hundreds of activists. And then - what about the attempted bombing and other things which fall outside of "storming"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The primary intent of the incident was not to attack (damage) the Capitol, but to storm the building in an attempt to thwart the Electoral College vote count. For this reason, I prefer "storm" over "attack". WWGB (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What we focus here is Trump supporters who "invade" Capitol Hall while Senator "counts the result of US election". Attack cannot cover exactly what people did there on January 2021. -- Wendylove (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I truly think that the name of the article has stuck and doesn't need to be changed. It's clear, it works and it describes the incident correctly as a storming. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Storm" is more precise in describing what happened. However, I'm telling you, "breach" is the way to go. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:NPV. This was not a Storming of the Bastille and we shouldn't use a term that QAnon might see a connection to. Also, clearly used more then storming.Casprings (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and Oppose any moratorium. "Attack" is descriptive without being too specific and is prominent in reliable sources. Editors might not be fully aware, but "storm" is a term used by QAnon adherents to describe a final battle against the "satanic deep state cabal". Intelligencer mentioned this back in 2017 and The New Yorker has an explanation of why it's wise to avoid using it in the context of Jan. 6. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and Oppose any moratorium because storm should not be used for the reasons stated by others. Laguna CA (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose After re-reading the 23 Jan RM, I was impressed by the remark at 23:54, 23 January that 'the current title is more descriptive of what is the most well-known facet of the attack'. The event described began with the breach of the barriers around the Capitol perimeter (mentioned on p.22 of the impeachment)[50] at about 1 p.m. on 6 January - followed a little later by forcible entry into the building and continued with some hundreds of the trespassers acting in a riotously violent and threatening manner inside, while others were clambering up the walls - and ended when all had left or been ejected from the building and order was restored for the Congressional business of the day to resume at about 8 p.m. and finish at about 3.30 a.m.next day.
To encapsulate that event, nothing better than 'storming' has been forthcoming. The article also describes the Background leading to the event, attempts to ascertain the extent of pre-planning, and includes something about the aftermath. The closer of the RM of 6 January 2021 (referenced and linked at the top of this page) said 'We say what sources say, and for the moment they seem to say "storming". This is a stopgap measure, and is not meant to be a permanent solution.' The closer of the RM of 23 January said 'There is not exactly broad satisfaction with "storming" per se, as it is not a particularly common word, but no other alternative received broad support in this discussion.' Those were and continue to be good reasons for leaving the article name unchanged, and not using instead 'riot' or 'attack'. In the RM of 23 January, I indicated that in my view the remarks at 18:33, 2 February[51] were persuasive, weighty and convincing. Further, given that sometimes there is an undue preoccupation with number counting and listing, it is noticeable that 'attack' - unlike the more specific 'storming' (noun) - is widely used for any kind of non-violent attack such as 'every single court to consider the President’s attacks on the outcome of the election rejected them.'[52] (p.2), 'President Trump’s attacks on Raffensperger ...were so concerning that Gabriel Sterling,,. publicly warned...' (p.9), 'Following President Trump’s attacks on Michigan’s election process...' (p.15), 'after President Trump’s attacks on the election in Arizona' (p.15), 'Pelosi attacks Trump after acquittal',[53] 'The attacks on Pelosi are particularly ironic' (6 Sept 2018),[54] 'in an unannounced attack on the UK, US Democrat Nancy Pelosi launched an attack on UK drug standards'[55], and countless other instances in many different contexts occur in public and private discourse all the time.
Moreover, I rely on my remarks in the section 'Wording in trial documents' (now archived)[56], particularly '...the main point for the purposes of a decision about retaining 'storming' in the name storming of the United States Capitol is that it shows that when a word is needed for expressing the concept of the entire event that happened at the Capitol that day, then, even in the context of that document, the word chosen is 'storming' p.23 (stormed p.1, p.23, p.47, to storm p.16, p.47), The other words fail in that respect, no matter how many times they are repeated and counted.' We may assume that congressional lawmakers - many of whom are not only experienced politicians but also legally qualified, and some of whom have practised as prosecuting attorneys - are shrewd enough to know what words will be serviceable for the occasion. Some may even seriously and sincerely believe Trump was inciting insurrection, without producing any evidence to that effect. But, for other reasons (12:10, 1 February, three protests at Capitol),[57] I would support 'protest' instead of 'storming', and would support an article that was named 'Protests at the US Capital, January 2021' which is less likely than a snowstorm in a tropical forest fire, but sooner or later that may be the theme and title of a scholarly aricle or book. (prove me wrong). fwiw Qexigator (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC) revised 00:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
More fwiw. While the "Trial Memorandum" lodged by HoR in the impeachment proceedings[58] cannot be used as a secondary RS, its contents (including sources in its footnotes) can to some extent be used in fact checking the sequence of events and some details. Qexigator (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "Storming" is an editorial characterization, colorful and vague. "Attack" is the most common term, neutral and unambiguous. It is factual that the Capitol Building was attacked: a hostile crowd massed around it, advanced towards it, forcefully overcame law enforcement resistance, and illegally entered it. Was it "stormed"? That's a matter of opinion. Part of that attack involved an approach to the building that could be characterized as storming, but it doesn't represent the whole event. Also, oppose a call for a moratorium on title change -- if discussion reaches a consensus decision, that decision should be promptly implemented, that's the process. --Tsavage (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The Capitol Building event comprised an attack on police, an attack on the physical building, and an attack on the federal government, Congressional proceedings and the rule of law. "Storming" doesn't cover it. Why storming and not "occupation (of the Capitol Building)" -- that also dramatically captures the event? Until sources support a particular popular name, we should use a neutral, easily understood, and comprehensive descriptor, such as "attack". --Tsavage (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was a riot that resulted in the storming of a government building, let's not try to whitewash what happened and let's stick to WP:NPOV, ok? Calling it an "attack" over a "storming" makes it MORE vague and can be misleading to a global audience of readers, considering the building was, well, stormed by a mob, not attacked by a missile. "Attack" implies overrunning the police line was more coordinated and less spontaneous than it really was. RopeTricks (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose less descriptive and more confusing. 777burger user talk contribs 03:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Attack" is not descriptive of the incident. Storming is a more accurate depiction. YallAHallatalk 07:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Every storming is an attack (subset/superset). From the definitions I read, storming is an "attack on a defended location (or position)". Which I consider the US Capitol to be. Thus, both terms fit the subject (unlike riot or protest), storming being more precise than attack. Which favors the former. Bert Macklin (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. “Attack” is a NPOV word and “storming” is not. “Storming” is a word used to romanticize the fight of good over evil, like “storming the beaches of Normandy” or "Storming the walls! Assassin's Creed Valhalla". “Storming” is the word most used on Q-anon web sites and Fox News, “Attack” is the word used by NPOV news sources. As Wikipedia is almost always editor voted spin from Fox News, and almost never NPOV, I doubt you can get it changed.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The newsworthy event was the breach, not the bombs or other behavior of the crowd. The breach stopped the count, the goal. The push forward began when news reached the crowd that Vice President Pence had not unilaterally rejected electors. Some pockets of coordination, but attack implies coordination among all participants, usually a small number, as shown by User:Super Goku V. Storming captures the nature of the assault, precisely pre-planned and coordinated by some, but impossible to execute those plans without simultaneous mob action, and both must be represented in the title. We must also be consistent. A RfM for this should not move forward without also examining 2017 storming of Macedonian Parliament. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 16:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Simply noting that I personally agree with this argument by Ramaksoud2000 the most thus far. This sums up my views on this issue pretty well. RopeTricks (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Attack is the most appropriate and NPOV word to describe the facts, has been all along. As others have said, storming is a word used to romanticize, consciously or not, what happened. I see the events as similar to what happened in 2017 in Venezuela - and we don't try to use euphemisms like storming to describe similar events when they happened in non-demcratic countries. Beisbol (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and Oppose any moratorium - While less specific (And I believe less accurate) than previously suggested terms, characterizing it as an Attack is at least more accurate than Storming, and does not break NPOV given that the perpetrators heavily identify with "The Storm." Would support renaming this as an Attack while further consensus is reached. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I was a strong oppose to the last RM and I'm a strong oppose to this one, for the same reasons--which I'll not cut and paste here, just include by reference. I thought "storm" was the single best word, and I still do. I will add, though, as I read over many of the comments, there is a sincere divide between those who feel the word "storming" is in some sense heroic and those who feel it is completely neutrally descriptive with no positive overtone. I'm in the latter camp. I don't feel like storming is heroic; I do feel like storming correctly captures the overflowing emotional aspect. I get that there was *some* planning to the event, but it seems to me to have been planned by only a few and spontanously joined in by many more, almost in some sort of hybrid event. A lot of the people involved in the storming describe getting carried away in the moment. In addition to "storming" being more specifically accurate than the generic "attack," I think attack connotes a higher degree of planning and does not connote the emotional tenor of the event the way that "storming" does. But as I say, I acknowledge that this is a sincere difference among folks about the connotation rather than denotation of the words involved. I suppose since we're all marshalling authorities, I'll add that my Apple Dictionary defines the verb "storming" as "[with object] suddenly attack and capture (a building or other place) by means of force." With direct speech, the verb means "shout (something) angrily; rage." Obviously, the first of these accurately describes what happened, and I cite the second for the sake of highlighting a connotation with rage, which was certainly obvious during the event itself as well as the preceding rallies and riots. Engelhardt (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal is not very descriptive and worse than the current. Not sure what the problem with "storming" is. People keep saying it is "romantic", but I am not sure where they're getting that impression from. "Storming" could be interchangeable with "assault", but not with "attack". Walrasiad (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Storming is fine, I think it does not need to change, but attack is also sufficient. Comment, to address what Walrasiad said: I think the romanticizing narrative comes from other events like the storming of the Bastille, and that people feel 'storming' gives the event an air of significance they feel it does not deserve. There is validity to that point, in that perhaps five years from now, labeling it as a storming may continue to embolden those people who still describe their actions as patriotic. Recall that supporters described this day as a crossing of the Rubicon far before the events of 1/6, ostensibly to support democracy, without noting that the crossing of the Rubicon symbolizes the end of the Roman Republic and democracy itself. Likewise the storming of the Bastille may have been a short victory of anger against elites, but it also set in motion the Reign of Terror. Regardless of that perspective, though, we must be as neutral as possible in this name decision, and also to note the parallels being made. There was a proposal in the last RM that we set a one-month moratorium on further discussions of this one, I think that was a good idea too -- IMHO this is too hot and fresh for cooler heads to prevail and the conversation will languish for time to come. 2603:8000:D900:87C7:40C0:3016:1687:A784 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it doesn't seem like there's a clear direction either way from reliable sources, which use both words. I feel "storming" is far closer to describing the events of that day than "attack". Benicio2020 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with what others have said, storming is fine but attack is a more accurate description of what happened and more widely reported. It seems as though we are heading for another proposal that is no going to have any consensus and I would caution against immediately opening another proposal regarding a name change. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - First, I would like to state that the previous RM was disrupted by the addition of several sections of tables, charts and off-topic discussions about them.This distracted from the actual discussion of titles and resulted in a compromised RM. I was also not happy about the initiation of the previous RM, and the initiation of this RM which immediately followed the closure. This is not beneficial to the article or WP and editors, including myself, are tired of the constant move discussions. That stated, here we are, and it is obvious that the !votes and discussion here reflect the fatigue. I have taken several days away from this topic and now feel it is time to address this RM.
  • 1. 'Attack' and 'Riot' are the two most commonly used names to describe the events of January 6, a requirement of WP:Common Name. (Note: 'Insurrection' and 'Storming' are a distant third and fourth.)
  • 2. The closer of the 'storming' RM stated that they felt 'storming' was a temporary title that was a needed move from 'protest' as the events unfolded.
  • The closer of the last 'riot' RM noted that 'Attack' was frequently suggested as a title. It was shown to have the most support and the least opposition. Many editors opposed 'riot' because they did not feel that it conveyed the planning/incitement of the attack. Other editors felt that a stronger name, 'insurrection', was appropriate. I posted an AP article in the 'insurretion' RM that stated that journalists were struggling with the term and it was one of the most frequently searched words on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. (WP editors were also searching the definition) It will continue to be used in regards to Trump's impeachment because it is a legal and political term from the Insurrection act of 1807. The best way to whitewash this event is to use a word that is not commonly recognizable to the average reader. 'Attack' is a compromise that I hope will achieve consensus.
  • 3. I recently increased the importance level of two related articles stating, "The attack on the Capitol was an unprecedented historical event. The executive branch planning and inciting an attack on the legislative branch with the intent of preventing the electoral certification of the president-elect." I'm tired, but not so tired that I will settle for a title that does not accurately represent the events of January 6. Attack is the only term that meets all the elements of WP:Article Titles: common name, recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Best, IP75 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I personally do not prefer "attack" to "riot", as I'll go into below, but it's a weak oppose for "attack", support "riot", and oppose the current title of "storming" as it has too many connotations (both possibly positive and negative) to be NPOV, but it's still better than attack I guess. I'll go into my reasoning. WP:COMMONNAME, while not binding to any pure numerical count, suggests that if a common name can be found in English language RS, it should be chosen. There has been a clear trend towards RS calling it by the term "riot", but to help, as of today, searching "january 6" on Google News, the following sources appear: CNN speech transcript, NPR timeline from 3 weeks ago ("attack" once, then primarily "riot"), PBS interview, USA today (only "riot"), Independent (UK) ("riot" and "violence" once each), The Atlantic ("riot" once, "violence" once), and more that tend this same way. I didn't include counts for the PBS interview due to the fact it is an interview, making the word count in it not useful to this debate. My point is that if reliable sources are consulted, then "riot" is clearly the common name. I am even more convinced of this after the last RM and the analysis that was presented by multiple editors. "Riot" is clearly the common name and is likely to remain so as it is still trending towards greater usage, not the other way around. I also support any closure of this as no consensus with a moratorium on future moves - it is clear that there are still too many personal opinions being used to justify opposition for certain titles in this RM - with one even accusing the people supporting "attack" to be "whitewashing" the title. Perhaps a 3-6 month moratorium on even discussing moves, even if it's not at the "perfect" title, will assist in not having these RMs that are way too complex to close as anything other than no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Riot is more common than Storming .But Storming is better and "Attack" is not descriptive of the incident.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Attack/riot are too vague. The advantage of storming is that it clearly differentiates this article from pages about attacks and riots, reflecting that this event was, in fact, of a different kind. Gershonmk (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The use of the word 'storming' is more generalized and natural versus 'attack' as the intent of the riots is not directly clear. The word attack creates a negative connotation against the Capitol itself and dramatizes the events too specifically.Linphil (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment First off, is comment a typically used option in RMs, or is it not? Otherwise, I support, but I’m quite certain this will be Snow Closed. Also, am I using bold right? 4D4850 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Because when you google the january 6th capitol event, most news organizations use the term “attack”, and none of them use the term storming Camdoodlebop (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've voted above (oppose), but want to throw out there a compromise possibility for the future: 2021 assault on the United States Capitol. To me, the only issue with that title (others will likely bring up issues I haven't considered) is that it's not a word most frequently used by media so far. However, since the media is still using a wide basket of words to describe the event, we obviously don't have a clear common name yet. As a compromise word that hasn't yet been rejected, assault would encompass what occurred without the "single blast" connotation of attack. My original research belief is that, in a year from now, perhaps more, this event will have a common name with its date rather than its year -- maybe something like January 6th insurrection -- but obviously we're a long way from an established common name now. As a stopgap descriptor until then, I like storming, but if a consensus arises for the need for a compromise word to reassure anti-"storming" editors, I propose assault. Moncrief (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've thought about this for a few days, vacillating between neutral and opposing. At risk of oversimplifying many editors' well-crafted comments, it seems to me that "attack" is mostly viewed as a palatable option by editors in light of its NPOV character and general usage in the media. But I am unconvinced that these suffice to make "attack" a better choice under WP:CRITERIA. If you look at the redirect view data on Toolforge, you can see what people are actually searching for and linking to. "Attack" has a poor showing in that data — the first entry for it is in 21st place, with multiple variations of "storming", "protest", "riot", and "insurrection" above it. "Attack on the Capitol" is only in 109th place (I was surprised to see it so low). I gather from this that, despite media usage of "attack", that word is not what people are naturally gravitating towards as a name for the event. Hence I think it fails the Naturalness and Precision criteria. Others have raised the point that "attack" may commonly imply "terrorist attack", and even that the word is now frequently used to describe a rhetorical attack. (The terrorist attack angle does throw Consistency into doubt, given other article title patterns.) To overcome all of this, "attack" would have to be the most descriptive term available — but I think "storming" (and probably "insurrection") are both much more accurate — and enjoy sufficient use in RS (half an hour ago, I flipped on the live stream of the impeachment hearing just as one of the House managers was saying "...incited to storm the Capitol.")
As for NPOV concerns around "storming", these should be taken seriously, but so far the arguments against "storming" in this light seem almost exclusively based on hearsay, personal opinion, and one or two links to other people's opinions off of Wikipedia. I haven't seen a good case that "storming" is an endorsement, opinion, or judgement that would be prohibited under WP:NPOVTITLE. So, even though I personally oppose dogwhistling QAnon, I'd note that NPOV cuts both ways, and avoiding a term solely because "QAnon might like it" is itself contrary to NPOV. I think we should keep the discussion going, but hold off on any more RMs for a couple months while we observe the natural evolution of terminology. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 19:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Cumulatively

Numbers cumulatively to date - 09:22, 5 February - for Oppose v. Support the proposal in this section that

2021 storming of the United States Capitol be renamed and moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack.
  • Oppose...23 v. Support...12

UPDATE

  • Oppose...28 v. Support...12 ::12:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE

  • Oppose...32 v. Support...18 ::12:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE

  • Oppose..35. v. Support...18 ::17:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This RM remains open for discussion. No attempt here is made to assess the reasons, which is the job of a closer. Meantime the article is currently being revised.

Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking of updating on as-and-when basis say, every two or three days or sooner if there is a significant change in preponderance, rather like re-stocking shelves in a grocery store or larder. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Moratorium, 6 months or 1 year: Oppose...3 v. Support...14

Qexigator (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Uhhh, this is a very problematic way to present data. I think 3 people support a 1-year moratorium, but since you just bundled and tallied no one can tell what the actual numbers are or relate to. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Not too much of a problem, perhaps. The moratorium count was an afterthought, and it would simplify the count and updating to leave out here, and I am striking now. Any one interested at this point in unbundling 6 and 12 can count for themselves. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read above "No attempt here is made to assess the reasons, which is the job of a closer" Specifically, this is no more than a cumulative count, not an up-down vote. Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! 2600:1012:B0EB:7426:CC4B:45BC:DEF:A6E2 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this video in the public domain?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-yBkGeHJI Victor Grigas (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a C-SPAN video on C-SPAN's YouTube channel. From their Copyright and Licensing page: "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution." If that video is part of a debate in Congress (it looks like it is, which includes video prepared by Delegate Stacey Plaskett, who is speaking), then it's public domain. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Anachronist, though the issue is possibly a little more complicated for that particular aggregate material. It is correct that any of CSPAN visuals from of the managers or other members giving presentations on the floor of the House or Senate are PD-CSPAN. However the rights status of the security videos displayed in that youtube could conceivably be more restrictive, though I doubt it- in which case the rule for aggregate materials is that the material is uploaded stating the most restrictive license. (EG- if a Senator played a clip from a hollywood movie, then that would not make the clip public domain). My bet is that you are on solid ground and that the security videos are PD-US-Gov-Congress (PD as a work of the U.S. Federal government). I have forwarded your inquiry to a rights reviewer on commons who may be able to get back promptly with a definitive OK that it is PD, but if you want to be certain, you might ping other commons image reviewers on the question. PD-CSPAN is probably the right one to declare on your upload since it would be the more restrictive (since you can only use CSPAN stuff for content from the floor of the House or Senate floor and not committees). J JMesserly (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixing infobox bloat

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I made some simplifications to the infobox; any thoughts on those? I think the following changes should also be made:

  1. Remove the "caused by" and "methods" fields. These are complex issues best described in prose in the article. The "goals" field give the reader an adequate gist of why the rioters were there.
  2. Simplify "deaths" to just the number 5.
  3. Simplify "injuries" to "Over 200" (current total listed is 201, with likely additional minor injuries amongst the rioters).
  4. Remove the "damage" field. Not important enough to merit mention in the infobox.
  5. All references should be removed from the box per WP:INFOBOXREF.

The reason for this is to keep the infobox as terse of summary as possible, as discussed at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The simplifications so far are a great improvement, and I largely agree with your suggestions:
  1. a. Support removing caused by. b. While the methods field isn't vital, I think we should keep it, but reduce its content to only the methods actually used during the storming of the Capitol. c. Keep goals, but merge the two current items into one.
  2. Deaths: 5 (4 rioters, 1 police officer) (same content as now, just more compact) would be better than simply 5. I think it makes sense to keep the numbers for attackers and defenders separate.
  3. Similar for injuries. I'd suggest something like this: Injuries: Over 200140 (almost 200140 police officers injured, 5 rioters hospitalized, unknown number of rioters injured). 200 was based on wrong infobox content, 140 is correct. See #140 injured.
  4. Yes, remove "damage".
  5. Yes, remove all references. (We may have to move some refs to the article if they're the best/only source for certain claims.) — Chrisahn (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fire extinguisher (Update)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Continuation of the Fire extinguisher section in Archive 13.

@Rich Farmbrough, WaltCip, Terjen, and Dlthewave: There have been an update regarding the passing of Sicknick. Per CNN, "Investigators have determined that initial reports suggesting Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher aren't true..." The current theory is that Sicknick died due to bear spray, "One leading theory that investigators are considering is that the suspects sprayed an irritant, perhaps bear spray, that caused Sicknick to suffer a fatal reaction..." I believe that we can reword any portions of the article to state that it was initially believed due to anonymous reports that he died due to being assaulted with a fire extinguisher, before being officially corrected almost a month later. I don't know if this is enough to include the bear spray part given that it isn't fully definitive, hence the pings to some of the original participants regarding their opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is vague on the arms used by the mob

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I find it really in poor taste that such a detailed article nearly totally leaves out the level of arms used by the crowd. More than once the article refers to the mob as "armed" but no mention of details. Did the rioters carry guns? Did any of them point a pistol at an officer? "Armed" is a vague term, it could be used in reference to someone holding a stick or someone holding an AR-15. I think we (the public) deserve to know the full extent of how "armed" the crowd was and what type of weapons they were using. Normally, when I think of the term "insurrrection" guns come to mind. Surely there was at least someone in that violent mob with an AR-15? Please let us know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:880:B670:A9F0:EA8C:5E40:EE6B (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

More than once the article refers to the mob as "armed" – That's not true. The only time the article says the perpetrators were armed is in this sentence: "Some individuals came heavily armed." That's supported by this source; quote: "Records show that some were heavily armed". Later in the source: "... pickup packed with an M4 assault rifle, multiple loaded magazines, three handguns and 11 Mason jars filled with homemade napalm, according to court filings. ... he returned to the truck carrying a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun and a .22-caliber derringer pistol in his pockets." Here's what our text says about that pickup truck and its driver: "A vehicle containing a semi-automatic rifle and a cooler full of eleven Molotov cocktails was also found nearby. The driver was subsequently arrested. He also had three handguns in his possession at the time of his arrest." As far as I can tell, so far no WP:RS have reported whether some of those directly involved in the storming were carrying guns, let alone what kind. If you find such sources, let us know, and we can add the information. Thanks. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The article really needs to mention, whether true or not true, that people in the mob were armed with guns. In the 21st century, often times when there is a riot, firearms will be involved somehow, and most reasoned people will think, based on a casual reading of this article, that there were firearms in the mob, and I think it is worthwhile to mention if it was true or not. Maybe we don't know yet, but at some point, it's worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:880:B670:A9F0:EA8C:5E40:EE6B (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree it would be good if the article stated whether the rioters in the Capitol did or didn't have guns, but as I indicated above: we can only do that if someone (could be you!) finds reliable sources providing information about this detail. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even a claim like "it is not yet known whether some of the rioters at or in the Capitol carried guns" would have to be supported by a source. That's how Wikipedia works. We don't do original research. So if you find reliable sources answering these questions, that would great! — Chrisahn (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Found something – The Hill (January 16): "It’s unclear just how many of the rioters were armed as they stormed the Capitol". NBC News and Reuters are probably less useful for this particular question – lots of weapons were found, but no indication whether they had been inside the Capitol. Another one: Chicago Sun-Times – Title "Why wasn’t the Capitol mob carrying guns?" looks promising, but it's an opinion piece and rather speculative, so not usable here. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Is that piece in The Chicago Sun-Times RS for the purpose of the storming article? Given that it is headed A week after the assault on democracy in Washington, a simple question leads to several possible answers, it shows itself to be another instance of begging the question that we can see is driving the impeachment's supporters. Isn't it odd that many daily or periodical publications offering news reports and comment similarly frame the storming event as 'an assault on democracy'? In fact, it appears that those who truly thought of themselves as supporters of then President Trump - but not any malefactors who have been using Trump as a cover for other objectives of their own - were and are pleading with their fellow citizens and with Congress to uphold the federal republic's system of government of the people, by the people and for the people in accordance with the provisions of the constitution relating to electing a president. Like his predecessors in office and rivals for election (20i6 and 2020), Trump has personal and policy faults, but we know one of his policies has been making Supreme Court appointments of persons who are dedicated to upholding the republic's constitution. At least that is beyond doubt or obfuscation, and it is simply not credible (beyond belief) that President Trump was inciting any one or more of the malefactors to murder Vice-President Pence or House Speaker Pelosi, or persons trapped in the tunnel. Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Deaths by suicide

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Washington Post has now reported two additional Capitol police deaths by suicide due to the riot. Should this information be included in the infobox, either in the casualty section or noted separately? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See #7 dead. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

140 injured

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

"more than 140 were injured". Actually it should say 140 law enforcement personnel were injured. 47.155.242.116 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You have a reliable source to back up that claim? I don't think so. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the anonymous editor has a point. There is a source for that claim – it's currently reference #23 in the article. NYT: "The Capitol Police union says nearly 140 officers were injured during the riot." And that's exactly what we say in the infobox ("Almost 140 Capitol Police officers injured"). But in the first paragraph we simply say "more than 140 were injured", which is technically correct, but maybe something like this would be better: "almost 140 police officers and an unknown number of assailants were injured." As VQuakr pointed out in #Fixing infobox bloat, we should actually say something like "over 200 injured". I'd suggest "almost 200 police officers and an unknown number of assailants injured". — Chrisahn (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Can't do that; it suggest 200 police officers were injured. We could do "almost 140 officers and an unknown number of rioters were injured." If we don't like "rioters" then some other word, but I don't care for "assailants" which sounds like all of them were actually beating people up. Or we could simply say "over 200 injured" without specifying who they were. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
1. Close to 200 police officers were injured: Almost 140 Capitol police officers plus 56 Metro police officers. See infobox. Oh, the infobox was wrong. 140 is the total, not just Capitol police officers. The infobox has recently been fixed. Thanks! 2. You're probably right about "assailants". I was a bit tired of using "rioters" all the time, but it's probably the most precise word. So I'd suggest something like "almost 200140 police officers and an unknown number of rioters injured". Just as you said. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead Overlinking

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

To me, it seems that the lead is over linked. It’s possible that I just don’t know a good consensus threshold for overlinking, but there is, based on a quick approximation, more then one link per sentence in the lead. So I want to know if the consensus is that the lead is over linked, or if it is linked a good amount. So should any links be removed? If so, which ones?4D4850 (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Support as requester At least the first two paragraphs in the lead, probably the first three, are over linked or linked really weirdly. I’m not certain we need a link to the page on gallows, given the large quantity of rioters, while (presumably, based on wording of lead) a relatively small amount were involved in the erecting of the gallows. Still, not going to edit unless consensus agrees. 4D4850 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I give up. The consensus as to what label to describe the rioters with is too confusing, so I’ll just call them rioters from now on. 4D4850 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove "hostage taking" and "lynching" from infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments15 people in discussion

While we are talking about the “Methods” section of the infobox, I think we should remove "(alleged: potential hostage-taking)[12]" which is currently in the box. From Chrisahn’s comment above I gather that it earlier said "alleged: hostage-taking and lynching". There was no hostage taking. There was no lynching. There were threats, but no harm actually came to the targets, so it was not a “method”. At best we could add “threats” to the methods used, but we already say “intimidation” which covers it. So I think we should remove that line. BTW this does not require an RfC; a quick informal discussion is enough if it produces consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Those terms should be removed, and of course it doesn't require an RfC. Moncrief (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think "potential hostage-taking" is appropriate, plenty of video evidence that the participants were in fact looking for specific members of congress, and planned to take hostages (or worse)... possibly just moved to the "Goals" section of the infobox instead... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree No hostages were taken, and no one was lynched, so placing it under "methods" is flat-out misleading and factually, objectively incorrect; the word "method" insinuates to a global audience of readers that a lynching/hostage-taking was undertaken or had some degree of success. Certain individuals within the riotous mob may have appeared to favor that (verbal suggestions of intent, at least 1 guy was seen carrying zip ties, etc.), no lynching or hostage situation occurred during the Storming of the Capitol, so it should be removed from that section. RopeTricks (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Comments/Additional thoughts: Also, leaving it under "methods" implies to an uninformed reader that lynching and taking hostages were unambiguous, primary goals of the entirety of the mob, a messy implication considering the relative spontaneity of the storming and sheer crowd size. It would make more sense if a majority of the mob made it clear lynching and taking hostages was what they wanted, or if there was a clear "leader" specifically demanding that. None of that occurred because the storming was done via a riotous mob of hundreds, a mixed crowd with a plurality of intentions. Because that's how leaderless mobs with no clear, understood objectives beyond "let's get inside!" works. And I don't recall seeing video of any of the indivuals that used megaphones demanding any lynchings or hostages.RopeTricks (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've removed attempted assassination, the source only supports "threat of assassination" which was likely made after the whole event was over, since it referred to the officer who shot Babbitt. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Nobody got lynched, although the rioters had the means (gallows) and stated intent (chanting "hang Mike Pence").[1] Should lynching be listed as a goal rather than a method? Terjen (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm dubious about ascribing "goals" at all, since this was such a mixed crowd, and since goals may constitute crimes which have not been charge, let alone prosecuted yet, for example "attempted <foo>" or "conspiracy to commit foo". We risk egregious BLP violations down this path. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Disagree. This is longstanding infobox content that is based on what mainstream media were saying about the zip-tie guy, the calls to hang pence, the gallows, the attacker sho was specifically going after AOC, and then these informal allegations have become supported by formal allegations of prosecutors. This should also be an RfC — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Why should it be an RfC? Moncrief (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's why it isn't: Per WP:RFC, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • These characterizations should be removed from the infobox, which more generally needs to be drastically shortened. The attack and the goals of the individuals involved were diverse, and to communicate this neutrally we need to use prose in the body of the article. Not everything merits a one-word summary in a bloated infobox. Re "This should also be an RfC", can you explain why in the context of WP:BURO? ETA: this is an article about an event that happened just over a month ago. There is zero long standing content in it. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The goals of the riot can be most easily surmised as the following: disrupt the Electoral vote count; Overturn results of 2020 election. Anything else is simply one or a few people there - that is not the goal of the event overall. The methods should also not include ideas of a small group of those present - especially when those ideas are held by a small group of people there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capitol-riot/
  • “Shoot the politicians!” somebody yelled.
  • Their cries resonated through colonnaded rooms: “Where’s the traitors?” “Bring them out!” “Get these fucking cocksucking Commies out!”
  • I followed a group that broke off to advance on five policemen guarding a side corridor. “Stand down,” a man in a maga hat commanded. “You’re outnumbered. There’s a fucking million of us out there, and we are listening to Trump—your boss.” “We can take you out,” a man beside him warned.
  • The America Firsters and other invaders fanned out in search of lawmakers, breaking into offices and revelling in their own astounding impunity. “Nancy, I’m ho-ome!” a man taunted, mimicking Jack Nicholson’s character in “The Shining.” Someone else yelled, “1776—it’s now or never.”
  • When Babbitt was shot, I was on the opposite side of the Capitol, where people were growing frustrated by the empty halls and offices. “Where the fuck are they?” “Where the fuck is Nancy?”
  • “We have guns, too, motherfuckers!” one man yelled. “With a lot bigger rounds!” Another man, wearing a do-rag that said “fuck your feelings,” told his friend, “If we have to tool up, it’s gonna be over. It’s gonna come to that. Next week, Trump’s gonna say, ‘Come to D.C.’ And we’re coming heavy.”
  • Later, I listened to a woman talking on her cell phone. “We need to come back with guns,” she said. “One time with guns, and then we’ll never have to do this again.”
  • Another man, in a black leather jacket and wraparound sunglasses, suggested that journalists should be killed: “Start makin’ a list! Put all those names down, and we start huntin’ them down, one by one!” “Traitors to the guillotine!” “They won’t be able to walk down the streets!”
  • At the heap of wrecked camera gear outside the Capitol, the man in the leather jacket and sunglasses declared to the crowd, “We are at war. . . . Mobilize in your own cities, your own counties. Storm your own capitol buildings. And take down every one of these corrupt motherfuckers.”
Personally, this is beyond "intimidation" and I feel that the line should not be removed without it being replaced given the calls and searches for officials on the 6th to harm them. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis for the most part - but all you've really shown is that those statements/people deserve mention in the article. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of major, overarching things - not listing every single thing one person at the event felt/tried to do/screamed outside or whatever. In fact, the vast majority of the infobox goals/methods sections should be removed and replaced with the goal of "disrupt the counting of electoral votes; overturn results of 2020 election" and the methods of "rally at the White House; march to and breach of the Capitol Building". All else are minutia compared to those goals and should be covered in prose but not the infobox. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood me then, bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez. My comment as a whole is that there was intent to harm and to hold members of Congress though force. I understand that what exist should be changed, but I don't believe it should be straight up removed with nothing in its place. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per editor Goku above. I would agree with moving to 'Goals'. Bert Macklin (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of hostage taking. 'Attempted' should be noted. Plastic and regular handcuffs were carried by some. They could not complete their goal, but the attempt is still valid and documented on video. Best, IP75 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal from methods. The documentation for the methods field of Template:Infobox civil conflict is very short and simply says "methods used in the civil dispute", but I think it's clear that these are the methods that were actually used, not the ones that some of the perpetrators may have intended to use. But I also weakly support adding something to the goals field. As Super Goku V shows, it's reasonably well documented that at least some rioters would have liked to harm lawmakers in some way. It's hard to tell though how much of that was just talk. What would have happened if they had found Pelosi or Pence? Would they have shoved them around a bit? Killed them? No one knows. Until the courts produce more evidence, we can at most say something like this: Goals: ... Alleged: hostage-taking. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Template:Infobox civil conflict Methods says that multiple terms may be used. I think that Goals is fine as is and nothing more should be added. But there are terms that are either redundant or are not methods that can be removed. IP75 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The link to "https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html/" is incorrect, it should be "https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html" without the trailing slash. Including the slash results in a 404 from CNN. Ephilihp (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed! Mcfnord (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

he said to "peacefully and patriotically protest" 2601:588:8500:2860:251B:522C:5088:74F4 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done - already mentioned... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent Quote worth adding?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Worth adding? - Following Quote ("A failed coup without consequences becomes a training exercise.")[1][2] seems relevant - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This[3] seems to be the original source of the quote. Not a WP:RS, just an opinion on a blog. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
No. It's just an opinion by an MSNBC legal correspondant. Anyway, the theory that the 800 hooligans who stormed the Capitoi almost took control of the U.S. government is absurd. TFD (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Or another... Is The Times newspaper, of London, RS for the storming article? It has a headline on p.44 (print issue) February 13 "Sham trial is just cancel culture, claims Trump"[59] The first paragraph reads 'Donald Trump's legal team dismissed his impeachment trial yesterday as "constitutional cancel culture", a "sham" and a danger to free speech as they urged senators to acquit him of inciting insurrection,' Qexigator (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should hold off on delving too much into the impeachment until we actually see a conclusion to that. The two events are related, but not so inextricably intertwined that every mention within one topic deserves an equal mention in the other's article.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Not relevant to this article and not that notable for the impeachment article. IP75 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Melber, Ari (February 12, 2021). "Latest Threads - "A failed coup without consequences becomes a training exercise." - MSNBC-TV, 02/12/2021, 06:50pm/et/usa". MSNBC News. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  2. ^ Blumenthal, Richard (February 12, 2021). "Last Work with Lawrence O'Donnell - interviewing Senator Richard Blumenthal - MSNBC-TV, 02/12/2021, 10:17pm/et/usa". MSNBC News. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  3. ^ Staff (January 25, 2021). "If Trump's Coup Attempt Goes Unpunished, It Will Be Considered a Training Exercise". Words & Deeds (blog). Retrieved February 13, 2021.

remove "panic buttons torn out" of Rep Pressley's office

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Given new information, it seems irrelevant to the subject of this article that duress buttons were likely missing from Pressley's office—unless it's to describe the "social media explosion" resulting from her and her staff's conspiracy theory that they'd been removed in advance as part of a nefarious plot. In the meantime, I've edited it to at least make it accurate. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

An opinion piece full of speculation does not exactly qualify as a reliable source... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and the investigation is still ongoing. IP75 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To add to this article: the time Ashli Babbitt was shot. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Already in there. VQuakr (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The article should be updated to include that Trump tweeted attack on Pence 11 minutes after Pence was evacuated

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m. on January 6 2021 — only 11 minutes after live television coverage showed Pence being hustled from the Senate floor because rioters were streaming into the building one floor below. The Senate then abruptly went into recess. The text of Trump's 2.24 tweet was: 

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" Cogan79 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump's tweet about Pence is notable; the article currently states: "Trump tweeted that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done" at 2:24 p.m." Because he was escorted from the Senate floor about 10 minutes earlier, does not mean that Pence and several of his family members lives were not in danger. You may want to read this article: [[60]] IP75 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Article should be updated to include conversation between McCarthy and Trump on Jan 6 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

While rioters engulfed the Capitol on Jan. 6, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy phoned President Donald Trump. A worried McCarthy called on Trump to urge him to get his supporters under control. But Trump didn’t seem interested at first saying that it was antifa, and not his supporters who were responsible for the riot, according to Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a GOP lawmaker from Washington. When McCarthy pushed back against that interpretation, Trump got angry. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump reportedly said. Cogan79 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Cogan79, thanks for the suggestion. It's best if you provide multiple sources and propose text to be added, instead of just a general idea. This is because the reliable sources which can be found are what will ultimately determine what the text says. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Source 1. THE SLATEST Trump Reportedly Sided With Capitol Insurrectionists in Angry Call With McCarthy BY DANIEL POLITI FEB 13, 20218:55 AM Source 2. The Independent Feb 12 2021 McCarthy snapped at Trump when he refused to help during riot, report says: ‘Who the f*** do you think you’re talking to?’ House GOP leader and ex-president were embroiled in shouting match as riot raged

Graeme Massie Los Angeles @graemekmassie Source 3. CNN New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters By Jamie Gangel, Kevin Liptak, Michael Warren and Marshall Cohen, CNN Updated 10:29 PM EST, Fri February 12, 2021 Cogan79 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It would help if you linked the sources, and you haven't provided any proposed text here User:Cogan79. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Cogan79, McCarthy's conversation with Trump is already in the article. It is in this section: [[61]]
Best, IP75 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

7 dead

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

During recent impeachment trial proceedings, the impeachment prosecutors are taking about seven deaths.

Which I believe is fair. There are indisputably five victims who died on the insurrection day.

However, sadly, two more capitol police officers took their lives shortly after the riot. I believe the mental trauma suffered during the violent day is significant factor Jakeblake0713 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a source of the claim: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/second-officer-suicide-following-capitol-riot-463123 Jakeblake0713 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Very similar requests have already been discussed here, here, here and here, and a related discussion is here. tl;dr: Unless there are WP:RS that directly connect the suicides to the riot on January 6, we probably shouldn't add them to the five deaths. Thanks for providing a source! But I think it supports the current statement in the article that five people "died from" the event. Quote: "Five people died as a result of the riots, and two officers later died by suicide." — Chrisahn (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the impeachment managers are not a reliable source for this - their job is to attempt to make it look as bad as possible while not technically lying. Thus, they aren't an independent source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe recent reporting by The Washington Post makes this link: "That two police officers had died by suicide after confronting rioters thrust the most private of acts into the national spotlight and made clear that the pain of Jan. 6 continued long after the day’s events had concluded, its impact reverberating through the lives removed from the Capitol grounds. Now, families of both Smith and Liebengood — who were buried in private ceremonies lacking the pageantry that accompanied Sicknick’s memorial service in the Capitol Rotunda — want the deaths of their loved ones recognized as "line of duty" deaths." Note specifically the description of the suicides as an "impact reverberating" from the riot. Further testimony in the article expresses this belief here as well, but I think this is enough to say that WaPo says it outright for themselves. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s not. The language in that article is very carefully crafted to not ascribe blame for the suicides to the rioting, and instead just connects them superficially in time by saying things like “reverberating”. Regardless, until multiple high-quality reliable sources clearly and confidently make such an assertion, no further linkage should be inserted into this article, and even then it may not be due. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if there's a clear link (which there probably is), I'm not sure it's reasonable to include these in the tally. It's fundamentally different from dying at the event or as a result of injuries. Ar85ar (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago53 comments14 people in discussion

Research of naming choices

Exhibit A

Prevalence of headlines by name (Jan. 30 2021)
Descriptor
NOTE: the actual count
is on the last page
of search results 		Results
Selected RS
(since Jan. 6) 		Results
Google News
(since Jan. 20) 		Search method
(two part search to differentiate verb from noun,
not needed for "insurrection" and "incident"
which are only nouns)
riot (RM) 350 . . . [62] 208 . . . [63] "capitol riot" / "riot at" capitol
attack 261 . . . [64] 149 . . . [65] "capitol attack" / "attack on" capitol
insurrection (RM) 214 . . . [66]

or
291 . . . [67]

183 . . . [68]

or
239 . . . [69]

insurrection capitol -"insurr. act" -incite/d/ing/ment
or
same as above, sans capitol,
(this includes titles using just
"the insurrection" to name to the event,
and some others such as "Insurrection Day")
siege 192 . . . [70] 122 . . . [71] "capitol siege" / "siege of" capitol
breach 112 . . . [72] 70 . . . [73] "capitol breach" / "breach of" capitol
storming (RM) 84 . . . [74] 36 . . . [75] "capitol storming" / "storming of" capitol
assault 55 . . . [76] 44 . . . [77] "capitol assault" / "assault on" capitol
rampage 21 . . . [78] ~4 . . . [79] rampage capitol
invasion 9 . . . [80] 26 . . . [81] invasion capitol
raid ~10 . . . [82] ~7 . . . [83] raid capitol
protest ~5 . . . [84] ~11 . . . [85] "capitol protest" / "protest at" / "protests at" capitol -state
(most results refer to state Capitol protests
or "protest" is used with a qualifier
or it's from Jan. 6 before Capitol was breached)
occupation ~4 . . . [86] ~1 . . . [87] occupation capitol
incident ~1 . . . [88] ~6 . . . [89] incident capitol
coup attempt ~0 . . . [90] ~10 . . . [91] coup capitol
(real results mixed w. opinion and articles on how it was
not a coup; reputable news orgs don't use "coup")
Selected RS:
Associated Press, BBC , The Guardian, NYT, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC News, USA Today, L.A. Times,
CS Monitor, WSJ, Financial Times, Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, CNBC, Bloomberg News, Chicago Tribune, US News, Politico, UPI

Exhibit B

Preferred word(s) by media outlet Z22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Media outlet Preferred word(s) Last date of evidence Evidence and references
Associated Press mob, riot, insurrection; siege* 14 January 2021; present* According to John Daniszewski, AP vice president and editor at large for standards.[92] *"Capitol Siege" category.[93]
NPR insurrection present Use "Capitol Insurrection" as a news section name[94] (changed from "Insurrection at the Capitol" on or around 27 Jan)[95][96]
CBS News assault 19 January 2021 "U.S. Capitol Assault" as section name highlighted on cbsnews.com main page[97]
Politico insurrection present "Insurrection Fallout" as a category, within the "Congress" section[98]
PBS attack, insurrection present "U.S. Capitol Attack" and "Insurrection" as categories of PBS NewsHour[99][100][101] content
NBC News riot;
insurrection* 		12 January 2021 "Capitol Riot" as a category on main page of nbcnews.com[102]
*The event is consistently referred to as "Capitol Insurection" on-air, incl. in MTP (flagship program)[103]00:00:50
The Guardian breach present "US Capitol breach" as a category (topic) of US news[104]
BBC riot present "US Capitol riots" as a category (topic) in the US & Canada section[105]
Business Insider insurrection present "US Capitol insurrection" as a category (topic) in the politics section[106]

Exhibit C

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event.
List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Organizer Word used Event date Event title and references
Chicago Council on Global Affairs insurrection 8 January 2021 World Review: Global Reaction to US Capitol Insurrection[107]
Josef Korbel School of International Studies insurrection 8 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[108][109]
Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters assault 8 January 2021 Assault on the Capitol: What Just Happened?[110]
Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University chaos 11 January 2021 On Freedom: Capitol Chaos and Its Impact on Democracy[111]
Johns Hopkins University SNF Agora Institute insurrection 13 January 2021 Public discussion of capital insurrection[112]
UC Davis School of Law insurrection 13 January 2021 Insurrection and the Rule of Law.[113]
Hammer Museum insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s next[114]
Carr Center for Human Rights Policy insurrection 14 January 2021 (postponed) Democracy at Risk: Reckoning with the Capitol Insurrection[115]
George Washington University Law School insurrection 14 January 2021 The Insurrection at the Capitol: A Discussion by Legal Scholars[116]
First Amendment Coalition riot 14 January 2021 Erwin Chemerinsky On The First Amendment And The Capitol Riot[117]
Northern Illinois University insurrection 14 January 2021 Ask an Expert: The January 6 Insurrection, Constitutional Processes, and the Peaceful Transition of Power[118]
Central Michigan University chaos 14 January 2021 Unpacking the Chaos at the Capitol[119]
North Carolina State University insurrection 14 January 2021 Responding to Insurrection: How Do We Talk With Students?[120]
Interfaith Alliance insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection and Religious Extremism: How Did We Get Here and Where Do We Go?[121]
University of Massachusetts Amherst siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Siege: Making Sense of What Happened[122]
University of Connecticut siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Under Siege: Community Reflections on the Lawless and Violent Attack on Democracy[]
Elon University insurrection 15 January 2021 Reacting to the Insurrection at the Capitol[123]
University of Pittsburgh siege 18 January 2021 What Just Happened? Race, Justice and Politics after the Capitol Siege[124]
Alma College insurrection 18 January 2021 Lunch & Learn: Community Conversation on the Capitol Insurrection[125]
The National Press Club insurrection 19 January 2021 Getting it right: Breaking news, the Inauguration, and the Capitol insurrection[126]
International Institute for Strategic Studies storming 19 January 2021 Crisis in America: the storming of the Capitol and Biden’s challenge[127]
University of Washington attack 19 January 2021 Attack on the Capitol--What Does It Mean for Democracy?[128]
Brookings Institution insurrection 19 January 2021 Truth and accountability post-insurrection: Where does the country go from here?[129]
Oregon State University’s School of History, Philosophy and Religion  sedition 21 January 2021 Divided States of America: Sedition, the Inauguration, and the Unfolding Crisis in American Democracy[130]
Schenectady, Albany and Troy chapters of the NAACP insurrection 21 January 2021 Aftermath of the Insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.[131]
George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs riot 21 January 2021 The Capitol Riots, QAnon, and the Internet[]
University of Missouri–St. Louis riot 21 January 2021 What Just Happened? Putting the Presidential Election and the Riot in the Capitol in Context[132]
William & Mary Law School insurrection 22 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[133]
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies storming 22 January 2021 The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Free Speech Online[134][135]
Fordham University School of Law attack 25 January 2021 The Attack on the Capitol: an on the Ground Report and What's Next[136]
Washington University in St. Louis insurrection 25 January 2021 U.S. Presidential Transition & Insurrection at the Capitol[137]
Munk School of Global Affairs insurrection 25 January 2021 Insurrection and Accountability in the United States: What Just Happened? And What Happens Next?[138]
DeSales University insurrection 27 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: A Special DeSales University Panel Discussion[139]
United States Capitol Historical Society insurrection 27 January 2021 How Do We Move Forward? Contextualizing the January 6th Capitol Insurrection[140]
Harvard Institute of Politics insurrection 28 January 2021 What Just Happened? Insurrection, Impeachment, and Inauguration

[141]

Johns Hopkins University insurrection 28 January 2021 U.S. Democracy Post-Insurrection: What’s Next? (Part I)[142]
Carleton College chaos, insurrection 28 January 2021 Carleton Talks: Capitol Chaos: Reflections on the Insurrection[143]
American Academy of Religion insurrection 29 January 2021 Insurrection, White Supremacy, and Religion[144]
Department of Communication and Theatre Arts, Old Dominion University insurrection 1 February 2021 Insurrection: The Critical Reflection Forums[145]
Ponars Eurasia, George Washington University storming 4 February 2021 The Storming of the US Capitol: Views from Eurasia[146]
The Utica College Center for Historical Research insurrection 11 February 2021 The Impact of the Capitol Insurrection on the Modern Presidency & U.S. Elections

[147]

Texas A&M University School of Law insurrection 11 February 2021 [148]
Arizona State University insurrection 11 February 2021 Roundtable: The Rise in Anti-Democratic Violence in the U.S.: Perspectives on the Capitol Insurrection[149]
  • insurrection: 28 events
  • storming: 3 events
  • riot: 3 events
  • chaos: 3 events
  • siege: 3 events
  • attack: 2 events
  • assault: 1 event
  • sedition 1 event

Exhibit D

  • Note: goal of this part of research is not so much to include all references to the event, but to find references in diverse social spheres, that may be seen as relevant (please comment in the discussion below) — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Terms used by scholars, jurists and career/military appointees (not politicians and commentators)
Type Term used Evidence and references
scholar, fmr. ambassador insurrection an armed insurrection against the Capitol inspired by the president of the United States[150]
jurist (judge) insurrection an active participant in a violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the United States government[151]
generals (JCS) insurrection, sedition ... do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection.[152]
scholars (APSA) insurrection Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol[153]

Discussion

Riot and insurrection are leading, and I'd consider both common names. Except for attack, other words don't seem all that competitive in terms of forming a common name. "Storming" has fallen behind. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  • All of that can still be true, and yet miss the main point: Word choice is not a matter of verifiability, it is a matter of tone. Choosing from among a set of near synonyms for a description of an event, Wikipedia has different concerns in tone than do many sources, even news sources. It's why we use words like "die" instead of euphemisms for it, even if more sources use "passed away" or something like that. WP:LABEL recommends using language which avoids emotional-laden words. Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement, regardless of which similar words other sources are using. --Jayron32 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in theory, what you say is excellent, but "Storming" fails the common name criterion big time. Also these words aren't synonyms. "Attack" is indeed vague, but "riot" is not vague, and it's not synonymous to "storming". Insurrection is also neither a euphemism for "storming", nor it's synonym. You've just promulgated a thesis that "storming" is the real name (like "die" as opposed to "pass away"), and when media use other terms they are doing so as a euphemism for storming. But this just isn't true. The media don't use storming because they just don't. It's a clunky gerund that isn't in common usage. I made this resource to enable people to quickly access a list of headlines and assess how and in which context (and in which "tonal register") each word is being used. The analysis is not meant to answer the naming question by itself. What inspired are misguided attempts to claim that something is a WP:COMMONNAME based on rudimentary google searches, such as presented here (attack is used 193,000 times, Riot used 67,700 times – one would believe that attack is used three times more than riot, when riot is used significantly more than attack). There needs to be something reliable to fall back on, when the question of what the reliable sources are using arises. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I maybe didn't express myself well. When I said "Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement..." what I actually meant by that was " Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement." I hope that clears things up for you. I'm not married to the current title, but a simple statistical list of words is insufficient in making the editorial decisions we face. Words like "riot" and "insurrection" carry emotional weight; it's why news sources choose them to get people to read their articles, because that emotional connection with their audiences creates a connection with them that encourages those audiences to keep reading that source's articles, among many other reasons for choosing those words. As an encyclopedia recording an event dispassionately, Wikipedia has a different purpose than "eyeballs on articles to feed ad revenue", and as such, we have a responsibility per WP:TONE to choose words that, as feasible as possible, do not carry the same sort of emotional weight. Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal. "Riot" and "insurrection" are not them, regardless of how many sources use them. --Jayron32 13:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Roget's Thesaurus[154] gives 'storming' (noun) as a synonym for 'assault' and 'attack', also for 'bravado/ boastfulness'. A print copy of The Oxford Handy Dictionary (ed. Fowler) gives 'as in "take by storm" - direct assault on (and capture of) defended place by troops etc.'[155] Whether or not 'storming' was chosen initially with that in mind, it is good reason for it to be retained. See also Storming the City, U.S. Military Performance in Urban Warfare from World War II to Vietnam (2016).[156] Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32. It doesn't clear it up for me. It looks like you're fishing for the most extraordinarily contrived arguments to defend the current name (which you are identifying as "storm" which is a vastly more common word than "storming" used as a noun; this can make it look more common than it is). I'd rather trust the ~25 reputable news organizations, than a person's individual sense of what carries emotional weight (or their exotic theory on how reputable media organizations are so opportunistic and clickbaity... why are they considered reliable sources then?). It must be that because "insurrection" is such emotional language that this opportunistic media organization called the event "insurrection" on the second day: American Political Science Association (APSA) – Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol. No, the event is being called what it's called, because those words best fit it. And finally, now we're at it, this has never been my main argument, but the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, now that we know well all the implications surrounding the term. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You may be right about the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, but please explain. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: Sorry again for being unclear. When I said "I'm not married to the current title", what I meant by that was "I'm not married to the current title". Also, when I said "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal" (goal meaning "Of choosing a title that is neutral and does not carry unnecessary emotional weight), what I meant was actually "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal". Is there anything else I can clear up for you? Feel free to propose a better title. If it isn't "riot" or "insurrection" or other similarly weighted words, it will probably be even better than what is there now. --Jayron32 19:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good analysis. But one more suggestion. If you are going to do it this way, search in text to make sure you are pulling all the articles about the even. Then limit the intitle search with only the verb. In other words, just search for the in title for the word riot or attack.Casprings (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying that now as well. I think it produces fewer overall results than searching just the titles (probably because referring to the event by it's full name is done less frequently in the body), so I'm still figuring out if it has any added value. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment While we rely mostly on print media for referencing, there should be some nod to how the event is described in other media. For example, I've noticed that on-air, NPR almost solely calls it "insurrection" in editorial voice, when describing the event proper (i.e., "the January insurrection..."). They will use the informal "attack" in passing (i.e., "the attack on the Capitol was.."). This is similar to the apparent style of the BBC World Service as well, except that I've also heard them use "storming" and "stormed". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't think that all of the precise statistical counting is helpful. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't dictate that we must use whatever naming has the precise by-the-numbers most use in news articles in a vacuum. When multiple possible terms are all being used in widespread contexts, with no one absolutely predominating, then we can consider there to be multiple common names (or no definitive name). As such it makes most sense to fit the one that best attests to the nature of the event, Wikipedia's policies, and broad consensus of accuracy. I'm still on team "attack", but that kind of goes without saying. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, really good. I am going to change my vote about to being neutral concerning riot or attack. You almost have me. That said, in my mind, what you want to do is combine an intitle search that is exclusive with an intext search that is expansive. In other words, search for riot intitle. But in text, combine alot of terms together (Capitol and riot or attack or insurrection or ect). That said, really good.Casprings (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Already with the above searches, any of the words can appear in the text of any of the articles, because the text is completely ignored. So if you click on one of the results for e.g. "riots", you'll see that in the article "attack" is used. To get new information one should do the opposite of what you're saying: include all the titles that may refer to the event by including all the words alternatively (intitle:siege | intitle:breach | intitle:attack etc...), and look for the specific phrase in the text, but then it's not even needed to constrain the results by title as the text containing the said phrase would certainly be dealing with the topic. Doing that set of searches (just text, regardless of the title) is certainly possible for me but the word choices in the text carry less weight because journalistic writers tend to vary their word choices to avoid too much repetition for purely stylistic reasons, so those choices are pretty voluntary and non-committal, and don't necessarily express a real person's (editor's for example) real "call" on what to name the event. Hope these thoughts make sense to you. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think so far the method to try to understand what WP:COMMONNAME might have been mainly by counting. While this is a good indicator, we should also take into account of what media outlets at the organization level call the event as. Some of the outlets have been explicit about what the standard wording they use. If we have evidence that they in fact standardize on using particular words, those words should be given more careful attention than just the method of overall counting alone. Also most recent evidence should be used as the words they decided to use may evolve over time. I have compiled an initial list on the table here which we can expand if we find more explicit evidence:

Note: per discussion below, Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility— Alalch Emis (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be another indicator aside from raw counting. Z22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, we were doing some of that earlier but it's archived now. I added Politico. If you'd like to we can move this table to the top of the section so that both analyses are seen as a greater whole. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with how we typically use tables in a discussion thread, but if that is what we should do to make it easier to discuss, then I'm good with that. Z22 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if Business Insider is reliable enough or not. I just added an entry in the table. If there are some disputes that Business Insider should not be included, then discuss to remove it. Z22 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no consensus on BI status as a reliable source. Right now their senior editor for politics is someone for whom I cannot find evidence that he is a veteran political journalist. I'd say not, in this context. I remember seeing more categories and sections in various outlets, I'll keep looking to find them. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's clear that no COMMONNAME has been adopted, unlike the many other civil disorders. If one did, it would not matter if the tone was partial or the wording incorrect. I would avoid riot, insurrection or coup, since those terms have connotations that may be inaccurate. I don't see anything wrong with the current title. TFD (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a leap of logic to look at the results, see that there are 3 fairly prominent names and a plethora of less prominent name, and conclude that this article should use one of the less prominent words because none of the three prominent ones are a common name. It's not how it works. EDIT: looking again at your post, I understand that you didn't actually refer to the top 3 words, but mentioned two of them and coup (yeah, coup isn't really discussed anymore). — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
If there is no COMMONNAME, then COMMONNAME does not apply and we are not required to choose among the three most prominent titles, or the hundred most. Instead, we have to use recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency and avoid judgmental wording, per Wikipedia:Article titles. So that rules out terms such as riot, insurrection and coup that provide interpretations of the events. TFD (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
If there is no common name it doesn't mean that the name should not be supported by reliable sources. Riot and insurrection are not interpretations of the event. These names are very well supported by reliable sources and storming is comparably poorly supported. Insurrection is thus mandated by WP:NCE because insurrection is a generally accepted word under the included definition: A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public. Insurrection is a neutral word, and storming is a problematic word with complicated connotations. Storming doesn't include incredibly important elements of the event such as the bombing attempt and the methods and goals covered in the infobox. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
'insurrection' is far from neutral. Given that the Democratic Party leadership has deliberately used it to frame the politically motivated impeachment article that the House has delivered to the Senate, it is perhaps the most controversial word of all, and intended to be so - in common parlance the word has been 'weaponized' (as in this article from Aug 2016[157] and this from April 2020[158]) If 'insurrection' is used in the name it should be in quote marks, and the lead should begin by referencing the said impeachment. The article could then mention that before the impeachment, the word was already being used in public statements, both the commercially published and official, and this could be supported by citing a variety of frequency word counts identifying the criteria for each of those counts. If within the current period, say from 6 Jan to 6 Feb, notable Republican party leaders or supporters have used it, that, too should be mentioned. A better alternative would be to use the generic "protest" in the title, then at the start of the article say that it was variously described at the time as.... etc. That would probably be the better way for an encyclopedia. Redirects can be used for other words, just as the index of a print encyclopedia such as Britannica has redirects. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Qexigator: The article name will reflect reliable sources; it does not matter that one political party has used the word to describe what happened. Quotes around the word insurrection would not follow policy. There is no support for using the word protest in the article, which should be clear from the move discussion that resulted in the current title. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. It is clear and demonstrates the problem we are having here. Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The current title is supported by reliable sources. The argument that insurrection is a generally accepted word is incorrect, because NCE defines it as "a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event." I doubt there is any dispute that the Capitol was stormed.
Insurrection is problematic because it is defined as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." (Merriam-Webster)[159] Whether or not the actions amounted to that is something that is yet to be proved. Bear in mind that per People accused of crime, we cannot accuse living or recently deceased people of serious crimes until they are convicted.
The closest event I could find was the Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal (1849). Conservative demonstrators protesting new legislation threw stones at the governor-general, shot at the prime minister, broke into the main building and set it on fire with the legislators inside. The violence continued for days with attacks on other political targets. Yet the Canadian Encyclopedia refers to it as the "Montreal riots."
TFD (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think another indicator that can give us an insight as to how people understand the Jan 6 event as is to look at public discussion events that discuss about the Jan 6. Those public event names should be one of clearer indicators of COMMONNAME. I came up with a way to search those events. I planned to search for the top 3 words that many have talked about: "attack", "riot", and "insurrection". Then, I included "storming" as the 4th word for searching given that this page title is still that. The word that I chose to combine to form a search key in order to identify as many as public events possible are "event" and "panelists". So, it came to a total of 8 searches: "capitol" "attack" "event", "capitol" "attack" "panelists", "capitol" "riot" "event", "capitol" "riot" "panelists", "capitol" "insurrection" "event", "capitol" "insurrection" "panelists", "capitol" "storming" "event", and "capitol" "storming" "panelists". In each of those 8 searches, I inspected the first 100 results. In each of the results, I looked something that mentions a public discussion event that has an event name. If there is an article that talks about a discussion about Jan 6 but there is no way for me to find the event name / discussion title, then I don't count that in. I came across a few events that were not organized by notable entities, so, I did not include those few. Also, one event that was run by an organization that promotes a particular political party, I don't include that one. In all of those qualified events, here are the break down of the words used in the event names:

  • insurrection: 28 events
  • storming: 3 events
  • riot: 3 events
  • chaos: 3 events
  • siege: 3 events
  • attack: 2 events
  • assault: 1 event
  • sedition 1 event

Below is the list of the events. I have the table collapsed as it is a long list.

Note: per commment below Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If you find that it is better to move this table to the top for visibility, please feel free to do so. Maybe we can expand the list, but make sure to use a search methodology that is fair to all 4 words in question. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the list of event names in the above not only establishes a common name that has been used to communicate to the public on upcoming events that are about the Jan 6 event, it also indicates generally accepted word per WP:NCE as it shows consensus among scholars (many of these listed events have scholars as panelists, and organized by academic departments) in the real world. Z22 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Wonderful work, I hope many people see it — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The word 'event' in the list above is not well chosen. It tends to confuse the question under discussion, as the course of the discussion is showing, and the methodology is at least dubious.
The topic of the article is itself the event, and the purpose of this RM is to decide whether 'riot' would be a better choice than 'storming' in respect of that single event, with a view of improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please say specifically where the questionable use of 'event' is located, so I could take a look at it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Every news article I've checked today about the Bidens paying their respects uses the phrase "Capitol riot" in the first paragraph. nbc, cbs, foxnews, cnn, usatoday. Other names are used in the articles, but "U.S. Capitol riot" has emerged as the event identifier used first. JaredHWood💬 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You can check the results for the past 24 or 48 hrs using the first table, by replacing the date in the link (at the end; you can automate it in a text editor), and report them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: The numbers in #Exhibit A are mostly useless. There's a note saying "the actual count is on the last page of search results", but that's wrong.

  • Details: It's not easy to get useful search result numbers from Google. Maybe the number on the first result page isn't quite correct, but the number on the last page is useless – Google simply seems to deliver at most 300-350 results for these searches. Even when new pages are added to the search index, the number on the last page doesn't increase much beyond 300-350. I guess that's due to certain optimizations in the distributed algorithm that produces the result pages (see e.g. MapReduce), but only someone at Google would really know.
  • Evidence: Currently (February 11) the number on the last page for the "riot" search from Exhibit A is ca. 370. On January 30, it was 350. Of course, a lot more than 20 pages with a "Capitol riot" title have been published since then. How many? Let's change the after parameter from 2021-01-06 to 2021-01-30 and look at the last result page again, and we currently find a number around 220 - a lot more than 20. More evidence: Let's check how many results we get for the interval from 2021-01-06 to 2021-01-30 by using after:2021-01-06 and before:2021-01-30 parameters. The the last result page for that interval currently says 309. Of course, the count for the interval from January 6 until now should be the sum of the counts for January 6–30 plus January 30 until now. That sum would be 309 + 220 = 529. (Instead, as mentioned above, we got 370.) The discrepancy becomes even more apparent when we use shorter intervals, such that the count for each interval is below the 300-350 cutoff. For example, for the two days from January 10 to 12, the last result page says 250. For two days! If we run these searches for many small, disjunct intervals from January 6 until now and add the numbers, we get a total in the thousands.
  • In conclusion: The numbers in Exhibit A are useless. They are based on a flawed idea about how to get proper search result numbers from Google. After running multiple similar searches, I'd say the number that Google shows on the first result page is more meaningful than the number on the last page, but I'm not sure. Google search numbers in general are tricky beasts. Sorry!

— Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The term 'rioter(s)' is used 64 times in the article itself. 'Protester(s)' is used 14 times, and 'insurrectionist(s)' is used only once, and inside a quote. If the title were changed to 'insurrection', should instances of 'rioter(s)' also be changed to 'insurrectionist(s)'? To me that seems overly presumptive of the motivations of the individual participants, not very neutral, and would read terribly. Ar85ar (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

List not Analysis

For clarity, the word 'List' should replace 'Analysis' in the Table headings.

The leading promoter of the Tables A-D has been moving others' contributions about on this page, but is not disinterested. He has asserted a very personal opinion that 'the tone of "storming" is catastrophic' (17:53, 29 January).

Given that Analysis is a 'process of breaking a complex topic... into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it', the questions remain

  • whether it is a Qualitative Analysis that 'is concerned with which components are in a given sample' or a Quantitative Analysis that is 'to determine the quantity of individual component present in a given sample'?
  • what is its purpose?
  • wheher it is fit for that purpose?
  • whether that purpose can be at most a minor aid to deciding the question currently in issue, viz,, whether the word 'storming' is less suited than 'riot' to the article's name.

From the point of view of decision-making for editing, distinct from personal opinion, and allowing for guidance about secondary sources etc., it can be argued[160] (but not in this comment) that the Memorandum in Support of the impeachment,[161] which is intentionally framing the charge as Incitement of Insurrection, is the best evidence we have in support of retaining 'storming' though that word appears only once in the text, in section 'E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol' (p.23) and in two references: 1. Associated Press, Trump Doesn’t Ask Backers to Disperse after Storming Capitol, PBS (Jan. 6, 2021) (p.21) and 2. Raphael Satter, Laptop Stolen from Pelosi’s Office during Storming of U.S. Capitol, Says Aide, Reuters (Jan. 8, 2021).(p.40).

(For 'Answer to Article 1 Incitement of insurrection' addresed to the members of the Senate see[162])

The Tables on this page offered as analysis are in fact no more than lists of number counts, unaccompanied by a critical appraisal of the external sources, in respect of criteria for click bait, headline grabbing, editorial policy and control, imitative, repetitive, inciting or following a twitterstorm[163]. -Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I take that back, when I said it was catastrophic, it was a bit of unfortunate hyperbole. I think the tone is really bad for reasons widely discussed on this talk page, and it's the most problematic of all descriptors, but not "catastrophic". I am disinterested. I am not a promotor of anything. I didn't read the rest of your post. What is offered is an analysis and not a list. Update: voila, I minimized the usage of "analysis" so we don't have to talk about that hopefully. Update #2: the most comprehensive of the tables, that took the most effort by far, was not even done by me, so I shouldn't be made to look more important here than I am — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
So, to better clarify: it's an ongoing analysis, the analysis isn't complete, it's a team effort. We break the naming trends down and come to a conclusion, over some time, no? We are looking if there's a common name, or what names are significantly supported by reliable sources and what aren't ("Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."), and/or what is the generally accepted word. If you have a superior methodology you are entitled just as I am to proffer one. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of Section

This section has been restored due to a few events that led it to be archived when it should not have. When the RM was closed, the section after it was closed as well despite not being a sub-section at the time. Then, a different editor made it a sub-section while moving an unrelated discussion. It was then pointed out that there seemed to be an error when closed and that they were different sections. Separately, a user made a modification to raise the auto-archive from one to three days. The closing of the RM was modified to un-close this section. This should have been enough to now restore this section to a normal section, but Lowercase sigmabot III archived it as it only looks at User:MiszaBot/config and not a combination of it and Template:auto archiving notice. (Which should be considered a bug, but alas.) That was adjusted and this section restored from the archive after a brief discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In order to ensure that users know it has been restored I am pinging the following editors for making at least one signed comment in the above discussion: Z22, Alalch Emis, Jayron32, Qexigator, Casprings, Symmachus Auxiliarus, BlackholeWA, The Four Deuces, Jared.h.wood --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Thanks. We've been working on the same thing apparently. I've created a subpage with the same purpose as this restored section cca 2 hrs ago. Please tell me what you think is the best way to proceed. Ongoing analysis of naming trends — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Your rationale for the restoration is extremely valid, but ProcrastinatingReader's rationale not to restore, but to create a subpage (or copy the content into a new section) is also very valid. Basically it's a just a matter of what creates the most utility, not what is the most appropriate. At this point I don't know what creates the most utility, and I'd like to leave that decision to you. If you tell me to delete the subpage I'll do it immediately. If you think a subpage is better, you can replace all of the content in the subpage with the content in this section. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Huh, I don't have any pings from you in my notices, so I wonder how I didn't get this message. If the subpage is a better location, then that is fine, though this would need to be re-archived as it would otherwise be lost. The subpage might be better as it would mean that it would not be archived automatically, though it might not see as much discussion. Then again, the only comments here are about this section being restored. (Also, I think ProcrastinatingReader believe there was only one section based on their reply to Z22.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel like the subpage would be less noticed, if only pointed to by a small bit of link text. I didn't actually get my ping for some reason, and certainly would not have noticed the subpage; I only saw this message because I saw it had been restored as I checked through this talk. Personally I don't think there's much need to separate this discussion out somewhere where it will get less discussion, and considering that it might not have much longevity beyond the ongoing naming dispute (which would bring the rationale for its special treatment into question). BlackholeWA (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

ReliverMattWiki (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Brian Sicknick

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Mentioning Brian Sicknick in casualties is misleading and factually wrong. NY Times and the Time updated their stories claiming Officer Sicknick was killed by protestors using a "fire extinguisher." There is no medical/official finding or report concluding that he died from injuries sustained in the riot. The only sources that have been used in this article are media outlets dated just after the storming. In the second impeachment trial, no additional evidence was presented too. What we exactly know is he was "well" after the incident as his family said.

So, in the article, it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.125.196 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the cop died from anything related to the protest. His mention should be removed unless reliable sources show his death was related. Innican Soufou (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Do either of you have reliable sources to support your claims? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You'd like me to provide sources that prove that something didn't happen? Isn't that proving a negative? I think it's on people making the claim that protestors killed him to provide citation. Innican Soufou (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Innican Soufou, and they have. There are multiple citations that he died as a result of an injury that occurred while he was defending against the riot. Whether that was a "fire extinguisher" by rioters, or whether he suffered a stroke and medical care was delayed due to the riot, he is still a casualty of this event unless you can provide sources to suggest otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
those reports have been established as lies and debunked conspiracies. I'm not the only one who thinks it should be removed until reliable sources can provide evidence that protestors were the ones responsible for his death. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, can you provide any reliable sources to verify your claim? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Linked immediately below:"...both the police and rioters used spray in the siege. It is difficult to prove who sprayed irritant on Officer Sicknick." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe if you'd actually read the NYT piece updating it (linked here for convenience) you would note that even if it wasn't a "fire extinguisher" (which they haven't formally retracted, just said it is "in question") they still say that he was injured by "chemical irritants" at the riot. At this time, there is no hard evidence to point to his death being unrelated to the riot, and reliable sources are virtually unanimous in saying it was related to the riot, even if they may disagree with the methods. I've clarified the circumstances of his injury by making a minor edit for now until more information comes out - but he definitely was a casualty of this event as were the other three medical emergencies that resulted in deaths outside the Capitol building. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The story, citing a "law enforcement official" again, actually only says investigators "increasingly suspect" or are "focused on whether" any "nonlethal deterrents" were a "factor". Nothing like "injured by". Read closer. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Us insurrection" re-listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Us insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Us insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the quote "violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die...[I]t is our duty as Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights." Violent is not part of the quote and the quotation marks should be moved to the right of the first period. Muddycarpenter (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Spain Yes it is: One of the comments cited in the FBI memo declared Trump supporters should go to Washington and get “violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die.” [164] GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Add this pic to one of the main pics?

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol.webp

What do you guys think of this picture as one of the infobox pictures Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi, I've changed it to display the picture directly here, hopefully you don't mind. That being said, I don't think this is a better picture - to me at least it gives the inaccurate appearance that the building was on fire. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help I don't know how to do that User. I don't particularly mind either way, I was just hoping for consensus. I was surprised that the picture wasn't on the Wikimedia Commons page, since I remember seeing that pic all over the news. Do you think it portrays it inaccurately? The picture doesn't give an appearance of fire. I added a description and you can access the source. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
      I do personally, as to me, the first thing I saw was the big, bright, yellow/orange region which has smoke coming off of it. The word "fire" is what came into my mind at first. I realize that that's not possible (as there wasn't a fire), but this picture could give such an impression. Others may disagree - and I'm fine with that - just was offering my opinion (and fixing it so it displays so more people can more easily comment). I agree that the current pictures could use revisiting, but I don't feel this one in particular would be an improvement. BTW, see Help:Images for inserting images into a page as a thumbnail - in this case, I used [[File:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol.webp|thumb|right]] to make it display on the right as a thumbnail. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I see your point. I found the picture from the actual page which had a caption, so I didn't initially assume it to be the case. But if you think it will give an inaccurate portrayal then others might see that too. Should we get a consensus for this? Thanks for the image tip Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
There are much better pictures to choose from. The wall is saturated bright and it makes detail of the crowd and building hard to see. I don't think we need it in the article let alone the infobox. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: it has been deleted now as it is owned by Reuters. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, DemonDays64 as you are correct: The photo is the property of Reuters and the Reuters photojournalist who took it. It is not acceptable for use under any of the licenses allowed by en:Wikipedia nor Commons. In response to Phillip Samuel and User, I was curious about the image when I first saw it two weeks ago, as it appears that the US Capitol was in flames, and I knew that there weren't any fires reported.--FeralOink (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes...7 dead? 4 dead? or was it 5 dead?...

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

I've reverted the recent series of changes here, here, and here. This seems like something that should be discussed here on the talk page first. Shearonink (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

While I made some changes to clarify that the police officer may not have died due to injuries from rioters, reliable sources still list him as part of the death toll which they virtually unanimously put at 5. Seven is used sometimes if they're including the two police officers who committed suicide, but they don't directly connect them to the event, so we shouldn't do that here. For now, I say we leave it at 5 until if/when more consensus of reliable sources supports decreasing/increasing it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion above about removing the officer Sicknick death due to his passing having to do with unrelated health issues and not the protestors.Innican Soufou (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
When medical care for an "unrelated health issue" is delayed due to the location, or events happening around the person with the health issue, that becomes a "related" health issue. That is why the other three people who died from medical emergencies during the events are included as well. His death is not getting removed from the toll if/until reliable sources in large part stop considering his death a part of the event. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose that's one creative interpretation of it. We'll see. Innican Soufou (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Innican Soufou we do what reliable sources do and reliable sources overwhelmingly include his death. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Most abundantly also make clear the time and location of his collapse, subsequent to telling his brother he was fine following the riot and shortly before his nearby hospitalization. Most note the lack of evidence of any injury by any person during the event, despite all the footage. Some blame a common stroke. Some specify how pepper spray has never killed an officer in the line of duty before (nor a bear). What we do is selectively omit certain things that make the mob look less murderous. No opinion on whether we should relay more. But we don't and hypothetically could. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
At first I thought you were doing a lot of WP:OR here, but then I looked up some sources and got the impression that your claims seem to be based on this piece of crap high-quality journalism by "Revolver News" (the very name sounds like a neutral and reliable source, doesn't it), which was later mentioned by Tucker Carlson (also known and trusted as a WP:RS). Or maybe you got your information from this piece (written in a much more rational style than "Revolver" or Carlson) by Andrew C. McCarthy in the National Review? All of these basically just quote "Revolver". Anyway. If you find some information regarding the the time and location of Sicknick's collapse in WP:RS, let us know. This article by ProPublica quotes his brother: "Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR." That seems to be the only source for the "collapse" claim. It's not even clear if it happened during the riot, later that day, or the day after. As others have said: We stick to what WP:RS say. So far, most sources say Sicknick's death was directly related to (and probably caused by) the attack by the rioters. So we'll stick with that for the time being. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I learned it from Snopes (different article from one below, published today), Fox News (Lanum, not Carlson), The New York Times and LawOfficer.com, among a few others (the January 7 Capitol Hill Police press release teaches us he collapsed in "his division office"), but won't get into it further; stick with whatever you want, just read and write with caution and care. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Most "reliable sources" have latched onto the debunked conspiracy theory that he was beaten to death by a protestor with a fire extinguisher, so obviously that needs to be accounted for. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Innican Soufou, it's hardly debunked. You've shown one source that has said that - "debunked" would require virtually all reliable sources that made that claim to correct/retract the claim. We don't go based on what we think are "debunked conspiracy theories" - we go based on reliable sources, and only one so far has been presented that's changed that claim. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory has definitely been debunked. I'm sure once the initial activist editing dies down on this page, the facts will be added and the conspiracies removed. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Bullshit. See Did U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Die After Hit With a Fire Extinguisher? --Snopes
Key quote: "There isn’t enough information from official sources available at this time to state either way what the cause and manner of Sicknick’s death was, or what mechanisms contributed to it. We will update this story with further information when it becomes available." In other words, not confirmed, not debunked.
Innican Soufou, If I see you casting WP:ASPERSIONS again as you did above, I am going to ask that you be blocked from editing this talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Is CNN casting aspersions when it says, per some official, that the very investigators reviewing the very footage of Sicknick's engagement with the protestors can't see a single moment of injury after over a month of reviewing? If so, block me and depreciate CNN. But leave that newb alone! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Why would I be blocked for this?Innican Soufou (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Writing things like "I'm sure once the initial activist editing dies down on this page, the facts will be added and the conspiracies removed" is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. If you wish to avoid being blocked, I suggest that you only talk about article content, never about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a bit over the top. Obviously once the conspiracies are removed from the article, the facts will remain. To panic and threaten to block anyone who notices activism in the article is a little juvenile. I think it's a good idea to remove the debunked conspiracy theories from the article. Do you agree? Innican Soufou (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
So you insist on calling other editors "activists" who post "conspiracy theories" ( that by an amazing coincidence are supported by citations to reliable sources)? Well, you were warned. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I read that link you mentioned and it doesn't apply to anything going on here. It's also not a rule or guideline. I'm not accusing anyone of misconduct or anything. Maybe you should focus on editing and not so much on trying to bully other editors. Innican Soufou (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I contributed the edit to reduce the number of deaths from five to four in the opening sentences of this section because there are no reliable sources that Benjamin Phillips' stroke was in any way associated with the storming of the Capitol building. Reliable sources indicate he was in D.C. for the rally, but so were thousands who never participated in the storming of the Capitol building. Dying while in the general region is not the same as dying as part of the storming. Presuming that all rally attendees are connected to the storming is factually incorrect and requires an irresponsible leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion. Early reports of injuries and deaths may have counted all 5 deaths that appeared to be possibly connected, but when no evidence has emerged over a month later to confirm that Phillips' stroke was caused in any way by participation in the storming, it is appropriate to characterize his death as coincidental with, not caused by it. In addition to the article already cited in my edit, here is another that characterizes his death as lacking evidence that it is more than coincidental: [165]. StephenCMorgan (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack/Archive_14&oldid=1136836115"