Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Bombs discovered weren't at the Capitol building

I know that everyone knows this by now; however, the section "Bombs discovered" falls under the section "Attack on the Capitol building". Should the rollup section be called "Attack on the Capitol"? It would make more sense, and it fits better with the overall title of the article: 2021 United States Capitol. The bombs weren't even on the Capitol Complex, let alone at the Capitol Building, so that wouldn't work either. I looked for any discussion on this but found nothing, but if this has been discussed and decided on, please ignore. :) Shoestringnomad (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point. The bombs at the RNC and DNC offices are at best very loosely related to the storming of the Capitol. We should move them to the "Events elsewhere" section. So far, the section is about events in other cities or countries, but it would work just as well for other areas of D.C. (Some suspect that there was a "level of coordination" between the bombs and the storming, but that's hardly possible - the person who planted the bombs the night before could not have predicted when they would be discovered.) — Chrisahn (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can definitely say whether the two were connected. And while someone cannot predict what will happen, someone can put pieces together and think what is plausible. Premeditatively laying bombs as a distraction is nothing new. I would be opposed to moving this subsection to another subsection focused on events outside of DC. That's why I suggested the name change. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hm... I thought you suggested that we rename section "Attack on the Capitol building" to "Attack on the Capitol", but you also wrote "the bombs weren't even on the Capitol Complex"... I think I get it now - you suggest renaming the section, and you're looking for a title that encompasses the storming of the Capitol as well as the bombs at the RNC and DNC offices. Correct? — Chrisahn (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I think they should stay together given proximity, but you're correct that my suggested title is inaccurate as well. "Attacks in the U.S. capital" would seem more accurate, but I don't think that will fly. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: As Chrisahn correctly points out above, "Attack on the Capitol" would also be deficient. The best option I can think of is "Attacks in the U.S. capital". Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(EC)I've dropped the word "building" the heading as you suggested. Since RSes report USCP handling of the bombs had a direct effect on the success of the on-going attack, it make sense to cover it under the heading discussing the "Attack on the Capitol". If we want to add more geographic precision, we could retitle the bomb discovery section as "Bombs discovered near Capitol complex". Feoffer (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think "Bombs discovered near Capitol Complex" under the heading "Attack on the Capitol" is the most precise and least confusing discussed so far. Just note that I capitalized complex, as I think that is more accurate, at least here on Wikipedia: United States Capitol Complex. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for improving the article with your observation! Feoffer (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding the "Bombs placed" sub-section to "Background" makes a lot of sense. A suggestion: The second paragraph of the "Bombs discovered" sub-section (from "The two pipe bombs were found..." to "...the promised reward") is about how, when and by whom the bombs were placed. I think the paragraph should be merged into the "Bombs placed" sub-section. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! Great suggestion, Chrisahn. Feoffer (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Capitol Breach

I initiated this talk only because I am unable to edit the entry. The subsection titled "Capital Breach" contains the phrase "...capitol surveillance surveillance camera footage..." It might benefit from the removal of at least one "surveillance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.73.118 (talk) 09:28, June 8, 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical context

Organized mob uprisings specifically related to (leading up to, during, or following) an election is not new in American History. Documented examples right here in Wikipedia include:

• 1868, St. Bernard Parish massacre
• 1873, Colfax massacre
• 1874, Eufaula election riot
• 1875, Clinton riot
• 1898, Wilmington insurrection
• 1920, Ocoee massacre

This history is academically relevant to the ideologies of the people who were instrumental in its fomentation and execution. There ought to be a section that sets this event within the known historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 2001:56a:799a:d00:82c:a34a:e3ae:18f6 OughtThoughts (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like this to appear in the article, please provide verification from a reliable published source explicitly discussing it in relation to the 2021 attack on Congress. And please sign your posts. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

[Edit] I might have invoked wp:iar, but here is one article, A History of Attacks at the US Capitol, which connects a history of violence at the Capitol building specifically to general violence against Black people. It also mentions other events, beyond the Capitol, tied to this overarching point of aggression. The article is also full of links to other references. And, most relevant to this challenge, it concludes by mentioning the 2021 Capitol attack by supporters of Donald Trump, setting this event as the culmination of a history of such violent uprisings.

So, having satisfied the requirements, can we go ahead and add this section from an academic, neutral standpoint without bias or prejudice? I would suggest it appear in the section "Aftermath" and retitle that section "Aftermath and Analysis" as somewhat of a clearinghouse for this and other insight into not so much the how (tactical and technical) but the why (meaning and understanding) of it all. OughtThoughts (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Um, History.com didn't generally impress last year at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294. You may be able to find other discussions. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting how different these events, which mostly occurred during reconstruction, were to Jan. 6. They actually were organized and were mostly if not all involved the massacre of dozens of black people, mostly lasted for days and occurred within the southern States, broadly construed. But we'll have to wait for someone to compare and contrast these events. TFD (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are differences. But, there are also similarities, and it is these similarities that ought to be included, again, for historical context - what happened on January 6, 2021 did not happen in a vacuum. OughtThoughts (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, but still needs a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The article you found is interesting (and might be useful for List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C.), but it doesn't mention any of the events you listed above (or other attempts to influence or overturn election results). If there are WP:RS discussing a relation between the events you mentioned and the 2021 Capitol riot, and the information is deemed relevant, we could add a sentence or two to the background section. The page is already quite long though, and we generally try to keep it focused on the events of Jan 6. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I concede that History.com may be dubious as a reliable source, I did not know. Having said that, do we need a reliable source to state that water is wet or the sky is blue? We all acknowledge and agree that the 2021 attack on the US Capitol happened, with a basis in politics, and that uprisings based on politics dot the US historic landscape; what about these observable, known facts require resources in order to set this this event into that known, documented, larger historic context? At the very least, please clarify how, if there's any weight to wp:iar, it does not apply here? OughtThoughts (talk)

I think IAR means that if the existing rules do not meet the intent of policy then and only then should we ignore them. There is a law where if following the letter of the law defeats the intent of the law then the courts can ignore it (equity.) Similarly, accountants should ignore accounting rules if there would lead to a material misrepresentation on the financial statements. But this is not a case of the sky is blue. You are bringing your own personal interpretations of events and finding links where no obvious links exist. You may as well compare it with other events that occurred when the planets were in the same alignment. TFD (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but there's nothing "personal" nor "interpretive" about the fact that all of these events, including the 2021 attack on the Capitol, were conservative, politically-oriented uprisings, as indicated by the very participants themselves in all cases. Providing wider historical context to this latest such event is academically honest. But, carry on. At the very least, this conversation here on the talk page can provide readers with some historical context they can research for themselves. OughtThoughts (talk)

None of these was "conservative." SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the term conservative either because it has various meanings, but the same applies to all descriptions of U.S. politics. In any case the connection that they were conservative protests that led to violence is too weak to be meaningful. Conservatives like to group all the BLM protests with antifa and link it back to George Soros. In both cases there's an assumption that there is a grand conspiracy spanning generations to overthrow the Republic usually linked somehow to foreigners or disloyal Americans operating under their influence. It detracts from the actual causes of conflict in American society, seeing dissent as merely criminal and alien rather than a result of domestic social, political and economic conflict.

Curiously, the term conservative was introduced by FDR to describe what he saw as people outside the American tradition, which was liberal in a classical sense. But they eventually adopted the term themselves.

TFD (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and this conversation - please rest assured that I did not intend for the term "conservative" to be pejorative or to bely any assumption of a grand conspiracy. I used it in the strictest political sense, insofar as the element in question is reticent of, and defines itself in juxtaposition to "progressiveness" and its related implications of diversification, inclusion, etc.; it's about wanting to retain the status quo against these social changes, and all these uprisings were in opposition to this political concept of "progress", that is, diversification of the political process. Another thermometer that keenly reflects this is the correlation between laws that ushered in new degrees of suffrage and civil rights for minorities and flurries of activity in erecting Confederate monuments. This is well-documented - the following article provides a visual that is quite effective in clearly conveying the timing: There are certain moments in US history when Confederate monuments go up.

OughtThoughts (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In any strict sense, these rioters against constitutional process are "insurrectionists" not "Conservatives". It's an insult to the legacy of Ronald Reagan and even an insult to Newt Gingrich and Poppy Bush to call these insurrectionists "conservatives". SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please leave out your interpretation about what Reagan, Gingrich, or Bush represents to the modern Republican party. It's a red herring, beside the point I was making, which is that there is a long, well-documented history of political uprising that has an overwhelming tendency to emerge from a particular element of American society, and this 2021 Capitol attack fits within that context, and that this is historically factual, not any biased interpretation. Splitting hairs about how we interpret the modern Republican party is not what this is about. OughtThoughts (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, opponents of progress who are not insurrectionists are called "reactionaries" rather than "Conservatives" -- Goldwater's self-description to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but Goldwater has as much right to express how he saw himself and his party (especially as he worked to effect the party from the inside) as you do to opine about Reagan or Gingrich, so, respectfully, relegating Goldwater as "notwithstanding" while pushing your opinion about Reagan is heavy-handed and belying clear bias. OughtThoughts (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

At any rate, I think this discussion has run its course and is now in danger of running completely off the rails. I've provided sources of varying degrees of reliability, as well as my thoughts on their relevance, and I'm content to bow out and let this discussion, as it currently stand, speak for itself. Thanks to all for this conversation, as well as retaining here on the talk page for all to read, do their own research, and form their own opinions. Cheers. OughtThoughts (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

All these historic massacres were carried out by the majority in order to reverse black voting rights. The Capitol riot was carried out by a lunatic fringe with no clear objectives or, if they were clear, not viable. TFD (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That horned furry facepainted maniac was pretty clearly seeking fame and fortune. Definitely won fame. Arguably lost fortune. The important thing is there was nobody matching his description at these race riots. If there was, history would remember. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on naming term in title

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

---

Based on the multiple move requests here, here, here, here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here, and here and the excellent analysis on names used by RSes, this RFC is designed to provide editors with an opportunity to rank choice the verb used in the title. The idea is to gain consensus by using rank choice methodology so that we can account for editors that have a first choice that lacks consensus but have second and third choices that may have consensus. The verb in consideration:

• assault
• attack
• breach
• coup attempt
• incident
• insurrection
• invasion
• occupation
• protest
• raid
• rampage
• riot
• siege
• storming
• takeover

I would ask that editors format their votes by listing their choices from 1st choice to last choice at the start of their response, then provide the rationale for their ordering. Casprings (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• riot 1 attack 2 assault 3 invasion 4 protest 6 Breach 7 incident 8 Raid 9 storming 10 The rest are irrelevant or just plain incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• insurrection, riot, attack, breach, assault: Basically followed WP:Commonname, per analysis here. I would note that insurrection is a little more descriptive. However, would support all titles over storming, which has problems with WP:N.Casprings (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• riot: I strongly vote that the title be changed to riot. I would rank vote this but I am concerned that the first and second choice would most naturally be "attack" simply because this is the existing title and it is listed near the very top of the list (alphabetical ordering is coincidental but still confers a strong bias). Therefore, I hope others who vote on this RfC take this into consideration. The reason why I believe "Riot" is the most appropriate choice is because it is more neutral than "attack." Riots can form spontaneously without a strong premeditated plan whereas "attack" makes it seem as though the entire event was orchestrated. It may well be that the event was incited by former President Trump and his key supporters but that would be a non-neutral claim. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum:, you cite NPOV in favor of riot and at first blush that's true! But counter-intuitively, that's the very reason we CANNOT use "riot" in our title. The RSes report this was was, in fact, a planned criminal conspiracy complete with multiple bombs, weapons caches, body armor, coordination across teams, and the recruitment and participation of law enforcement and military.

Entirely APART from those attackers, there were people who came as tourists-protesters never planning to do anything other than have their voices heard who wound up participating in a riot. Out of fairness to those individuals, we can't mischaracterize the events as a mere "riot". If people had just gotten rowdy at a protest, this article might not exist -- this article is about a coordinated attack along with bombs and soldiers, not the people who spontaneously got upset enough to commit minor vandalism. Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Let's stop this. An RfC like this might be productive if done properly, but this one won't. Haven't you learned anything from past debacles? 1. The move review isn't done yet. Let's not start a new RM or RfC until it's done. 2. There are way too many options, making the process much more complex and confusing than necessary. 3. Don't say "verb" when you mean "noun". Come on. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:AN#RfC about title started while move review is in progress. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Also see this very similar RfC which was started by Casprings on Jan 24 and closed by an admin on Jan 25 with this comment: "The entire set up (quasi-RM RfC) is too unconventional and shouldn't be repeated again." — Chrisahn (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

For a topic of this fluidity, Jan 24 might as well be 2004. Feoffer (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Attack, Insurrection, with coup attempt a very distant third due to its uncommonness. Most common, most precise. "Riot"ing occurred but that's not why this article exists. RSes are clear: this wasn't a riot, this was an attack. There were bombs. The participants have been charged with criminal conspiracy. Feoffer (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Some of those words can be used as verb forms, but none of them would be used as a verb in the title. They're being used as nouns. Please (for the love of god) stop calling them "verbs." Moncrief (talk) 21:36, 12 June 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.

Relevant recent news (06/06/2021) worth adding?

A seemingly relevant recent News reference (Business Insider; 06/06/2021) was added to the main article, but later reverted - is the news reference worth adding to the main article in some form - or not - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd expect only footage of the subject itself in a section like that, not videos of assorted news shows about it. Those seem more suitable as regular citations for ordinary claims. Not seeing what's so different here from the existing PBS or WaPo vids, except maybe length. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It was removed as an external link, where it doesn't belong. i think it has received too little coverage for inclusion in the article. Bear in mind that the PAC is relatively unknown and we don't know why Fox News Channel rejected it. Nor do we have any pundits speculating about this. TFD (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Still pretty confused. Is this stuff you think and I bear in mind (part of) the reason this external link doesn't belong? Is there much (or enough) coverage of any of these videos (or text links)? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons to add links, which is covered by WP:EL. Congressional resolutions and other primary sources are helpful, as would be Frontline's 1 1/2 hour documentary of the events. A story about an ad rejected by Fox News Channel just isn't that useful. TFD (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

So it's subjective, basically. Cool. No further opinions from me, may the rest of you hammer something out! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Normal tourist visit

I keep seeing these words in the newspaper. Are they anywhere in the article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it. Why would they be? They were uttered months after the riot by a congressman, to generally incredulous reactions. If there's a Wikipedia article on reactions to January 6th, perhaps it's there. If you're serious about it being included in this article (you're probably not), you'll have to do the basic work of searching the page and suggesting a location in the article where you think it would be appropriate. Moncrief (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, but the quote seems related to something which is in January 6 commission#Opposition. Maybe there's a way to use it there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If they're included, include the full quote, snippets are designed to mislead and enrage. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They were used in quotation marks by every RS (CNN, NBC, WaPo, Forbes, etc.). That was Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde's description five months after he was recorded screaming and barricading the House Chamber door as the "normal tourists" were rampaging through the building. What kind of tourists do they have in Georgia? I'd be in favor of including this if the article had a section on "Disinformation spread by House and Senate members." Right now it's just "Disinformation about identity of attackers" but that was only the beginning. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Really not seeing what this tellas us about the event.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that I've seen the whole thing, I think it is important to explain exactly what he was saying. It doesn't look as bad when you see more of what he said.—

This source explains exactly what is going on, and this article has no section on a House investigation. Only one sentence about the Senate investigation. And it would be violating WP:UNDUE to have this without the full details of a House investigation. There is misleading information in the January 6 commission article and I now have the opportunity to correct that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the January 6 article. I may have included too much of what Andrew Clyde said, but I was asked to include the full quote and I can see why. We now have exactly what he said, minus some non-essential information, and two different points of view.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

And at this point, since there's nothing about the House investigation, Clyde's quote doesn't belong in this article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I did come up with the idea of looking at Clyde's own article. It is there, and I guess there's enough detail. But someone could still read it quickly and get the wrong idea.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wow, that fix on "January 6" is quite the whitewash of Clyde's remarks. His own page at least says that he later (after the photographer published the footage he took of him in the House Chamber) acknowledged that during the storming, he "helped barricade the [House chamber] door until almost 3 p.m. from the mob who tried to enter" but your fix basically says, well, that's his opinion. That doesn't reflect RS at all. They're saying that he downplayed the events and that his "account gravely contradicts the events of the day, which were captured on television and on smartphone videos from inside the Capitol" (NBC). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is about this page, any other page has its own talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but there ought to be some centralized place to discuss when you don't know where to go. I thought my edit provided balance.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

See wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't help. Isn't there a WikiProject?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, it appears what I have done is correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of AfD of related (split) articles

The sub-article Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack as well as the sub-sub article Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, both of which contain content formerly of this article, have been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. 03:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Brevity and active voice in lead

The lede is far more convoluted than necessary. I simplified it, but the change was reverted. The use of passive voice ("Capitol was stormed during a riot and violent attack against the US congress. A mob of supporters ....") is out of place; It should be active: 'supporters of President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol'. Feoffer (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead is a bit too long, but the first couple of sentences are fine. They went through various iterations in the beginning, but we've had the current solution for months (I think since March).

Regarding passive voice: I don't think that's a problem. The first sentence contains the "when" and "what". Right after that, we list the perpetrators, their goals, and their targets. Maybe active voice would be a bit nicer, but then we'd have to pack all that information into one sentence, which would become convoluted and harder to read. Something like that has been suggested before, e.g. on March 14, but it was usually quickly reverted, e.g. on March 15. I think most editors preferred the more readable version with two or three sentences and didn't care much whether we use active or passive voice.

I reverted your edit mostly because it removed important information: What kind of attack was it? (An attack on a building is most often a military or terrorist attack.) Did the attackers enter the building? Did they damage it? Did they occupy it? For how long? Who was in the building, and why? All of these questions (and more) are answered succinctly in the first three sentences we've had for months. But of course, there's always room for improvement. Let's talk! — Chrisahn (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Feoffer:@Chrisahn: Now that the Aftermath section has been fully split, the aftermath portions of the lead (the last two paragraphs, and a part of the third-last), which are more detailed and referenced than the corresponding portion of the body, could be merged into the aftermath section, and a single paragraph would take their place. Some references would migrate from the lead to the body, which is also needed. That way the four-paragraph ideal would start getting implemented bottom-up. Better than approaching the lead top-to-bottom because the first paragraph seems pretty much cemented. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sedition Caucus nominated for speedy deletion

The page Sedition Caucus has been nominated for speedy deletion, an action which may interest users of this talk page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The speedy was declined. The article is now at AfD. SkyWarrior 02:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Article is too long

I can see the "Too long" template has been rightfully applied to this article once again. I also see that another tag to split the article's "Aftermath" section into its own article has been applied as well, even though there's already an article titled Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. How should such a split work? Outside of that, I made a post here suggesting that a lot of material should be moved to Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack.

Any thoughts or other suggestions? Love of Corey (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of material that can be removed. Both "Impeachment and trial" and "Independent commission" can be reduced to a few lines. While we should know that Trump was impeached for "incitement of insurrection" and acquitted on a vote largely along partisan lines, the rest is unimportant. We don't for example need to know the names of the house managers or that the speaker appointed them. In the commission section, all that needs to be mentioned is that the Democrats' request for a commission of inquiry was blocked by the Republicans. Also, it is unhelpful to keep readers in suspense before telling them in the final sentence that the commission was not set up. TFD (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Done, but that only removes a grand total of nine references. I strongly think we need to work on moving about 100+ references' worth of content around into different and/or new articles. Love of Corey (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The split tag doesn't make sense IMO. I think they might've either not known about the aftermath article or confused it with merging. I largely agree with Four Deuces' suggestions so far, also. Nekomancerjade (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We already have an "aftermath" article: Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Good! We should also create a "beforemath" article and move most of the #Background section (100K characters) to that new article. I just can't think of a good name. "Background of the ..."? "Run-up to the ..."? — Chrisahn (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I did make a suggestion the assault on the capitol building might be separated from the semi-peaceful majority of activities but my suggestion went nowhere, just before another similar thread for splitting was introduced. I think many of us concur that the page is too lengthy (looks even longer on mobile). The question becomes whether to bifurcate the page in a way similar to my suggestion (or otherwise as consensus chooses) or do what other large articles do (see WWII, a far more complex subject than this): remove excessive detail into sub-articles, which I believe the wiser course. That would take a group of dedicated editors willing to draft out sections for discussion. I'm hoping for something similar on American Civil War which is (slightly) less political but equally unwieldy. BusterD (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The whole subject is terribly contentious, and terms like "semi-peaceful" quickly derail the discussion into politics. If you argue that the reason for moving the section is that the demonstration was "semi-peaceful", others may think you want to shield the demonstrators from blame, and that's not what we do. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether anything before or after the storming was "semi-peaceful" or not. If the rioters had ransacked the National Mall or attacked police before or during the demonstration, we should still move most of the background section to a new article. Just because it's too long. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right of course, and my intention was definitely NOT to provoke political heat but to find a "cleavage point" for page division (suggested by another editor). I've struck through my phrase above. I watched the days' events on television with my adult daughter, the same daughter with which I shared the events of 9/11 with our own eyes (not on TV) when we both lived in NYC. We watched the 1/6 spectacle with dismay and horror, and my rare involvement here with ANY political topic was a result of my visceral reaction to the day's events and my endorsement of Wikipedia's well-cited coverage. We agree the page is too long. To my reading there's a number of obvious subpages the current pagespace suggests: Background, Attack, Aftermath, Reactions. Sub-articles could be created (where not already created) for each of these existing headings, those pages built up to specs using sources already applied here and then the excessive detail removed from this page as consensus allows. The process is inevitable but the political heat at this moment makes any consensus less than likely. Time and much better RS will help us tell the story for future generations of English speakers. WWII is a far more broad and contentious subject than this, but we have a wealth of excellent sources upon which to draw. Wikipedia can't do news well, partially because news sources aren't as authoritative as they once were and partially because our need to get something, anything up is complicated by the lack of RS perspective. BusterD (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree. I'd say let's take it step by step: Let's create a new article Background of the 2021 United States Capitol attack (unless someone can think of a better word) and move most of the Background section into it. I hope that should be relatively uncontroversial. After that is done and we still want to condense the article, we can discuss further sub-articles. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm personally partial to the title Prelude to the 2021 United States Capitol attack, but I digress. Love of Corey (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

FTR, I prefer Prelude to Background, but that's my mere opinion. Background serves well as a one word section title but "Prelude to..." seems to better describe the topic. IMHO. I wonder what the n-grams users would assert sources use. BusterD (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears we already have excellent articles on "Domestic reactions to..." and "International reactions to...". So it appears we need a Background/Prelude article and an Assault/Storming subpage, "which brings us back to doe", my original suggestion of an article on the security breach of the complex itself. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Article titles aside, apparent reaction to the attempted deletion of two "daughter pages" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack and Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack seems to indicate there's a broad and non-partisan interest in keeping such sub-pages (my assessment of the early assertions). I agree that such sub-pages could be created. I'd suggest against moving any text directly from this main article; I'd prefer (for attribution purposes) that existing sources be used to create entirely fresh pages with similar wordings and structure. After these sub-pages had matured and absorbed the highly detailed content, such detail could be safely removed from the "mother" article as excessive and already covered in subpage. My suggested method might have the advantages of current consensus and total transparency. BusterD (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting the text from the parent article to the child article may be more efficient and save editing time. The way I usually like to do this is do the cut and paste, provide an edit summary of "copied text from parent article", make sure the child article has a good lead, and then {{excerpt}} the child article from the parent article. This is all acceptable under policy, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:CWW. And using {{excerpt}} keeps everything in sync and prevents writing the same thing twice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Prelude" is a good idea. "Background" is OK as well, but it may be a bit too generic – one might say it includes any previous events that were somehow related to the storming. "Prelude" has more of a temporal connotation – it includes events that happened (not too long) before the storming and lead up to it. An article title like Prelude to the 2021 United States Capitol attack will probably help to keep the content more focused. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A split in the article would divide it into one that covered all the events and one that covered the illegal breach of the Capitol grounds and building in detail. A general overview of the events for example does not need to name each person who died or that the person wrongly suspected of stealing Pelosi's laptop was handcuffed when she was arrested. Consider that many readers, especially as the events fade from memory, want a concise account of what happened. Some of them will want to know more, which is why we have spin-off articles. Some may want even more detailed information, which is why we have footnotes and citations. TFD (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've since done some more shortening efforts on the article, but that's only a few more references' worth of content being moved around. Love of Corey (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Should the "Too long" template have been removed? I feel like we should still move some more content around. Love of Corey (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It was 104kb of prose at the start of this discussion, and is now 82kb so there's definitely been some good improvement. The size guidelines give 60kb as the point where the page "Probably should be divided" though, so there's definitely more that could be done - as long as it moves to summary style, rather than just chopping important things into subarticles in their entirety. BTW the size should me measured in bytes of readable prose, not reference count. The latter can vary widely for articles of the same length, depending on whether one source covers multiple things, and whether cites are for each sentence or covering several sentences. I'd put the tag back until the job is finished personally.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Cont. - in light of the Aftermath AfD

I intend to remove the too long template from the aftermath section /edit: not anymore after the discussion below/ because that section specifically isn't long at all proportionately to the subject matter. The only way in which it could be shortened is splitting it out totally so that only a few sentences remain and no subsections. But I'm strongly opposed to that; it would be unreasonable. I !voted to delete the aftermath article in its AfD, finding it to be a redundant fork now that specific articles on aftermath topics have been fully developed, and are linked to with main templates directly from this article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a separate aftermath article if each section has its own article. As I mentioned, all we have to say about the impeachment is that Trump was impeached for "incitement of insurrection" and acquitted by a vote largely along partisan lines. We don't need subsections for every issue. It can easily be reduced to a few paragraphs. TFD (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How would then we link to the main aftermath articles from this article, with a main template with a dozen or so links? — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Main article or see also links would be unnecessary. You can use internal links, for example, "Trump was impeached for a second time...."

The Nuremberg trials were part of the aftermath of World War II, but no link template is used. Even though World War Two#Aftermath has two main article links, neither of those articles have main article links to the trials. Using templates for articles about every article that was part of the aftermath would be unwieldy.

TFD (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I was considering that too, but I thought that it would produce a passage of back to back piped links. But looking more closely at your World War Two#Aftermath example, I think that the positives would outweigh the negatives, so I'm persuaded that it's the best option (better than deleting the aftermath article). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I did what you suggested. /edit: the aftermath section now relies on transclusion per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's still way too long. We have a main article; we just need a couple of sentences in this article. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine now, 15% too long tops. /I mean this is the previous state, before the actual split and transclusion procedure: rev/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say 1. The Political, legal, and social repercussions subsection is a good summary of subsequent actions taken by lawmakers and others, and all of its content is relevant. Well done. Maybe we could shorten it by a few words here and there, but not much more. 2. Domestic reactions on the other hand should be shortened by 50% or more. Detailed statements and quotes are fine in the daughter article, but not all are relevant enough for this one. 3. The other subsections are mostly OK, but could be shortened a bit (rough guess: by 10% to 30%). — Chrisahn (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that Domestic reactions can be significantly shortened mainly by removing "X reported" and the quotes; I still think it should have the same 4 paragraphs - Trump, JCS, Trump & Sicknick, survey-opinion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Nominate for GA status?

Should this page be nominated for GA status? Seems like it adequately meets the criteria. Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Meta coverage of our own RM

Removal of the paragraph about our own RM was contested without edit summary, [1]. I don't think this is a significant enough aspect of this subject to merit any mention at all, see WP:VNOT. @HumanHistory1: thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a trivial blip of no relevance at all to the topic of the Capitol insurrection. I have removed it again. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. I'd say we might add a paragraph to the Terminology used to refer to the event section about how the media tried to find the most appropriate terms for the event, e.g. [2][3][4][5], and then we might also add a sentence about Wikipedia. But we certainly shouldn't have a paragraph just about Wikipedia. It isn't relevant enough. I agree with the decision to delete the paragraph we're discussing here. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The media terminology paragraph has been added. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The terminology section was subject to resectioning, per diff. It may seem like a bit of an unorthodox edit for what's a pretty stable article, so comment please. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Karol Chwiesiuk" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Karol Chwiesiuk. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27#Karol Chwiesiuk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

CFD discussion

You are welcome to participate in a discussion of a category name change proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 28#Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead length

The lead is significantly overlong. Does anyone have thoughts about shortening it? No matter how significant, this is ultimately about a one-day event, not human history, so I don't think we can really justify going too much beyond the normal recommended lead length. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

This page purports that Trump persons were responsible for the Jan 6. They were not. And there is not solid proof that they were. The page needs to rewritten by someone who is unbiased. Orpheus592 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Those were Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And if you have "solid proof" then present it. If you want to challenge any of the reliable sources cited in the article, present your rationale for doing so along with other reliable sources that support your position. A bare assertion such as you made is not constructive. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased article

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

---

OP and supporters want "proof" that those responsible were not Trump supporters. <EDIT> This article also neglects talking about the former President requesting The Army National Guard to be called up for the January 6th day. I also do not see anything about the Capitol Police "INVITING" the "protestors" through the barricades and into the building. Why not?

My argument is that some of them did "enter" the capitol but the so-called "riot" or "insurrection" as the left wing wants to call it which it was far from, but were not the ones bussed into the area by buses the day before. I am also correct when I state that Antifa co-leader John Sullivan was arrested and charged for his role in the riots. It's actually fascinating that the left wing ignores the summer riots due to George Floyd's death where cities are burned to the ground (Many businesses and government buildings, not the entire city) but yet fail to see that a majority of the problem was perpetuated from Antifa that purchased MAGA clothing. I was personally there and watched MANY Trump supporters around me attempt to stop apparent "Trump supporters" from causing bodily harm to police officers, barricades and the capitol. Trump supporters don't go after COPS. There's tons of false information in this article and MANY articles which is blatantly biased against those that have a different opinion from the left wing. Seems like many liberals are making these articles and can't just write out the events without their "opinions". Doubt anything will be done but I would be embarrassed with an article like this that is blatantly against the former President who is not making false claims. I don't know if they are TRUE claims yet, but looks like that proof will be coming soon and already has been with 1000's and 1000's of affidavits. Basically this boils down to left vs. right and we'll never be at peace again but these articles need to be written without a narrative/agenda that benefits one side over the other.

Requested changes? Read over the article and fix the bias or perhaps the owners of Wikipedia should actually do something about these one-sided articles and maybe they would have more people contributing financially without them needing to beg for donations all the time to keep this site up. Just like the election, each article should be reviewed by 3 administrators who are different leaning political affiliated and then make the edits they agree on because as of now, this article is lying to anybody who reads it but only the creator gets to decide if it's actually true or not. For example, was the creator of this "article" actually present on 1/6 or simply going off of propaganda websites and resources to come up with this? Another example, Nancy Pelosi's laptop being from the conference room that is for presentations only??? Seriously? I don't know if it was her SIPRNET or NIPRNET laptop either, but I'm sure her CoS isn't going to tell you all that and then say "it was nothing, go ahead and report that is was from the conference room".

Anyway, doubt that these left leaning articles will ever be non-biased but great that we can voice our set-backs with which is obvious to the public.

User Dumuzid states constructive comment. Will do when I have more time. Appreciate the feedback. User Soibangla states his/her own opinion. How about you provide reliable sources to support your assertions that the perpetrators on the Capitol were INDEED Trump supporters. Another user states an ABC article how Capitol police failed to stop Trump supporters. Are you 100% sure they were Trump supporters instead of being other activists that do not care for President Trump?

This article needs to be re-written to include non-biased facts and events. Not liberal talking points trying to serve up their agenda.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm1776 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

More specific changes, such as proposed wording or edits would be helpful. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I encourage you to provide reliable secondary sources to support your assertions, rather than stating I was personally there. soibangla (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump supporters don't go after COPS. O RLY? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:31, 30 June 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.

1st Amendment Praetorian

Can someone create an article about the 1st Amendment Praetorian (est. 2020, and led by Robert Patrick Lewis), which seems to have become an influential pro-Trump paramilitary group? Apparently many of them were involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

At a glance, they don't appear to meet the notability guideline at WP:NORG. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There's an article about it in the Daily Beast.[6] I do not think it has had enough coverage to date for an article but that may change. Requests for new articles should be made at Wikipedia:Requested articles. TFD (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

NYT visual investigation of the attack

This NYT article provides some interesting information about the attack that could be incorporated into Wikipedia. X-Editor (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree! It would be great to get some of the insight from the wonderfully researched video, but I would warn against putting every detail in. Also, make sure that the article does not rely too much on this one source. But it looks like a great idea! - kyyl0 :) (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kyyl0: I’ll see what I can do myself, but It would be nice to get help from other editors as well. X-Editor (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Bigo Barnett" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bigo Barnett. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 2#Bigo Barnett until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First Paragraph Language

I recently discovered that a minor edit I made to the intro paragraph was reverted, but I still believe it improved the article and the reversion itself should be undone. Not sure the proper process to avoid an editing war, so I'm adding it to this Talk Page. Specifically, I object to the language "attempted to overturn his defeat." I object to this for a number of reasons. Most importantly, a motivation to overturn Trump's defeat was not mentioned or even alluded to in the source cited. The user that reverted my edit claims that it is a paraphrase, but after multiple reads, I cannot find any part of that article where this specific motivation is implied. It seems to be an inference drawn by this reader (and potentially other readers), but I'd argue that it's a more an inference on the part of the reader than an implication on the part of the writer. For that reason, it's not appropriate to include, especially in the introductory paragraph that should be as neutral, well-sourced, and accurate as possible. This would be more appropriate deeper in the article under a section of motivations, for example._signed, FroggyJ4 ^talk 09:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, but it is mentioned in a lot of other sources in the body, which is in fact what we should do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

While I do see that motivation in the article (notably in the aside about Giuliani's court battles to do so and the language about Mitch McConnell just before the attack), it could certainly be more strongly supported. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think these words correctly paraphrase the content of many reliable sources. For example, here are some quotes from a source I just looked up: When former President Donald Trump urged his followers last month to come to Washington to stop Congress' certification of Democratic rival Joe Biden's presidential victory, tens of thousands heeded his call. [...] All of them had been egged on by Trump to march on the Capitol and "fight like hell" to prevent Congress from certifying Biden's Electoral College victory, which Trump for weeks had falsely called a fraud. [...] What brought them together was a belief that the November election was "stolen" and they needed to "stop it" [...] [7] I don't know if we're already using this source. But I think it's fairly typical, and similar quotes can be found in dozens or hundreds of other sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What does "stop it" mean? 2600:6C65:727F:EC12:A576:1381:7437:8623 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop the Steal — Chrisahn (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There are several sources indicated here that could support this wording, but the motivation of the rioters has not been fully established as of yet, and I strongly believe that without clear support, that the introductory, summary paragraph shouldn't "get out ahead of its skis" and should be careful in its word choices and so not rely on paraphrasing of sources. Perhaps some of these are accurate and fair paraphrases, but if that paraphrase is up for interpretation, it probably shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia purporting to be as fact-based as possible. I have not yet found a premier source of news (NYTimes, WSJ, AP, Reuters, for example) that claims the intention of the mob was to "overturn the election". Disrupt or delay seem are both defensible. Even the sources cited above say "stop Congress' certification" which is narrower than overturn and overturn means something stronger than that. I think everyone can agree that different participants had different motivations, and there were some who wanted to ensure Trump was to completely invalidate the election and its results (which would be my definition of overturning), but at this point we have no evidence as to what proportion of the mob held this motivation, we don't know if the organizers and initiators held this motivation. Lastly, it seems not in the spirit of Wikipedia to summarize an event in a way no major news publication does. The change I'm suggesting is a pretty minor one and is just to avoid using the word "overturn" in the introductory paragraph in favor of more specific and supported language. Perhaps replace it with "stop Biden's certification" or "stop Congress' certification of the election results"._signed, FroggyJ4 ^talk 09:07, 03 July 2021 (UTC)

You have a point, in that the explicit language "overturn his defeat" is not used in the sources, although that is pretty much what "Stop the steal" means and that's what they were sent there to do. But let's see if we can modify that sentence a little. Currently the sentence reads

A mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attempted to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

How about something like

A mob of supporters of President Donald Trump, refusing to accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, invaded the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How about we add source for it, [[8]], [[9]], [[10]] do we need more? And are these really not in the article already?Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

FroggyJ4 and MelanieN make reasonable points, but I think the sources found by Slatersteven show that our wording "attempted to overturn his defeat" is justified. Here are the relevant quotes (I'll add a few more sources I found):

• AP [11], headline: "Pro-Trump mob storms US Capitol in bid to overturn election"
• BBC [12] "... they roamed the halls, demanding the results of the presidential election be overturned."
• The Guardian [13]: "... by a pro-Trump mob and far-right groups seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election ..."
• CNN [14], headline: "They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in"
• Boston Globe [15], headline: "Mob of Trump supporters storms Capitol in attempt to overturn election ..."
• The Atlantic [16]: "... the mob he had incited ransacked the Capitol in an effort to overturn the outcome. ... The rioters [...] employed political violence and intimidation in an attempt to overturn the election."

There are many other sources which use the word "overturn", often ascribing the motivation to Trump or other politicians, but also to his supporters in general and the rioters in particular. I think we should use the word as well, as it expresses succinctly and clearly what a large number of WP:RS describe as the motivation of the rioters. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think CNN were classed as reliable anymore. They've been discredited about as much as Fox. 2600:6C5A:17F:FF1E:6178:7D17:9614:F4AB (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See wp:RSP.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: I searched the article wikitext for the URLs of the six sources Slatersteven and I found. As far as I can tell, none of them are currently used. Maybe we should add some of them, if just to support the wording in the first paragraph. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I guess... — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the research! You have established that "overturn the election" belongs in the lead. I will add the AP source which should be enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, all for your consideration and work on this.FroggyJ4 (talk) 16:14, 06 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Add "FBI" to list of "coordinating"&"mobbing" entities 24.35.99.35 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories devoid of evidence (e.g. google "tucker carlson fbi capitol") --8dave (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Then then still, why?Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about content moved to child articles

Ideas and opinions from editors of this article could be useful in a discussion at Talk:Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Background: Love of Corey had moved details about casualties from this page to Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack; Alalch Emis moved the content to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack; Love of Corey moved it back. Don't get me wrong – I think all of these moves were reasonable, no one is at fault. It's just a bit hard to decide what's the best place for the content. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Love of Corey (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"2021 First Amendment Protests" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 First Amendment Protests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#2021 First Amendment Protests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Chrisahn (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Examiner article?

I notice the Washington Examiner says the Capitol buildings were evacuated because of the discovery of the pipe bombs and not because of the protesters entering the Capitol and wandering in the hallways. Is anyone considering coverage of this information? [17] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSP for a consensus view on the Examiner's reliability. The summary is: it's unreliable for exceptional claims and is best used with attribution for any factual claims.

I think that opinion is confirmed by this article, which very much buries some critical qualifying information. The evacuation referred to by the congressional testimony the story is covering was of two buildings near the Capitol, the Cannon House Office Building and a Library of Congress building. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We would need a better source saying this was why Congress was evacuated.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, with the important note that this source isn't even saying this was why Congress (meaning the actual Capitol building) was evacuated. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article doesn't say that "the Capitol buildings" were evacuated (or Congress, for that matter), it says that the Cannon House Office Building and one of the Library of Congress buildings were evacuated. Both are at least a hundred yards from the Capitol. The Washington Examiner cherry-picked one snippet of Sund's questioning and put it under a misleading headline that gives the casual reader the impression that the discovery of the pipe bombs led to the evacuation of Congress. Sund also said this: "The fact that the group that attacked our west front, attacked our west front... approximately 20 minute before the event over at the Ellipse ended, which means they were planning on our agency not being at what they call full strength...And then also the fact that we're dealing with two pipe bombs that were specifically, you know, set off the edge of our perimeter to, what I suspect, draw resources away. I think there was a significant coordination with this attack." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Quotes around "stolen"

@VQuakr:, basically the only way to point out that this is the specific word that Trump used is with the quotes. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No, we use prose to establish context instead of scare quotes. Which the article already accomplishes. VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's much better to err on the side of clarity in this case. This is not an example of scare quotes. Not all quotes that aren't *absolutely* necessary are scare quotes. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No, whether they are intended as scare quotes or not, that's what they look like. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

They don't look like scare quotes at all. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The phrase we have is "thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 in support of his false claim that the 2020 election had been stolen from him". There is no need to put one word in quotes; the context of the indirect quote is clear and we unambiguous flag it as a false claim. Adding quotes around "stolen" here doesn't just look like scare quotes, it is an example of scare quotes. It's bizarre that'd you'd argue otherwise. VQuakr (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There is precisely a need to put that one word in quotes to denote that's it's colored language, which isn't the normal way of saying it, but Trump's specific emphatic messaging. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Which we do by preceding with "his false claim that". VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"false" denotes that the meaning is false, but the way he said it is also very (Stop the Steal) important. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Which we do by preceding with "his... claim that". Sheesh. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Still reads very much like a paraphrase. It doesn't denote a specific word choice. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's called an indirect quote. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't called an indirect quote (strawman argument), but not all indirect quotes are equally useful -- it *looks* like a paraphrase, and needs very much not to (which is patently why the quotes were added in the first place; certainly not as scare quotes). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like an indirect quote. This isn't a remotely close call; we're obviously going to follow the MOS here. VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a paraphrase. This is a close call and needs to be remedied by a clarification in the form of quotes, which are obviously serving a clarificatory purpose and don't look like scare quotes at all (and aren't scare quotes). It's best to err on the side of clarity in this instance. MOS probably has nothing to say specifically on this except for MOS:QUOTEPOV, which favors my arguments. You can stop invoking MOS, it doesn't serve your side of the argument. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: It's just a difference of opinion. Assumptions like "hypercorrection" and "without understanding the intent" aren't nice and don't help the discussion. In my experience, you're both reasonable people. Most of the time, anyway. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse the sense in User:Chrisahn's comments. I'd like to point out that you two are expending all these words and paragraphs over just two characters. Let's start an RFC. Finally we have a clear question to ask. May I request a temporary pagespace truce? Let's give this subject a day or two to see if consensus develops. BusterD (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've now removed that (note: that which I have removed is described in the previous editor's comment). Doesn't change the outline of the disagreement. BTW, Chrisahn, shouldn't you advocate for keeping the quotes, since it's your rationale originally :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

1. I think you forgot to actually remove it. :-) 2. Yes. See below. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@All: As to the quotes: I think it's a borderline case, but I lean towards including them. MOS:QUOTEPOV says: "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional... Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred." MOS:SCAREQUOTES says: "Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression." I think that's what we're doing with the quotes: we're marking an actual quotation, and we're also distancing ourselves from the word "stolen", because it's not a neutral expression. It's an emotive opinion that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. Or rather: if we did express it in Wikipedia's own voice, we'd use a more neutral word than "stolen". But I also agree with VQuakr to an extent – the part "his false claim that" more or less implies that "stolen" is Trump's expression. I guess VQuakr feels (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that the quotes may seem like we're being sarcastic or trying to say something like "haha, look what stupid stuff Trump believes". I understand that someone may interpret it that way, but the quotes can also have a more neutral meaning, as I explained above.

Anyway, I shouldn't be spending so much time with Wikipedia discussions, especially about such tiny details... :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should replace the indirect quote with a multi-word direct one? Any option that doesn't end up with a single word surrounded by quotation marks will likely be acceptable to me. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe a quote from his speech? For example, we could take a few words from this part: "All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing and stolen by the fake news media." — Chrisahn (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to say this (with sarcasm) but there's so much heat and energy in this discussion about punctuation. There's simply no need for urgent back and forth when we're awaiting other participants. I would encourage participants to make their best case and then see what others think. There's no deadline. BusterD (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Multi-word sounds good to me, as well as the suggested specific quote (a portion of it hopefully). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Does everyone agree with the following change?

Proposed change

From: Called to action by Trump, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 in support of his false claim that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, To: Called to action by Trump, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 in support of his false claim that the 2020 election had been "...stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats," References

VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Without the ellipsis and with the comma moved outside the quote marks, I support the proposed language, and think it'll help to make clear that we are directly quoting and not scare-quoting. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks great. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

the first paragraph of the us capitol attack article states that 1 person was shot 1 person died of a drug overdose and 3 from natural causes however only 2 died of natural causes because the capitol police officer who died was certainly assaulted and sustained injuries as well as chemical irritants that may have contributed to his death. Also the woman who died of a drug overdose may also have been trampled by rioters assaulting police officers in the vicinity where she collapsed to the ground as seen in video assembled by the new york times investigation. Mlprotech (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 21:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Eliminating loaded adjectives and adverbs

One of the reasons this page lacks a neutral point of view is the inclusion of numerous loaded words that are not factually necessary. The article could be shortened by removing them, particularly from introductory paragaphs. For example, the phrase "Members of anti-government groups, including the paramilitary Oath Keepers, neo-fascist Proud Boys, and far-right militia Three Percenters," don't represent consensus positions. Attributing such terms to federal prosecutors doesn't help, as their job is to present as strong a position as possible, not present a balanced set of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burt Harris (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Those adjectives actually do match the consensus descriptions of the groups in our corresponding articles. No change is necessary or desirable: "members of groups..." is not a useful sentence. VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They are descriptive terms, which is helpful to readers to understand the variety and types of groups that participated. The only one I would object to is "neo-fascist Proud Boys," since no experts on fascism and the far right have called them this. TFD (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They are what RS widely call them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to any of the descriptions attached to specific groups in this passage, but "anti-government" is a bit of a strange label for groups supporting an incumbent authoritarian leader, one of which only admits members who are current or former government employees. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It just says some of them were.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-government is an accepted expression used to describe a classification of the U.S. Right. (See "Anti-government movement", SPLC.[18]) I agree it is ambiguous if one defines the government as the existing administration. One the other hand, we wouldn't refer to the Democrats as an anti-government group when the Republicans are in power. TFD (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Move review

Don't know why this was archived, so here it is again: Please be aware of the move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_June#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol. Please participate there if you are so inclined. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Capitol building secure

The Capitol building was secure at 2000, which is 8:00 pm, according to reference 394. Please change 7:30 pm to 8:00 pm in the article and in the infobox. Also, a link here from reference 394 does not work so please have the link removed from the references.[19] Archived 2021-01-09 at the Wayback Machine Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 20:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Can the link above be removed from the references since there is already a link that works in reference 394 and the link above does not work? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The link that works is just an archive of the link that doesn't work, we usually keep both the dead and the archived link. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Page moves...

OK, folks. Anyone else around here have title-whiplash? I guess it's "storming" per this (closed) move review (rather than "attack")? Direct links would be helpful for those of us in the cheap seats. Also...I think all the talk archive pages' titles need to be changed as well? I *think*. Goodnight Gracie. Shearonink (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the page was moved as a result of the move review you linked to. It looks as if all the talk archive page titles have been appropriately changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reading S Marshall's statement, it's clear the page move saga isn't over. He didn't rule on the merits, he said the closer was prohibited from closing it. The WP:INVOLVED editor may have made the right conclusion. Someone uninvolved should review consensus, or we reopen and relist the discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I asked S Marshall to do such on his talk page, and he basically said "I don't think that's normally done". If you could request that maybe it will prompt a re-open outcome of the move review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have move-protected the page with the admin-only option. This recent move warring has been just crazy - unacceptable - and the existing extended-confirmed move protection was not sufficient to control it. When we get a definitive decision about the name, we'll move it to that. In the meantime, we'll have a title that is at least stable. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You say "move warring", I say "shorthand edit summaries seem to have led to a good-faith mistake", but I am grateful for the full move protection either way.

Courtesy link to some post-Move-review-close discussion at S Marshall's user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've reclosed the discussion. Hope it at least provides a way forward for those interested. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2021

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus.

This discussion was complicated by the fact that the proposer proposed two changes in this RM (both to change the date structure from 2021 -> January 6, and to change the verb from storming -> attack). As such, it generated opposition that included opposition to one of these changes, opposition to both of these changes, or unclear comments that opposed at least one and did not state their position on the other.

Although efforts can be made to ascertain editors' positions by considering how many editors supported the 'attack' portion of the move as a fraction of the total participation, this effort is made difficult by several comments opposing solely on one issue without stating their position on the rest. The number of editors in this group is large enough to shift the consensus in either direction. I do not feel it is reasonable to assume that such comments imply the editor has no objection to the rest of the proposal, especially since RMs are often considered binary discussions that are either pass-or-fail.

Although I appreciate that the RMs here are perhaps getting tiring, if a structural deficit in the proposal makes it impossible to accurately discern consensus, then that is what it should be closed as. Otherwise it would put too much power in the closers' hands to set the title of this article, rather than in the hands of the participants, since a small but legitimate difference in the closer's methodology would result in a completely different outcome. It would be even more dubious given that many uninvolved editors at the DRV found no consensus to move here.

It may well be that 2021 United States Capitol attack has consensus, but it would be clearer if that were tested in a new RM explicitly to that title. Personally my advice would be, given the fact that this article has had 13 RMs in 6 months, the best way forward is to hold a multi-option RfC with a few feasible verb combinations (including the current one) to first figure out which verb has the most support, rather than trying to exhaust RMs to every possible alternative title.

Transparency disclosures, in light of the issues with the close that was overturned. I have participated in admin discussions related to this article:

• I commented as an uninvolved editor at the DRV of the previous close, with my opinion being that it should be overturned for policy issues and generally being a misreading outside of closers' discretion.
• I have closed one prior RfC on this talk page (the terrorism RfC) after the previous close was overturned.
• I have no content interest in this article. I have never made, and do not hold, a content opinion on its title. In regards to other content edits, when this was an ongoing event from 7-9 January 2021, I made some uncontroversial NOTNEWS trimmings and (after being pinged to this page in regards to an issue) argued against pitting "Republican Party" vs "US Government and Democratic Party" as sides in the infobox. (discussion) I do not believe these influence my actual or apparent neutrality in making this close.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Overturned close

The result of the move request was: Consensus for moving to 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is clearly consensus for moving to a title with 2021 United States Capitol. Consensus clearly supports the proposal to remove storming from the title as not enough of a common name, but likewise rejects the proposal to use the date (January 6) in the title. The overall weight of consensus, especially per WP:COMMONNAME, is that any title should explicitly mention United States Capitol, and that January 6 is not common enough at this time to be used in the title. While there is more support for attack than riot, this may be because only the former was mentioned in the initial request. Using riot may receive more support than attack in a separate requested move discussion, and both have more support than the current storming. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → January 6 United States Capitol attack – 1. The current title does not meet WP:COMMONNAME, per analysis here. The current wording is rarely used and it is a bad name per WP:COMMONNAME. The word attack is far more common. 2. WP:RS's refer to the date when referring to the event. If you google January 6th, it pulls up news articles about the event and this article. 3. United States Capitol is still needed to identify the article, as it is for a global audience. 4. We are comparing this title versus the current one. What I suggest might not be perfect, but it is an improvement. Casprings (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Minor change per (MOS:ORDINAL) since I opened this last night. Removed the th.Casprings (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. Obvious improvement; "Storm" is not a COMMONNAME. Feoffer (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support. I can live with this title. I prefer 2021 over January 6, but neither is really ambiguous (assuming there isn't another attack on the Capitol this year or on any January 6 in the future, that is) and I agree that "attack" is preferable to storming - if only weakly so. I personally still prefer "riot" as I think it is more common and has a more accurate meaning, but "attack" is better than "storming" per COMMONNAME. I'm not going to hold this proposal back regardless of my opinion on its prematurity, and I appreciate that it is, as the OP suggests, an improvement - not perfection, but better than it is now. I encourage all who opine to consider that - it may not be the perfect title in our opinion, but it's definitely an improvement per our titles guidelines/policies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: is it too late to consider January 6 United States Capitol attack without the ordinal? Or have you found that the th is much more commonly used? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Either works for me. Feoffer (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Consider this a vote for 6 over 6th per MOS:ORDINAL. No comment on the overall RM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Meets the criteria of the event's common name. Attack is probably the best of all the options -- none of which is stunningly ideal, but each of which at this point is better than storming. (I actually favor riot a bit, but that seems less likely to get consensus. My dark-horse favorite is assault, but that's been a non-starter in the past.) One thing: I don't think ordinal numbers ("th") pass the Wikipedia smell test. I recommend January 6 United States Capitol attack, even though it's true that everyone pronounces the th. It's just one of those wiki-things. Moncrief (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support January 6 United States Capitol attack (without the 'th'). "January 6" and "attack" constitute the common name of this event, not the "storming". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't feel there is a clear WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources yet, so this is an exercise in picking the least-bad interim name. Per my comments above, I oppose having "January 6" in the title and not having 2021 - the year is more important in all contexts that aren't saturated with Trump stuff already. Neutral on "attack", if I had to pick a word between "protest" and "insurrection" I would pick "unrest" but attack is an improvement over "storming". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel like a WP:COMMONNAME hasn't been decided yet for this case. Some sources are calling it an "insurrection", others are calling it a "riot", and so on and so forth. Maybe we should hold off on a potential rename until about a year, when sources have decided what to commonly call it. Love of Corey (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Of course without the "th" as per MOS:ORDINAL. January 6 is clearly the common name at this point - if it changes to 2021 in the future, we just change it again, but it seems that January 6 is becoming more and more ubiquitous. And, although perhaps not a PERFECT term, "attack" is a more prevalent and more neutral term than "storming". BappleBusiness (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support for at least the "January 6th", with the "th" -- and no, I don't care what MOS:ORDINAL says -- and weak support for the "attack" part. I've seen "January 6th" as a modifier and even a noun phrase shorthand, so leaving it out makes no sense. Still thinking about "attack" versus "storm", but "riot" doesn't get any consideration. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Strong agreement that "protest" and "riot" are inappropriate in title. Sund is clear: this wasn't spontaneous, it was planned and coordinated. Feoffer (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support appears to be a more common name.Storm is not a common name .It could be riot.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Move to 2021 United States Capitol attack and oppose use of January 6. Assuming any move at all has to be made (I haven't looked at the specific evidence for/against storming/attack), it should have a year identifier rather than a date, which is a standard recognizable format found in Wiki titles. This may be fresh in our memories now, but in five or ten years someone might look at this and wonder January 6th from which year? Also, it's not like the proposed title is actually commonly found in sources. I seem to get only two results when I Google it, one of which is our article.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't support a move at this time, but to be fair – that Google search is flawed. US and other English-language media rarely say "United States Capitol", they say "US Capitol" or just "Capitol". Similar searches yield tens of thousands of results, e.g. "January 6th Capitol attack", "January 6 Capitol attack", "January 6th US Capitol attack", "January 6 US Capitol attack", etc. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support but without the "th", as per September 11 attacks format. As of this writing, a google search for "6 attack" produces 526m results, while "6 storming" only yields 4.4m hits. Meanwhile, 6 insurrection" (the other possible name that comes to mind) gets 18.4m results. Definitely seems like attack>insurrection>storming is the common name for the event. pluma♫ ♯ 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is not remotely comparable to September 11. The date is not the key indentifier that has become etched in people's minds. It's the words "capitol" and probably "attack" which do that. September 11 attacks is a common name exception to WP naming conventions, but there's no rationale to make such an exception here.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Agreeing with others that comparisons to Sept 11 are inappropriate, but the proposed title is utterly in line with naming convention for events: When Where What. There's only one Jan 6 attack, while there've been two 2021 attacks so far. I think a lot of people are opposing the date disambiguation just because they mistakenly think it implies similarity to Sept 11. It doesn't, we use that style all the time, eg June 9 Deng speech, May 12 Karachi riots, February 6 Intifada, May 16 coup, June 25 cyber terror, March 18 Massacre, March 19 shooting incident, etc. Just a boring disambiguation. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – it would look clearer as "attack on United States Capitol", and be more in line with sources calling it the "January 6th attack" or "January 6 attack". Calling it the "2021 attack on United States Capitol" looks premature and less well sourced. Thus, January 6th attack on United States Capitol, or January 6 attack on United States Capitol if more standard usage. . . dave souza, talk 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• January 6 attack Because it's common and three-parted, not because it should resemble September 11 attacks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Best option -- simple, concise, clear, and common. Props to its proposer, who has a gift for naming as demonstrated by their most excellent username. Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I stole the idea from House Democrats and Dave Souza, but thank you! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  The House Democrats suggested your username? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - storming as in "to attack a place or building by entering suddenly in great numbers"[20] is a more accurate term than attack, which doesn't capture the "entering suddenly in great numbers" part. Comment - Alternatively riot leading to storming. Terjen (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, maybe move to 2021 United States Capitol attack instead. The problem with "January 6th" or "January 6" is that it is missing information about what year the attack was in. It could even be interpreted so that this were an annually recurring event. JIP | Talk 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Storming" was always a weird euphemism, the usage of which by sources seems to have dipped over time. ValarianB (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I checked a few dozens of recent sources. The words "January 6" are usually not used as a name in articles about the events, but simply as a qualifier, e.g. "the Capitol riot on January 6". Even in expressions like "the January 6 Capitol riot" it's not clear that this can be considered a name for the event – I guess it's more likely that next year most sources will say something like "the Capitol riot on January 6 2021". It's not impossible that "January 6" will become a name like "9/11", but it's much too early to tell, and I'd guess it's unlikely. Maybe this move request was started because of the vote on the commission today in the House of Representatives, which is sometimes called something like "Jan. 6 commission" in headlines? Then I'd say it's a case of WP:RECENTISM. Also, "riot" still seems to be a more common name for the event than "attack". That has been the case from the beginning, and it hasn't changed. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of year for Jan 6th outside US the actual day won't have registered on most readers worldwide. Looking at UK, African, Australian and Indian news sources will confirm that. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support a move to either the proposed location or 2021 United States Capitol attack. Seems a straightforward improvement, and any choice of naming is going to be a compromise to most people. Per WP:NOYEAR we don't need the year for this, but I can understand the desire to retain it for recognizability. VQuakr (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above — RealFakeKimT 14:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per previous attack RM !vote (diff). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Nah. I think debating 'storming' vs. 'attack' is appropriate, but not debating "2021" vs. "January 6". I'm not sure "January 6" will be remembered/used in the same way as "September 11", though time will tell. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support move for the following reasons: 1) This event doesn't have one, formal, commonly accepted name like "World War II" or "Academy Awards", so for that reason we're left with coming up with a neutral descriptive title. Any such descriptive title will never be completely identical to other such descriptions in sources, because each source will come up with their own shorthand descriptions of the event, and the same source will also probably use many such descriptions. 2) There is unlikely to be one, singular, obvious, best title. 3) The proposed title is better than the current one, and at least as good as any of the other multitudes of other titles that have been, and could be, proposed. It is neutrally worded, accurate, and contains common descriptors that make it easily recognizable. This checks all of the boxes for me. If a slightly different title that met these requirements had been proposed, I would have supported that one too, because there is no one best title, there are just a bunch of "good enough" titles, and the proposed one fits that category well enough for me. --Jayron32 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment

1. IMO nothing's changed since previous discussions. "Storming" captures the spontaneity and crowd dynamic better than "attack," and I agree with others that 1/6 is only famous to US politicos.
2. This particular discussion hasn't dealt with similarity to Storming of the Bastille; I'd be interested in reading some debate on whether that's appropriate.
3. We should remain conscious of Wiki's power to self-fulfill, especially in this case where there really isn't consensus. Today, NYT published an op-ed in which the author calls it an "attack" -- but the editor headlined it "storming." A weightier burden than usual.
4. There's an independent value to consistency. Not changing the title frequently, in the context of an extremely active page, entails a heavy status quo bias. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Storming" captures the spontaneity and crowd dynamic better than "attack,". Actually, Sund has testified this was a coordinated, planned attack that began before the Trump rally even ended. Feoffer (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on sourcing for our timeline there were both a group of coordinated, planned stormers AND a group arriving from the Ellipse speeches who acted more spontaneously. At 12:53, rioters were already breaching barricades, reveals videos by ProPublica. By 1:03 p.m., a vanguard of rioters had overrun three layers of barricades and forced police officers to the base of the west Capitol steps, reports the NYTimes. Yet Trump's speech didn't end until 1:10, according to the Secretary of Defense. The crowd at the Ellipse had 1.5 miles to walk to the capitol building. A routine calculation would indicate that the rally crowd didn't reach the capitol until 1:40 or thereafter. It is a mistake, based on sources, to lump all the rioters together. Some had special training and coordination; most were following spontaneously the explicit instructions given by Donald Trump in his speech less than an hour before. BusterD (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

All reasons I argue against "storm" as over-implicating the protestors who later walked through the breached Captiol -- the attackers who actually caused the initial breach likely weren't even at the protest, at minimum they weren't there for all of Trump's speech. Feoffer (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Injecting the date rather than the year into the title is a terrible idea. I also prefer "storming" to "attack", as it is a much better descriptor for what actually happened. There is also no definitive common name/term for this event. Various terms have been used, including "storming", "riot", "protest", "attack", "insurrection", "mob", "demonstration", "assault", "rebellion", etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. There has been no clear name established in reliable sources that unambiguously meets WP:COMMONNAME. Until there is, it's disingenuous to propose a name change based on that guideline. The word "attack" may be somewhat more common, but it's also a more common word used in the English language generally, so that doesn't mean anything. The word "storming" is a more accurate description of the event. And omitting the year from the title makes no sense at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" is a more precise description of the unlawful actions of the day. I too have noticed that some version of the word storm is often used in the headline or lead of an article, but varied nouns are used in the body of text for interesting writing's sake. It has not escaped me that many of the rioters, notably Ashli Babbit, believed their actions that day would "bring the storm." There's some symmetry in using an identical term used by rioters in one context and by journalists in quite another--describing the rioters. User:Anachronist makes a good case that there is no common name unambiguously used by sources. There are a wide variety of terms used. Finally, I must concur with User:GordonGlottal that making move requests so frequently "entails a heavy status quo bias." BusterD (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The similarity to Storming of the Bastille flatters the rioters, some of whom chanted "Storm the Capitol" during Trump's speech. Other similarities include Storming of the Legislative Council Complex, Storming of the American embassy in Khartoum, Storming of the Venezuelan National Congress, Storming of the Winter Palace, Storming of the Tuileries, and Storming of the Annaberg. Interesting that several redirect; to an attack, an assault, a battle, an insurrection. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The argument that we should parallel QAnon buzzwords in our title is... novel but deeply unconvincing. Feoffer (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC) --

I made no such assertion. I made several points, one of which is the term is used by both pro-riot and journalistic sources. This is hardly controversial and is well documented. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean to use that as a straw man, it's just no, we don't care what Babbitt would call her crime. RSes, yes. Babbit, no. Feoffer (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: I would argue that this fits COMMONNAME perfectly; when the attempted insurrection is mentioned, it's almost exclusively referred to as "January 6th", in the same way that the 2001 attacks are referred to as "9/11". DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Attack" still remains a remote second/third name for this event, behind "riot" and "insurrection". There is clear evidence of this at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. As for "January 6", I can see some currency to that as I peruse the recent news articles in the various compiled searches, but it seems plausible that this usage will fade as we roll into the next year. If "January 6" without a year modifier persists into 2022, there is a stronger case to use that in the title, but we should wait before making a rash comparison to the naming scheme of 9/11 or 7/7, as some editors seem keen to do. Time will tell, and this is too soon. — Goszei (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: You could have just replied to me, since it's obvious you're referencing me - directly beneath my comment. Is half a year "rash" to you? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not addressing any editor in particular, as several editors have invoked 9/11 and 7/7 in this thread and in the thread above. "Rash" was admittedly not the best word to use, but I maintain that this is premature. "September 11 attacks" was surely prevalent in December 2001, and the name persisted into 2002 and beyond. As we are still in 2021, there is insufficient information to determine if the date-only name will persist into 2022 and beyond. — Goszei (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your position. If I read your response correctly, you also agree that "attack" is more prevalent than "storming" - so shouldn't we try to improve the article (for this aspect of the request)? And if we know that "January 6" is the most prevalent name right now, and that it's unclear whether "January 6" will stick or fade within the coming years, wouldn't it make sense that we change the article to reflect the current name, at least until we have time on our side? BappleBusiness (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring by date to events that happened previously that year is common practice in contemporaneous news, and happens all the time. For example, "April 19 bombing in Oklahoma City" in 1995 and "22 July attacks in Norway" in 2011 make sense when the years are still 1995 and 2011. However, those faded away quickly in the next year, becoming "1995 bombing" and "2011 attacks" in reference. Wikipedia is not the news, and so we should always take the longer view, including when we title articles. When given the option between a naming scheme that only rarely has produced a long-lasting title, like 9/11, and the far more common outcome, we should not play the weaker odds and force ourselves to flip-flop when 2022 comes along. — Goszei (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "attack", it beats "storming" on commonness, but loses on precision. I personally think that "riot" is blend of qualities that best meets the WP:CRITERIA (the most common, and reasonably precise). — Goszei (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Worst case scenario we have to add the year back in later; Seems improbable that we'll need to disambiguate "Jan 6 US Capitol attack" anytime in the next three years at least. Feoffer (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

To summarize my evaluation of the terms at play: on usage in RS it is (riot >> attack > storming), while on my evaluation of precision it is (storming > riot >> attack). "Attack" doesn't capture the mob violence well, and makes it sound like the building was hit by a missile or the like. "Storming" captures the mob violence very well, and furthermore conveys that the violence happened inside the building. "Riot" doesn't convey mob violence in the building, but I think this can be overlooked given the overwhelming usage in RS, which we should defer to on naming judgement. If the editorial boards of the major newspapers have coalesced around a term, as has happened here (try other terms, if you like), we should follow their lead. — Goszei (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Storming is more precise than attack. We use attack for the September 11 attacks. We have an article called Storming of the Bastille, which is about French insurrectionists who attacked and entered a government building. Also, there is no common name at present, so we should use the most descriptive one. TFD (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This was my EXACT thinking a few months ago. But it's since emerged that the initial breach happened before Trump had even finished speaking (and it's a long walk to the Capitol). Chief Sund has concluded: "This was not a demonstration. This was not a failure to plan for a demonstration. This was a planned, coordinated attack on the United States Capitol." Feoffer (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Any time there is a demonstation, there is the possibility of violence. That's why police presence is always increased. But in this case there were only 500 Capitol police on duty and, as Chief Sund said, the House (which was Democratic controlled) rejected a request for additional military backup. What do you think would happen in any demonstation where the demonstrators were angry and there was reduced police presense? As an article in TMZ points out, "The way it works in most police departments around the country ... when there's the possibility of social unrest it's all hands on deck. That did not happen here."[21] Sund bases his conclusions (made Jan. 15) on the dud bombs outside the DNC and RNC HQ.[22] But we don't know who left them, so it's just speculation. It could be that he is just trying to defend himself. TFD (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"It could be that he is just trying to defend himself" A suspicion I initially shared, but now that we're a few months out, it's clear Sund's timeline (breach before end of rally) is backed up by video evidence and RSes. Feoffer (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "January 6" instead of "2021", neutral as to "storming" versus "attack". Disambiguating an event by calendar date alone appears to be quite uncommon. In the absence of strong evidence that "January 6" is universally associated with this event in the same way as, say, September 11, we should default to the more normal strategy of disambiguation by year. Rublov (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is excellent. Wikipedia can be proud of having gotten it right so early and stuck with it. Srnec (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose replacing "2021" with a yearless "January 6", neutral on "storming" vs. "attack". It's a big mistake to get rid of the year. It seems the reason that sources are only saying "[the events of] January 6" and don't feel the need to say "2021" at the moment is because it was literally this year. We should see what sources say when we're further into a non-2021 year (like, you know, 2022) before seeing whether sources include "2021". Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment support changing to "riot" and leaving the date per Goszei. Spudlace (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement compare to the current version, but I think a better title would be simply United States Capitol riot or United States Capitol attack. My very best wishes (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue with that is that there has been more than one such event in history, from the Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Capitol up to the April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

But those were "burning" and "car attack". The titles are not exactly the same. "Capitol riot" seems to be the most common name right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted that you are submitting this idea. Just letting you know why it will be pushed back against; the terms are too broad. Riots and attacks have happened at the U.S. Capitol complex at other times. Moncrief (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Which other riots (rather than just ordinary demonstrations or protests) do you mean? There were also many riots in the US, but which of them targeted the Capitol complex? My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that it's helpful to the discussion at hand, but there's been all kinds of violence at and even in the chambers. The Bonus Army came to demand WWI bonuses and they had to call in the Army. Riots have broken out on the floor of the House and Senate -- in the 1850s one senator was almost beaten to death on the floor of the Senate. Feoffer (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes [23], but it was described in sources as a violence and a brawl [24], not a riot, an attack by the mob on the Capitol or insurrection. I am not sufficiently familiar with US history, but it seems there was no other case when the Capitol would be taken over by an organized mob incited by the President and the members of a major political party. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose changing "2021" to "January 6", neutral as to "storming" versus "attack." It's still 2021. If after 2021 the attack is commonly referred to as "January 6," (akin to September 11) we can change the title. Right now, it's too early to tell. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. Reliable sources universally refer to the month and day (January 6). The right-wing euphemism of "storming" for the actual attack and insurrection has been challenged by several academic scholars who have noted its propaganda value. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Viriditas, do you have any sources for that statement? I see the term used in numerous non-right-wing media. While looking for such sources, I came across an article by Patrick Cockburn (not to be confused with Alex Cockburn) in The Independent that says that terms such as coup and insurrection are reminiscent of "war propaganda."[25] That's not something we should be associated with. TFD (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I just finished reading Mr. Cockburn's article you linked, and I'm deeply confused. Virtually every major point he made is either misinformed, erroneous, or out of touch. This might be due to newer evidence that has come out since that time or due to his contrarian nature, I don't know, but his point about the singular British film crew is just out there. Is he unaware that ProPublica alone uploaded 500 cell phone videos of the event? I suspect Mr. Cockburn means well, but this article can't be taken seriously due to errors like this. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• It's difficult to give much weight to Cockburn as he is clear that his was a minority opinion criticizing mainstream reporting: "The three-hour takeover of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob is portrayed as a “coup” or an “insurrection” egged on by President Trump." It's somewhat moot as we're not proposing a title switch to "coup" or "insurrection". 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Viriditas, Cockburn is an award winning journalist who has been a columnist for The Independent, a British newspaper that is one of the world's most respected news sources, for thirty years. He was criticizing "US media reports." Weight means that we should not limit our perspective to U.S. media. I notice you failed to answer my request to provide sources for your claim that, "The right-wing euphemism of "storming" for the actual attack and insurrection has been challenged by several academic scholars who have noted its propaganda value." I assume that means your claim was false. TFD (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I certainly can't speak for V's original comments, but FWIW, I know it's a fact that "The Storm" is the preferred nomenclature among a certain segment of far-right propagandists. But that's by no means the only consideration. IF RSes were still using Storm as one of the three COMMONNAMES, we might not mind that "Storm" was also a propaganda term. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• You should provide sources for your claims. I would point point out that the term "The Storm" does not refer to the storming of the Capitol, but to a conspiracy theory that top Democrats will be arrested.[26] The far right would not refer to the events of Jan. 6 as storming the Capitol because they see it as a legitimate protest. TFD (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Storm" does not refer to the storming of the Capitol, but to a conspiracy theory that top Democrats will be arrested Point being, the term is tied to right-wing propaganda, which is what Viriditas originally asserted and I confirmed. It's well established that a segment of extremists identified Jan 6 as the storm. Feoffer (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• That makes no sense. No reasonable reader is going to mix up "The Storm" and "The storming of." Perhaps you think we should rename the January 1998 North American ice storm because readers might think it was a right-wing conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support I support the move per the argument above,in addition that it was an attack on the capitol from a security perspective,the capitol was breached and people died.Alhanuty (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Partial support of changing "storming" to "attack"; oppose changing "2021" to "January 6". Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing "2021" to "January 6", in the vast majority of reliable sources, January 6th is mentioned. Nojus R (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Love of Corey, Terjen, and Chrisahn. Zonafan39 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Partial Support, but better is to change title to "January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex", which is the name used by the House of representatives in the bill for a January 6 commission. These other alternative names should be included in bold, in the article's first sentence, as alternative names, because they are massively used in media stories- 1 - "Capitol Riots", 2- "January 6th Insurrection", 3 - "January 6th", 4 - "January 6", 5 - "1-6". At a minimum, all of these names should be in bold in the first sentence of our article. Note that the expression "January 6 Commission" also implicitly names the event as being "January 6". MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose January 6, neutral on the noun. Regardless of what RS say, the fact of that matter is that all of the RS come from 2021, so it is really WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL to believe that they would continue to call it the January 6 attack years down the line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment "January 6th insurrection" is what AP is calling it.[27] AP is picked up by many other sources. "Storming" is most accurate for what physically happened, but lacks info on the intent, and is not being used so much in major media stories. "Attack" lacks info on the intent. "Capitol riots" lacks info in intent and on specificity of what physically happened. MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - If the article title changes, I would prefer if "January" were included in the new title due to April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Love of Corey (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose changing "2021" to "January 6". I would not be opposed to using both at the same time, but why remove the year? "January 2021" is also a plausible option. Neutral about "storming" and "attack". Super Ψ Dro 09:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As someone outside the U.S. I've never seen the event referenced by the specific date like the World Trade Center attacks. In fact I doubt most people outside the U.S. would even be able to remember the date if asked. I also think 'storming' is a very handy neutral term that is also very descriptive of the event while completely sidestepping the political hot potato that is 'riot/insurrection'. Attack doesn't really have the same descriptive quality since the event differs a lot from other events that are described as attacks, no weapons where used by the attackers, none of the defenders were killed, the building wasn't damaged, etc. --KristinnKr (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"building wasn't damaged"???! "no weapons"???!!!? Feoffer (talk)

• • Comment - Your larger points are valid, but weapons were indeed used by the attackers. Not a bomb, but certainly weapons were used. Also, phrasing this as neutrally as possible, defenders did indeed die. There are defenders who are dead now who would not be were it not for the events of that day. Moncrief (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know how we fell down this rabbit hole of comparing this to the World Trade Center -- it's a total distraction. The argument for including date in the title is just boring old disambiguation, like June 9 Deng speech, March 19 shooting incident, or February 6 Intifada. Feoffer (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - "Attack" has become the common name. –dlthewave ☎ 12:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Attack", while the common name, may not be WP:NPOV. Also, User:KristinnKr made some very good points; terms like "riot", "insurrection", or "attack" may be biased towards the Democrats, but going too light would not be neutral, which could include terms like "protest", "march", or (Jimbo forbid) "liberation". "Storming" is a term that is the most neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvadingInvader (talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think things are always "equal" in political disputes. See false balance, which is why Wikipedia articles resolutely say that climate change is real. Consider the balance of reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Perennial sources) and note that some of the pet GOP online sources are discouraged for a good reason. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but open to alternatives. ~ HAL333 18:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" best reflects the nature of what took place. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the longevity of this topic including "2021" is the most ideal and accurate title for this. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. "Storming" succinctly captures the crowd dynamics of the event. "Attack" is accurate, too, but a little vaguer. KFan3 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Jayron32. Shoestringnomad (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of the year from the title ("2021"), consistent with my belief that a year should almost never be included in an article title except 1) as part of the common name, 2) as part of a descriptive name due to the lack of a common name, or 3) absolutely necessary for disambiguation. Support use of the term "January 6", as this has become the common name in the media. Oppose use of the word "attack", as the analysis clearly indicates that the common name would either be "riot" or "insurrection." Oppose use of the term "United States Capitol" as being needlessly descriptive. The best title would be "January 6 Capitol riot" or "January 6 Capitol insurrection".  Mysterymanblue  21:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per above supporting. This was a semi-coordinated attack on the Capitol building, and forevermore should be called what it was. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" best reflects the nature of what took place (a mob, by force of numbers and violently intimidatory behaviour, breaching a protected building) and no COMMONNAME has as yet established itself. I endorse the excellently succinct analysis of Anachronist. "Attack" is very vague and appears to be supported partly because it (very marginally IMO) implies pre-planning. I think it reasonable to assume that some attendees came with consciously formed insurrectionary intentions (or insurrectionary fantasies at least), but to seek to extrapolate from that a general character to the event is to generalise everyone's motive as the same and to mistake journalistic hyperbole for WP fact. If - collectively - these were insurrectionists, they were the most chaotic, most easily deterred, most absurdly dressed insurrectionists of all time - on their way to a fancy dress party while busy taking 'selfies', all while seizing the reins of govt? It is possible to be appalled (as I am) by the destructive, intimidatory and frankly infantile behaviour of these rioters without needing to imagine that any meaningful plan to overthrow government existed, or certainly was held in common by this mob. "January 6" has no resonance AT ALL outside US and even inside US it may never acquire the recognisability that some editors here believe it already has. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"January 6 has no resonance AT ALL outside US" We add dates to titles for simple disambiguation, we don't require international recognisability. Nobody outside of Taiwan recognizes "March 19" -- perhaps no one in Taiwan would recognize it -- but March 19 shooting incident is a perfectly appropriate article title. Feoffer (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It isn't practical, nor even desirable to treat "disambiguation" as distinct from "recognisability" - the dabber has to be recognisable to fulfil its function. I'm not going to comment on the Taiwanese incident's title - but presumably you recognise that what happened in and outside the Capitol is also of interest to those of us who are not American. We rememmber what happened and are interested in how investigation and coverage evolves, even if we don't remember, or refer to the exact date in the way that a US person might. I'm not even very opposed to changing from year to date, as long as people recognise that it will probably need to be changed back in 12 months time, and that what may be more specific to US readers, may well be meaningless to non-US ones. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even very opposed to changing from year to date, as long as people recognise it will probably need to be changed back in 12 months time. Thanks for saying that, and I certainly don't oppose including the year -- either now or in future, whichever people/MOS want! Others are getting tripped up on why we add dates to titles, saying things like "It's not impossible that "January 6" will become a name like "9/11", but it's much too early to tell" when the actual reasoning is far more mundane. Feoffer (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support For removing "2021" in favour of "January 6" as it is less ambiguous but, oppose of changing "storming" as it already accurately describes the event. The Meta Boi (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing title to "2021 United States Capitol raid" or similar. The definitions of "raid" and "storming" per Webster's Dictionary: Raid: "A hostile or predatory incursion, a surprise attack by a small force". Storm: A violent assault on a defended position." Both terms are technically correct, however, I believe "raid" is more concise. "Insurrection", meaning "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government" may also be correct, but "riot" is not. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 03:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title is not ideal, but the suggested title is not much of an improvement. There are sources that use January 6 in particular, but I've seen no evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME, nor that "attack" is the correct wording to use. - Aoidh (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is awkward. The most WP:COMMONNAME is insurrection. Google "2021 insurrection" gets 31 million results vs. half that for "2021 storming".

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.

Requested move 1 June 2021

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

The result of the move request was: moved per RM closure above. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack – Consensus on talk for move, but target is a disambig. Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Feoffer, Onetwothreeip, and Srnec: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Onetwothreeip: as the RM closer should be the one doing the moving. Is this in fact the consensus title? 162 etc. (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I have changed the disambiguation page into a redirect back to the primary topic, and have left a link at the top of the subject article to the second disambiguation entry. All that is required now is to swap the two articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 United States Capitol attack is the consensus title as of the recent discussion. I have tried to move this as requested of me, but I am unable to do so due to the redirect (formerly disambiguation) article taking the place of the consensus name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm contesting this close. I have left a note on the closer's talk page. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In light of Srnec's contesting of the non-admin closure, we will need an admin to come close the discussion. (Even without Srnec's objection, we need an admin to effect a move). Feoffer (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Feoffer and 162 etc.: Is admin closure required if one or two people object to the close? There were many participants in the discussion, so it's inevitable that one or two people may object. I'm willing to request the technical move myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MR has the procedure to follow. User:Feoffer seems to have reverted your close; that should not have happened. However, if I was in your shoes, I might step aside for this one as it's a pretty volatile discussion and might be more of a headache than it's worth. 162 etc. (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with all options. Apologies for any mistakes. Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I note that Feoffer has reverted the undoing of the close and we can proceed as normal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection to the requested move to 2021 United States Capitol attack as per User:Onetwothreeip and RM discussion. Any editors who believe this close to be improper are urged to consult WP:MR for the proper followup procedure. 162 etc. (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The page hasn't been moved yet, but I've filed an MR. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please make the move. I'm sure examination of talk will confirm the consensus for replacing 'storm' with 'attack'. Feoffer (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

123 is one of the most active editors on this page and should not have attempted to close a contentious poll. SPECIFICO talk 11:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard Did you mean to copy this technical request discussion over to this page? There's an existing move request permalink which was just closed as Consensus for moving to 2021 United States Capitol attack yesterday. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: This should not be up for discussion again. The RM was just closed. There is also an MR disputing that RM. Let's not make it even more complicated. 162 etc. (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Unless an administrator is overturning the closure of the discussion for a valid reason, this cannot be a contested technical request. A discussion was closed, it is at move review, and the norm is to allow the move to be completed while the move review is pending. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:07, 1 June 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.

I've merged this section with the initial RM, as it wasn't really an RM, just a continuation of the previous one. Grouping for clarity makes sense here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll put this here in case this gets revisited in future. Turns out, we actually have reliable sources talking about why Wikipedia should NOT use the noun "storming".

"At 3 a.m. on Thursday, after more than 200 editors had weighed in, an admin changed the name of the article to “2021 storming of the United States Capitol.” It was a stopgap measure, wrote CaptainEek, not a permanent solution. ... Joanne Freeman, a professor of American history at Yale, shared her disapproval: “It romanticizes it. There are plenty of other words: Attacked, Mobbed, Vandalized. Use those instead. Words matter.”

That's never happened to me before -- looking for RSes about what the title should be and seeing experts actually opine on the question at hand. Feoffer (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a "this article in the media" section in the header of this talk page (currently collapsed, click "other talk page banners") which mentions that Fast Company article. Of course, the Freeman quote is irrelevant – someone's opinion (history professor or not) is not one of the five WP:CRITERIA. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointer to "in the media". As to relevance -- if, in future, we find ourselves debating the merits of 'Storm', the RS citation of the Freeman opinion would inform our application of WP:NPOVTITLE. Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This (the Organization of Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran) is romanticizing? FWIW, the beaches in Normandy were also stormed, as were hills and towers during the Vietnam war. It's a perfectly usable verb for violently attacking, breaching, and gaining entry. One history professor's opinion is not a valid reason not to use it. Just for the record. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

details regarding the four suicides

1. Capitol Police Officer Howard Charles Liebengood on Saturday January 9th
2. D.C. Metro Police Officer Jeffrey (or Jeffery?) Smith on Friday January 15th
3. Metropolitan Police Officer Kyle Hendrik DeFreytag on Saturday July 10th
4. Metropolitan Police Officer Gunther Paul Hashida on Thursday July 29th

These all only mention them being found, would it be relevant to share further details about the circumstances of their deaths?

Like for example:

1. how long after they were found did it take the coroner to declare the COD as suicide
2. who found them
3. the means which was used
4. did any have competing theories of COD proposed by notable sources like accident

This article is quite large so perhaps a separate article about the police who served on this day could be done to allow for expanded details? WakandaQT (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be too much info for this article. It's likely that it would be too much detail anywhere on Wikipedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There are further details regarding the nature of other suicides on Wikipedia, I don't see why that wouldn't be of interest here too. WakandaQT (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No. It does not need a separate article, because that sort of information is not due weight to include here, meaning that there is no need to break it out into a subarticle due to length. In fact, I was just about to bring this up again here - the article as it stands right now implies heavily that the suicides were a result of the attack - which has not been proven. The section starts off with an unsourced sentence that on its own is not bad necessarily (and is likely verifiable even if it's not cited now). But placing that sentence before saying "4 people committed suicide" implies that "they committed suicide because of their morale after January 6". Absolutely zero reliable sources have explicitly stated that their suicides were because of the events of January 6 themselves, and while it's likely that the events of January 6 played a part in disrupting their personal lives and their eventual deaths by suicide, we are not allowed to form conclusions like that when reliable sources don't explicitly state so. The entire section needs cleaned up to ensure we are accurately reporting both what happened (i.e. 4 officers committed suicide) and not going above and beyond what reliable sources say in trying to connect the suicides to January 6. Furthermore, things like "how long did the COD take", "who found them", "the means", and "other theories" are absolutely not in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. WP is not a court reporter, nor a coroner's report, nor is it the place to just repeat information found in those documents. These individuals have all been deemed by multiple AfD discussions to not meet the criteria for notability on their own - and as such, there is no place on Wikipedia where the information you request is merited for inclusion - either it's not due weight for the article it's being put in, or it'd be creating an article on a topic (the person) that has already been deemed not notable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There can be reasons to have an article other than to be a sub-article of course. Per VQ's suggestion below, do you think exporting this to the Aftermath sister-article is a step in the right direction to imply "result of the attack" to a lesser degree? There might still be some implications in that name since it's not always clear if Aftermath means "events caused by" or "events following". WakandaQT (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This is already mentioned at Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Discussion of expansion should occur on that article's talk page. I tend to agree with Berchanhimez though that substantial expansion of this topic does not appear to be warranted. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Whether we concur about whether or not to expand details, is there pretty much uniform consensus here that the details about the Jan9/15 and Jul10/29 deaths are more appropriate for the "aftermath" article than where they currently are on the "storming" article? Berch makes a good point that having it here speaks too much to "direct result" whereas "aftermath" is a bit more flexible in it's implications. WakandaQT (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure honestly. I think a careful and short mention of them here is likely warranted, given the amount of coverage they've gotten in relation to the events themselves - not just the aftermath. But I could also support relegating the suicides to the aftermath article with just one sentence about morale within police responding here to summarize it. Regardless, the details are likely not warranted. I'll leave it to others to opine as to whether it should be pared back here and/or how to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@WakandaQT:This article is quite large so perhaps a separate article about the police who served on this day could be done to allow for expanded details? -- this article exists and it's called Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Also, is there ... consensus ... that the details... are more appropriate for the "aftermath" article .... There's is no consensus. Adding this type of content there is being actively disputed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, there should not be any further details about the four officers who committed suicide. We already have their names, the date, and the fact that they "died by suicide". That is all this article needs or properly should have. AFIK that is all the information that is currently in the "aftermath" article, and I do not see any push there to add more. Let's invoke BLP and let these four departed officers retain some privacy, even (especially) in death. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And BTW their suicides may or may not be connected to the January 6 attack, or to low morale because of it, although we imply it is by mentioning low morale in the same sentence. I guess we have to do that because the reporting is making the connection. But the unfortunate truth is that suicide by police officers is not uncommon. More than 100 each year, sometimes as many as 200, take their own lives - more than die in the line of duty. [28] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

attack time

Please change 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. [29] Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Everything checks out. Thank you! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Utterly untrue statement

The article states:

"Trump waged a 77-day campaign to subvert the election"

This is utterly false.

At least since August 17, 2020, trump has waged a campaign to overturn the election in case he lost: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512424-trump-the-only-way-we-are-going-to-lose-this-election-is-if-the.

From August 17, 2020 to January 6, 2021 is 142 days, not 77 days.

And then his campaign to overturn the election has continued to this day, which is August 8, 2021. This means it has gone on at least for 9 days short of one year, which is 346 days.

But in fact he uttered similar false claims even as far back as June 2020, if not earlier. 2601:200:C000:1A0:3960:8417:FC1F:8365 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

We would need this in a concise form, with only the detail that is widely discussed in Reliable Sources. A specific suggestion would get discussion started. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not exactly an "utterly untrue statement", it just needs updated from whenever that content was originally added to the article. What if we just change it to "Trump waged a campaign", leaving the specific number of days off? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What about Dating back to August 2020, Trump waged a campaign to raise doubts about the election and, after he lost, to subvert its results.? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe take out the word "campaign" entirely because it can be confused with a more typical presidential campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday I made this change of an end-date of January 7 to "present," to reflect the ongoing Arizona audit, so I think this section should also reflect that. There is evidence the efforts began well before the election, but just when isn't exactly clear yet (some reporting suggests spring 2018, if all things are considered) so I'd wait on that. soibangla (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• This goes back much further than 2020. Trump made the same claims before the 2016 election when he was expecting to lose. There are numerous sources. Here are the first four results of a search I ran just now, one (ABC) from after the 2020 election, the others from 2016: ABC, BBC, NPR, The Guardian. ABC also mentions that he made the same claim after the 2012 election, calling the election a sham and a travesty. They quote him as writing on Twitter, "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!" However, I don't see how this affects the current wording or this article but it's something to ponder for his main bio (undemocratic leanings/inclinations/behavior or something along those lines). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed the day count and rephrased the sentence. It was uncomfortably closed to the NY Times headline, and the fact that he started calling the election a fraud from the moment it became clear that he lost or probably lost the election seems more relevant to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• The key point is he tried to overturn the election after it had occurred.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Did he start the lawsuits hours after it became clear he lost, as that is what we are saying now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

He did, on November 4; the day after the election — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The new language is an improvement, but can we say "series of actions" instead of "campaign" per the comment of @Adolphus79: above? Also, I do agree that there should be a brief reference to the fact that this was not a spontaneous reaction, and that Trump had been undermining the legitimacy of the election for months beforehand. There was extensive reporting about his plan to confuse his followers on election night as to the delay in vote counts from various early and absentee ballots. He then followed this plan by declaring victory soon after the polls closed, ignoring the delayed ballots and undecided states. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see this while editing the page. Please take a look, I did mention the victory declaration. I also think the key point is the effort to overturn the election results after the fact. That he'd been spreading lies about election fraud prior to the election—for years, not just for months—we should add that to or expand the main bio, False statements and Promotion of conspiracy theories. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Deaths by suicide

We have had a recent addition to the lead of officers who committed suicide in the months following the attack, based on this article. I guess it might be a live question as to whether it belongs in the lead, but I don't think "died by suicide" is a good phrase, although it's used in the cited article. It's too euphemistic for Wikipedia - for example, we have many "Deaths by" categories, but but not "Deaths by suicide". "Committed suicide" is better. StAnselm (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for undoing the change, but as I believe is the modern trend, I prefer "died by suicide," among other reasons, because "committed" seems to emphasize the (present or past) criminal nature of the act. If anything, "committed suicide" strikes me as the euphemism. It is, after all, the death that is of primary import in such reporting. That said, if consensus is against me, there will be no caterwauling. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the AP style guide recommends against "commit", but we haven't followed suit here at Wikipedia. In fact, it's not the deaths that are the primary import in this particular reporting, but the suicides. StAnselm (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed--but my point is that it is not the legal ramifications thereof with which we are concerned. Again, happy to let this be decided by the community. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" may be a euphemism, but "died by suicide" is a bit of a neologism that is yet to totally catch on. I think "To kill oneself" is probably the best option to avoid the pitfalls of either option.  Mysterymanblue  17:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" is not a euphemism, it's the usual way of saying it. "Die by suicide" is also not a euphemism, but merely a neologism of the politically correct/inclusive type. We have an article on this specific terminological issue: Suicide terminology#Opposition to the term "commit" suicide. I'm kind of neutral on the issue. I don't think that changing from "die by suicide" to "commit suicide" with a rationale that the former is a euphemism is technically correct, but I don't mind "commit suicide" either, because I don't believe that it truly carries a condemnatory undertone. I think that believing that it does is not grounded in science. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

as far as I know the common term is committed suicide, the "by" is usually the method used.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We should follow the wording of our sources:

• The Washington Post: Two officers who helped fight the Capitol mob died by suicide. Many more are hurting..
• Buzzfeed: A Capitol Police Officer On Duty During The Coup Attempt Has Died By Suicide.
• Reuters: Four officers who responded to U.S. Capitol attack have died by suicide.
• CNN: 2 more DC police officers who responded to Capitol insurrection have died by suicide.

"Died by suicide" appears to be the unanimous terminology used by sources for reporting such deaths. And it should be ours. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You'd be right if it was a substantive issue (like whether to describe someone as a "neo-nazi" or not), but we don't have to replicate the non-substantive, purely stylistic choices of news orgs, because we adhere to an WP:Encyclopedic style, and not to the WP:NEWSSTYLE. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, insofar as we are not bound by the stylistic choices of our sources, but I certainly think it is a fair thing to consider in making such decisions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the news sources are following the AP style guide, but we don't follow that here on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW this has come up a few times at WT:MOS and similar places. I believe Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language is the most recent discussion, which concluded: The result is to not change policy, which allows "commit suicide," therefore no change is needed. In each article a multitude of word choices are allowed and editors can make editorial decisions through the normal process as to what sounds most natural, most informative and reads the best in each specific situation. A minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic, and if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it. Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society. The issue could be revisited a year from now (to choose an arbitrary unit of time) to ensure we have the latest style, while avoiding discussion fatigue.
  If you're doing a poll, my preference is for "died by suicide", which is not euphemistic or difficult to understand. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this VPP quote. Particularly the comment Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae changed the "Suicides" paragraph so that two of the sentences read "committed suicide". I have changed it back to the previous wording, "died by suicide", since that wording is under discussion here and no consensus has been reached. Novem, please join the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

He didn't change the wording from one semantically apt variant ("die by suicide") to another ("commit suicide"). He changed the unclear formulations of "died on January 15" and "died three days after the attack" to semantically apt "committed suicide on January 15" and "committed suicide three days after the attack". In doing what he did, he followed normal editorial process, that improved the text through simple copyediting. In reverting him, one undoes that improvement. Despite the ongoing discussion in this section, we are not starting out with an imperative to form prior consensus before making legitimate copyediting. Instead we are starting out with a consensus that "commit suicide" can be used, and that editors [should] not ... tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. I'm not really saying your revert is tendentious, as that's too strong of a word, but it's something along those lines. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I searched for "suicide capitol police". Practically all sources say "die by suicide", and "committed" is used quite rarely. There are some arguments for and against either word ("it's a euphemism", "it's criminalizing"), but I think both are a bit weak. In the absence of good reasons to deviate from what almost all sources do, we shouldn't; i.e. we should use "died by suicide" in this article. (Unless it gets too repetitive, e.g. it occurs multiple times in the same sentence or paragraph, but I don't think that's the case so far.) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Commit suicide" phrasing is quite antiquated. I'd be surprised if any other encyclopedic source would use it in a newly-written article. Combined with the fact that sources overwhelmingly use the "died by" phrasing, this isn't a terribly difficult decision. Neither option is euphemistic; "took their own life" or "died by their own hand" would be examples of euphemisms. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I hadn't seen this discussion. The essence of my changes to that paragraph were 1) making sure that each of the 4 sentences had some mention of suicide (since before in my opinion it was unclear if we had also mixed some killings/murders/accidental deaths/random deaths in), and 2) get everything mentioned in a "4 things happened: 1, 2, 3, 4. and also" sequential format. I have no opinion on the choice of "committed suicide" vs "died by suicide", seems pretty minor to me, I am fine with either. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

When suicide was a felony, it made sense to say "committed suicide," because the deceased person was presumed to be a criminal. Their property was forfeit to the crown and they were denied a Christian burial. Today the expression is antiquated. We wouldn't say that someone who killed another person in self-defense, which is justifiable homicide, had committed homicide, since it would imply that their actions were criminal. TFD (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that is an objection to the "commit" phrasing, there's really nothing criminal implied by the word "commit". While I do agree that we should use phrasing that a preponderance of modern sources use, the objection to the older phrasing that it implied criminality because it used the word "commit" is entirely without merit. I can commit things to memory, I commit to my wife in a wedding ceremony, I commit my time to my job. None of those are crimes. It's a strange reason to object to a phrasing when the word means nothing to do with crime. Yes I can commit a crime, but the word commit has nothing to do with criminality itself. --Jayron32 16:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps going a bit far down the linguistic rabbit hole here, but first of all, I definitely have this connotation. Granted, that's not a reason for Wikipedia style, but it is a thing that exists -- I strangely think it has to do with the presence or lack of indirect objects, as in your examples. Take for example the phrase "He committed a wedding ceremony." Technically fine, if unidiomatic, but doesn't that sound like something untoward is happening? Interesting whatever the takeaway. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, "I commit a wedding ceremony" is unidiomatic, but "I commit $100 from my budget per month to dining out" is not. There's nothing particularly criminal about that, and that usage is perfectly idiomatic. $100 is a direct object. --Jayron32 17:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, but all your examples use the verbal phrase "commit to" rather than simply "commit," and for me, the semantic ranges are very different. Consider "He committed suicide." This to me means this person is deceased, as opposed to "He committed to suicide," which sounds idiomatic to me, but would mean he had a firm intention. It would not be clear to me whether this person is deceased. You are absolutely right that "commit to" for me has no negative connotation, but "commit" lends itself to negative things: adultery, sin, murder, a crime, etc. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Sir, how much time do you pledge per week to spend working at the food kitchen each month", "I can commit 1 hour". There's no "to" in that sentence. I'm still not seeing it. You've cherry picked negative direct objects (sin, crime, murder) as your examples, but there are as many counter examples where commit takes direct objects that are not themselves crimes. I get that you have this association with "commit" and "negativeness". I'm saying that connotation is idiosyncratic. --Jayron32 17:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no "to" in that sentence because it is implied. That's why you had to phrase it as a question and answer: "I can commit 1 hour [to the food kitchen]." Stripped of that context, it becomes meaningless. And while I certainly grant you that my negative valence is far from universal, I also don't think it is particularly unique to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"but "commit" lends itself to negative things: adultery, sin, murder, a crime, etc." Well, regardless of whether it is a crime or a sin, a human death is hardly a shiny, happy thing. That's the level of "negativity" I get from "committed suicide", not an indictment of the person, just a regrettable reality.--Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

So your intent is to add a negative connotation that's not supported by reliable sources, to a BLP? –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You did see the scare quotes I used, right? I see committedsuicide as equal to any human death: I find it regretable that anyone dies.--Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"We wouldn't say that someone who killed another person in self-defense, which is justifiable homicide, had committed homicide, since it would imply that their actions were criminal." I don't see why not. It sounds perfectly normal to me. --Khajidha (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32, see The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Approaches to Discourse Analysis: "an etymology of the word suicide describes how the act was criminalizaed in mid-seventeenth-century England, necessitating a way to reference it in the criminal code; what was previously referred to with the verb to murder oneself became the Latin nominalization suicide, and collate commit."[30] That should be obvious since the only actions that one describes as having been committed are criminal or immoral. No one commits charity or heroism. Normally when actions become socially accepted we alter how we describe them. People are no longer said to commit miscegenation or homosexual acts. Khajidha, while it may seem normal to you, I have not come across that phrasing in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Since when has suicide become socially acceptable?--Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we should use the term "commit suicide" because it does not imply the act is immoral or that we should use the term because suicide is immoral? {FYI, 10 U.S. states and D.C. have legalized physician assisted-suicide in some circumstances. Most Western jurisdictions removed suicide as a felony long ago.) TFD (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" does not carry the immoral connotation for me and many others. Sad, yes, but not immoral or criminal. That doesn't seem to add up to "socially acceptable" as you implied above. --Khajidha (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, one can commit acts of heroism. See here: https://www.psypost.org/2020/05/heroes-tend-to-downplay-their-actions-and-new-psychology-research-might-explain-why-56718 --Khajidha (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/ Heres a use of "committed justifiable homicide".--Khajidha (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Acceptable variations would be "took his own life" and "killed himself" if you don't want the paragraph to say "died by suicide" four times, as it does now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Took his own life" is bordering on euphemistic, "killed himself" would be okay, and if the manner of death were known more specifically, one could also use that specificity to add variety to the phrasing "died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound" or "died from an intentional overdose" or things like that. --Jayron32 17:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Linguistic exercises aside, "died by suicide" is the current preferred term, both in general usage and among sources cited in this article. The arguments above in favor of "committed" essentially boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. –dlthewave ☎ 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Died by suicide" implies that this was something done to the person and not their own action. --Khajidha (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been argued to death across the project, and there is no consensus that "committed suicide" is deprecated. "Died by suicide" certainly isn't "general usage" yet, unless it's more of an WP:ENGVAR thing. Sources in the UK almost always say "took his own life" these days, euphemism or not.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the four officers who committed suicide after the storming of the capitol be included in the death toll?

Yes or no? Thecornerwiki (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No, although it should be mentioned. The Iraq War ingo-box for example mentions 4,507 U.S. deaths, but not the thousands of veterans who later died by suicide. TFD (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. It should be mentioned as the sources mention it. I doubt they're attributing the suicides to January 6 because, while that may have been a factor, there may be other reasons as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Like all decisions we should consult how reliable sources treat the subject. It seems to me that news coverage has generally attributed these deaths to the attack, but I haven't done a comprehensive review. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Attack on CONGRESS?

It was stupid enough to replace "Capitol police" with "Capitol", but this latest bending of the truth flat-out breaks it. Point at one violently attacked congressperson among the 138 cops. You simply can't, they're entirely imaginary. I suggest reinstating the actually publicly known victims. If that's too inexplicably difficult, at least go back to saying the building was struck, since doors and windows did take verifiable damage. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If you attack an occupied building, that can be described as an attack on the inhabitants of that building. --Khajidha (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And if you beat 138 cops defending those inhabitants from any and all harm, and the building from further harm? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

So you would say that the Luftwaffe weren't attacking Britain on any occasions that the RAF stopped them all?--Khajidha (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You used to argue better than needing to put farfetched words in my mouth. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a rollback to the longstanding version. I just made an incremental edit to what I came across today, which was critically in need of some copyediting. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This was an attack on Congress. Trump sent the crowd to the Capitol because that's where Congress was in the process of tabulating the Electoral College vote. The Capitol police fortunately prevented the mob from getting to any member of Congress or Pence. Their goal wasn't to attack the building. What do you think would have happened if they had gotten their hands on Pence or Pelosi? They had a three word chant for Pence... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If perceived violent thoughts count as violence itself, this discussion is impossible and I quit. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Current first sentence is in accord with the rest of the lead, and with the body, for example the lead also contains (very stably, for months now): They assaulted Capitol Police officers and reporters and attempted to locate lawmakers to capture and harm. Would you say that attempting to locate lawmakers to capture and harm is not an attack on Congress? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, trying to do is not doing, if you fail. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay just add "failed" somewhere whoopt...; I mean failed attack is still attack. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: how about remove "violently"? "Violent attack" is practically a pleonasm anyway, unless we're talking about a figurative attack (e.g. attack ad). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That's an entirely separate matter for another section, and doesn't change the erroneous claim about who was attacked in the slightest, but go for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Not wanting to attach myself to the pertinent version too much: I don't know what to say right now. I'll need some time to think on it and whether I like the longstanding version or this version more. Someone else will have to comply or refuse in the nearest... timeframe. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This was an attack on Congress during which Capitol police were assaulted. @Alalch Emis:'s edit summary [31] captures the issue quite well. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Now ask why there are discretionary sanctions on this page. We need to make sure that what we put in is verifiable. Any unverifiable should information should be removed from this page as it degrades from the accuracy of this page.

Admins may want to consider XCONing this page as part of DS enforcement. Aasim (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Let me help. The word you're looking for is "stormed". Stormed the Capitol, attacked police, interrupted the joint session in an attempt to prevent Congress from opening and reading the votes... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This was definitely an attack on congress. If you storm and invade a building specifically trying to gain access to the occupants, even if it fails, the attempt is still an attack against those occupants. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right now the article lead sentence says "On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the U.S. Congress was violently attacked in a riot at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C." I strongly disagree with that change and have changed it back to "the Capitol was attacked". IMO there is no possible RS justification for saying this was an attack on Congress, when every source (including the title of this article) says it was an attack on the Capitol. I'm open to other wordings for the rest of the sentence, but it was an attack on the Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. What I changed it to was "On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked in a riot targeting the U.S. Congress." I think that gets both ideas across pretty well. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That looks well worded to me. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Aye, 100% accurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I think people here are forgetting to delineate between the actual, completed attack, and the attempted attack. There is certainly an argument that it was an attempt to attack Congress (the body of people) itself. However, that did not happen. There was no "battle" or "attack" on individual people as the Capitol Police (as well as staffers) were excellent in evacuating those inside before the attackers breached the building. On the other hand, it was a planned and executed attack on the Capitol building. That is the more notable part of it, and is how it should be referred to. For this to be referred to as an attack on Congress, which is a body of people, then that body of people would've had to actually, well, been attacked - which thank God they weren't as they were evacuated before the rioters could get to them. (ps: I agree with what MelanieN said in the comment above mine which I ec'ed with and agree that the version that MelanieN put in is the most accurate description - attack on the building, targeting but failing to actually attack the people themselves). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

In short: you're wrong. In long... — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In short, if I punched you, you could charge me with assault. In your jurisdiction or mine. If I slipped and impaled myself on that harpoon with your name on it, you could only try for attempted assault, maybe attempted murder (presuming I recover). Not saying I'd ever hit a guy for being wrong, no worries, you're an example. But these modified laws exist for a reason, face it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

But at least one definition of "attack" is "to try to hurt or defeat using violence", see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/attack An attack occurs whether or not the attacker actually hits his target. --Khajidha (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I read that as trying by using violence. Nobody got to the point where violence against politicians was even possible, whether it would hurt them, defeat them or whatever. Police precluded that, changed history, forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't see the distinction you are trying to make. Whether I swing at you and miss (or am stopped by a defender) or I swing at you and the contact does not harm you, I still used violence to try to hurt you. --Khajidha (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As the fabulous rabbit said to the proverbial fox, "If you want a piece of me, buddy, you'll have to catch me first!" Emphasis both of ours. Those wishful assassins died on Stage One: The Vain Pursuit of a Vice President. And no, missing is not violent. Violence needs collision, at least physically, at least in Canada. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, that varies by jurisdiction. 'Round these parts, the swing is the violence. Throwing a punch is assault here, whether I connect or not.--Khajidha (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

No need to pepper the jab, Repeater Pointer, take a breath. I could use one, too! OK, now sitting down and looking at federal charging grounds, was anyone who missed Mike or Nancy accused of attacking them? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As I don't see any statement in the article that anyone attacked Pelosi or Pence directly, I don't see the point of your question. The article states that the rioters attacked the building and that they attacked the collective assemblage of people inside (Congress). The first of those statements is indisputable fact and the second is a seemingly obvious corollary of the first. At least in American English. Whether anyone who was known to have been both 1) chanting "Kill Pence" and 2) among those who actually made it into the building could be charged with attacking Pence specifically is an interesting question that I cannot answer.--Khajidha (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I was using them as exemplary figureheads, representing Congress. The underlying point is still about everyone. Best I can see, nobody's been accused of assaulting or battering or attacking or molesting or harassing any politician in relation to this so-called violent coup against Congress. Only fucked the police (allegedly). What seems obvious to you right now is untrue, no insult intended. The collective assemblage escaped even the threat of violence inherent in confronting violent rioters, unscathed on both levels; no aggressor came within striking or even throwing range, the security system worked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We apparently have very different ideas about what an "attack on" someone is. If someone runs into my yard, screaming their intent to harm me, knocking over my lawn furniture, breaking my potted plants, banging on my door, etc., while my family and I are inside, then that is an attack on my family in my understanding, even if the police knock them to the ground and haul them away without any blows being struck to my body or those of my family. Do I understand that you would not consider this an attack on your family in the same situation? --Khajidha (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I'd consider it an uttered threat. I'd also want the perp knocked down for mischief and hauled off for trespassing. But without a strike thrown or landed against us, crying attack would be seen by my local OPP detachment as crying wolf on a raccoon-like pest. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, why didn't you wikilink attack too? — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Because in this scenario, no attack occurred, thus seeming here nor there. It's also a disambiguation page. I don't want that bad news bot coming back for more. (It appears that electronic guard dog only incessantly prowls through article space). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - in my state (North Carolina), a charge of assault can be made even without physical contact. If I were to attempt to punch someone but they dodge or I miss, I could still be taken to court. Actual physical contact would add the charge of battery.--Khajidha (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was an attack on congress [[32]] or we could say "The Capital" [[33]] but I still think Congress is better [[34]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ummm.... your first example supports "Capitol", your second example supports "Capitol", and your third example doesn't clearly support either. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Pelosi’s comments come as members of both parties have pushed for a deep dive into the insurrection, which was designed to interrupt the presidential electoral count and was the worst attack on Congress in two centuries.".Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

From the first link: It is clear that IICD intelligence products, in particular the January 3 Special Assessment analysis that “Congress itself is the target on the 6th”. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote "but rather Congress itself is the target on the 6th.".Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Fine, but did you notice the NAME of the first link? "Examining the U.S. Capitol Attack". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you notice I said "or we could say "The Capital""?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Thus matching the name of this article. That doesn't mean that it can't also be used to support a statement that this was an attack on Congress. I haven't checked the text of the article myself, but it could conceivably also describe the events as an attack on the capital (note spelling). --Khajidha (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Normally the lead sentence of an article reflects the name of the article, even if not actually stating the name in bold. The current lead sentence says "targeting the U.S. Congress" which accurately reflects what these sources are saying. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Errr, yes yes, I know it does.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) BTW let's be clear on our spelling. Capitol (capitalized) is where a legislature meets, and the Capitol is the building that was attacked on Jan. 6. Capital (lower case) is the city that serves as the seat of government for a state or country. [35]. Washington, D.C., is the capital of the United States; Congress meets in the Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"On the afternoon January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. was violently attacked in a riot targeting the U.S. Congress." I'm not seeing any problem here. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2021

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

The result of the move request was: In this discussion the community once again considers the title of this article. This discussion has been correctly conducted and has lasted its full period. I declare that I am fully uninvolved in the Wikipedian sense, meaning that I am both disinterested and uninterested in this matter. I have extensive experience of closing fraught and contentious discussions, and (for the benefit of those credentialist editors who care about such things) I have the page mover user right. Having carefully considered and reflected on all the points raised in this discussion, I determine that the community has reached a strong consensus to change the title to 2021 United States Capitol attack. The requisite edits may be made.

In the discussion below MelanieN opines that there should be a move moratorium. This is difficult because only a small proportion of editors commented on whether there should be a move moratorium and I have little guidance from the community about how long it should last. But I agree that the community is very weary of repeatedly discussing this matter. In the circumstances it's right for me to declare a move moratorium but to leave it relatively short, because without much input from the community I should choose the option that's least restrictive. I declare a four week move moratorium from this timestamp.

Any comments, criticism, and personal abuse about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance. I hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack – (Note: I believe consensus for this proposed title was clear in the previous RM but here we are: Similar to the previous RM, but to a slightly different title). reason= 1. The current title is rarely used and so does not meet WP:COMMONNAME, per analysis here. The word attack is far more common. 2. It’s not clear whether “January 6” or “2021” is or will be the way the event is commonly referred to in the future, but most editors in the previous RM seemed to think 2021 is more likely to stick in the long run. 3. United States Capitol is still needed to identify the article, as it is for a global audience. 4. The proposed title might not be perfect for several reasons including the perfect is unknowable at this time, but we hope substituting attack for storming of is an improvement. В²C ☎ 06:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - Per nom, I'm pretty sure "attack" was the consensus from the most recent discussion. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Support "Storming" sounds as an euphemism, and does not describe the event. Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THIS OR ANY OTHER MOVE REQUEST IF IT'S ALREADY CLEAR THAT YOU PREFER A CERTAIN TITLE. I repeat: PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THIS OR ANY OTHER MOVE REQUEST IF IT'S ALREADY CLEAR THAT YOU PREFER A CERTAIN TITLE. One more time: PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THIS OR ANY OTHER MOVE REQUEST IF IT'S ALREADY CLEAR THAT YOU PREFER A CERTAIN TITLE. Three more times: PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THIS OR ANY OTHER MOVE REQUEST IF IT'S ALREADY CLEAR THAT YOU PREFER A CERTAIN TITLE. PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THIS OR ANY OTHER MOVE REQUEST IF IT'S ALREADY CLEAR THAT YOU PREFER A CERTAIN TITLE. PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THIS OR ANY OTHER MOVE REQUEST IF IT'S ALREADY CLEAR THAT YOU PREFER A CERTAIN TITLE. I'm neutral on the proposal. Red Slash 08:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME seems to support "insurrection", as demonstrated by Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. I personally have no feelings about that, but would suggest we should just follow the evidence.--Doric Loon (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I just did a quick Google search. "January 6th attack" got 95,000,000 hits, "January 6th Insurrection" got 33,700,000 hits, and "January 6th storming" got 9,230,000 hits. ""Attack"" would seems to be the more COMMONNAME plus that adjunct page hasn't been all that meaningfully edited/updated since May 18th or so. Keeping in mind WP:NPOV + MOS:LABEL I think "attack" is a more neutral term than "insurrection" or "storming". Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What does that prove? I also just did a quick Google search for "January 6th attack" and randomly selected an AP article (which was probably used by numerous other news outlets besides Oregon Public Broadcasting which may also be buried somewhere in the search results) on page 22 of the search results. It uses storm/storming five times, including in the headline, attack twice. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't make any claims that I did some kind of deep research and analysis of a complex dataset, it's all just a mountain of raw numbers. If someone wants to drill down into the individual Google hits and analyze the number of times in those hits that writers/commentators/people are referring to January 6th and the different wording people are using to refer to that event and then analyze all those hits coming up with an average/median/whatever of a January 6th phrase taking the overall result as their lodestar as to how Wikipedia should characterize the events that happened around the US Capitol on January 6th more power to them. I just took a snapshot in time, take it as you will. Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support The article describes an event, and not a thing with a formal title, and as such a descriptive title is needed in some form. Attack is the most neutral and is well recognized. I have early supported keeping it at Storming, but my feelings have changed over time. This seems like a more recognizable description of the event. --Jayron32 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Not again, Storming gives it way too much credit, it was a riot or (at "best" an attack).Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose since there is no agreed common name, the title should be as descriptive as possible. Storming means a whole bunch of people aggressively rushing into a building, which is what happened. Attack is a more general term which could include such things as bombings or arson that could be carried out by small groups or even lone individuals. TFD (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Attack is a more general term which could include such things as bombings The article covers two live bombs. Feoffer (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

While someone did plot an attack at DNC and RNC headquarters, they never were able to execute it. Sources make it clear though that the actions of the crowd were unlawful. "Attack" gives undue weight and does not accurately describe the situation. Left-wing sources call this an "attempted coup" or the like; in reality, while the Capitol security was breached, Congress had an alternate undisclosed location where the certification process could continue. Aasim (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support It was a riot or attack is a far more common name than storming.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- I think riot is more common on TV news but attack is more accurate. A riot is generally understood to mean a type of physical expression of anger, oftentimes chaotic. An attack can include this physical expression of anger but it's directed at a specific target, and importantly, it also incorporates an overarching goal, in this case to disrupt/overturn the election results. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: "storming" is bad from a WP:NPOV standpoint, it sounds like a euphemism or even a glorification of the event. Attack is more neutral and more accurately describes what happened. I would rather have "January 6" as opposed to "2021", but that's not on the table at the moment (we'll wait until next year to see if the name sticks). We should also strive for stability; the name proposed was previously stable since most people were content with it. BappleBusiness (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support I was not an early adopter of the word "attack" because I thought other terms would convey a more common name. But when I saw the name of the Select Committee (United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack), it gave me a thought that the word "attack" is well understood by many people. Whether it should be called "January 6" or "2021" is not in the scope for this move request right now. That can be in a future request. For now, changing from "storming" to "attack" should be done. Z22 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It is better than "storming", and is used more often in RS. However, the ultimate title I want to see is "2021 United States Capitol riot". Consider the following Google queries for usage in reliable newspapers over the last month: riot returns 256 results, and attack returns 59 results. Commendations to User: Alalch Emis for putting together these queries (note: I removed upi.com from both queries, since its results for "attack" appear to be inflated by a photo gallery title that registered dozens of times.) — Goszei (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. And at closure, please just let an uninvolved admin close it. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. "Storming" is not NPOV as it is too evocative of a more heroic gesture, and goes along with neo-Nazi wording (see Der Stürmer, The Daily Stormer, Stormfront (website)). Further, since the last RM, developments such as the creation of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack demonstrate that "attack" is the WP:COMMONNAME term. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a clearer and much less flowery name for the event. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per previous attack RM !vote diff — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - there was a clear consensus in the move request last time, but if people really thought it needed to be clearer... I guess here we go. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how anyone missed the point at WP:MRV. We do not ever allow an INVOLVED closer for a requested move. It's a simple rule that keeps us safe. Red Slash 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Per my points about re:NPOV/POV and COMMONNAME. (Plus, can the article be move-protected after this RM runs its course?) Shearonink (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

When this gets closed, if it results in a definite decision to move to another title, ask any administrator to carry out the move while leaving the move protection in place. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per GorillaWarfare. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination; this is clearly the better alternative. I'm glad that this doesn't use January 6 within the title, as I don't feel that would assist readers in arriving at the article in question. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Storming" is romanticizing a violent attack, as if this was a revolution instead of domestic terrorism. "Insurrection" is also unacceptable as it implies a massive support for this fringe event. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "Storming" should be used as there is no consensus on what to call what took place at the Capitol on January 6th. I disagree that this is romanticizing or downplaying the event, as the George Floyd protests article was given an equally nuetral title and the same treatment should be applied here. -- BlueShirtz (talk) 6:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Lol, what? You can't declare "no consensus" as a reason to retain the current article title while the discussion is ongoing. The previous discussion isn't binding at all on this one. ValarianB (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think they are referring to why the move to Storming occurred in the first place and why there have been so many discussions since. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Surachit (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nomPipsally (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the last close was a sham. This is a more concise and less fanciful term for what a band of domestic terrorists did on the day of Jan 6. ValarianB (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Attack is a less concise term for what a band of domestic terrorists did. As for fanciful—eye, or reading habits, of the beholder. (There seems to be a lot of feeling involved in editor's opposition to storming—from glorification and romanticizing to neo-Nazi wording. It's just a verb. Good and bad people have stormed buildings, fortifications, as well as warehouses, factories, gas stations, and shopping malls. Unlike storming, attack does not convey the information that the assailants managed to break into the building. Riot would also be better than attack, so would attempted coup, the term used by the police officers and Rep. Kinzinger at the congressional hearing (Reuters, NPR) and by sources as far back as January (The Atlantic, academic experts). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The rioters attacked democracy in their attempt to overturn the election results by force. The building they stormed was just in the way—collateral damage, like the police officers they assaulted and, potentially, the members of Congress if they hadn't been evacuated at the last minute. "Capitol attack" is a white-wash, also too close to "Capitol car attack". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd use the same argument against "storming" and for "attack" (and for "insurrection"). — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection would be better than attack which could be anything from a verbal confrontation to rockets. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• support per GorillaWarfare—blindlynx (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I was impressed by Shearonink's Google statistics indicating that "attack" appears most frequently in sources, followed by "insurrection", followed by "storming". (This ordering matches my far less scientific but personal observations as well.) I also agreed with Z22 and others who pointed out that "attack" appears in the name of the select House committee, pretty much guaranteeing lots more sources to come using the word "attack". Some have argued that "attack" is less precise than other terms but I think the discussion of exactly what happened is a matter to be dealt with in the article content; it seems completely unlikely anyone will be confused about what event is being discussed because the title says "attack" not "storming". I'm satisfied "attack" is clearly the best choice under WP:COMMMONNAME. Msnicki (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Attack" is far more common than "storming", but "riot" is used more frequently than "attack" in reliable sources by a factor of about 4.5, per the Google queries in my comment above. — Goszei (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, and here are my Google searches [36] and [37] indicating that "capitol riot" loses to "capitol attack" by 24.6M to 43.5M across all news sources, not just the ones you chose. Msnicki (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk subpage linked to by the nominator. More worked-out queries are used, such that give results that can be seen as indicative of a chosen descriptor by the news org in that instance. Simply searching for "capitol x" (especially without the quotes) does not give such a result because there's nothing to base on that when a certain word merely appears in an article that it's how the source chose to name the event, and only that is the kind of information that may be useful. Space4Time3Continuum2x explained this in their comment above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand your argument but I disagree. I prefer to remain anonymous here but that doesn't mean I don't have some expertise in search engines and ranking. I'm satisfied that searches for newspapers for pages matching the words (without quotes) "capitol attack" or "capitol riot" are far more likely to match stories related to this event than to other topics in the news. Go ahead and click through the results. They're all about this one event, whatever you want to call it. Msnicki (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There will be many news pieces related to the event, but the way the words attack and riot will have been used in the text won't indicate a chosen descriptor by the news organization. You have to form a query that isolates cases that are relevant for that. Like the aforementioned editor said: I also just did a quick Google search for "January 6th attack" and randomly selected an AP article (which was probably used by numerous other news outlets besides Oregon Public Broadcasting which may also be buried somewhere in the search results) on page 22 of the search results. It uses storm/storming five times, including in the headline, attack twice. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can cherry-pick an individual search result to make whatever point they like. You're welcome to your opinion but I don't see evidence that your opinion is better informed than mine on how search engines work or which queries are more indicative of true popularity. Sorry, you haven't persuaded me and I'd appreciate if we could leave it at that. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Just "attack": 1,760m results. Just "riot": 182m results. Attack is a word that occurs more frequently in the language. When you search for "Capitol attack" without the quotes you get precisely this effect: attack as a verb and as a noun appearing in all possible contexts in articles containing "capitol" - naturally, it being a more frequently used word in the English language than riot, a search containing it will give more results. This has absolutely nothing to do with discovering how reliable sources name the event. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, and as I said, you're welcome to your opinion. But I prefer mine. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick. I randomly picked a page and wondered why one of the listed articles came up in a search for "attack" when it had "stormed" in the headline. If it had said "visited", instead, I would have looked at it as well. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Picking a page because you wondered why it had "storm" in the title when you've searched for "attack" and analyzing just that one page is not "random" and it's not a valid sampling technique. For your approach, counting numbers of individual words in the matching articles to be meaningful, you'd need to download and analyze a few thousand pages at a minimum. Liking the result you got on the first one you tried and then stopping isn't persuasive. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

My arguments for "storming" are not based on numbers or hits, validly sampled or otherwise. I was pointing out that editors arguing with the number of hits, yourself included if I’m not mistaken, should have done an analysis. And, yeah, picking a page at random and looking at the first item that catches your eye is not cherry-picking. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

But there has been some valid analysis. I even presented my own example. I could be persuaded to change my opinion, but arguments about how to count WP:GOOGLEHITS probably aren't going to do it. I'm satisfied the evidence indicates that "attack" is almost certainly more common in relevant WP:RS than "storming" and that with the creation of the House select committee with "attack" in the name, the trend will continue. You're welcome to your opinion but I still like mine better. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No need to thank me, wasn't trying to persuade you—or anyone else, for that matter—when I responded to Shearonink. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, but would prefer the title United States Capitol attack without the year since there weren't any major attacks that are more notable than this one. Interstellarity (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • That's a really good point. Wish you had brought it up sooner (sorry if you did and I missed it). But yeah, I would prefer your more WP:CONCISE suggestion to either the current title or the one I proposed. --В²C ☎ 23:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think other attacks have to be "more notable" than this one, they just have to be reasonable disambiguation targets for that title. Consider 1983 United States Senate bombing and April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. — Goszei (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. COMMONNAME does not apply, because neither title under consideration is a name. Both are descriptive titles. The current one is better because "storming" is a clearer descriptive term here than "attack". Attempting to determine and follow the most popular usage in (news) sources is unnecessary. In fact, we got it right the first time around. Objections to "storming" strike me as odd: we have the storming of the Bastille and the 2019 storming of the Legislative Council Complex in Hong Kong, for example. These do not make it sound like a right-wing term. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Name or title, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I regard WP:COMMONNAME as offering guidance that we should choose terms in our article titles that match what's commonly found in reliable sources. I don't think it has to be an actual name. As to whether "storming" is clearer or more descriptive, consider this definition from dictionary.com: "informal characterized by or displaying dynamism, speed, and energy: a storming performance". That sounds like "storming" could be anything. Msnicki (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I just googled storming performance—zero hits. The dictionary.com entry also says that it's an adjective (BE, maybe?). Our "storming" is the gerund of the transitive verb to storm, used as a noun. The definition per Merriam Webster is ": to attack, take, or win over by storm // storm a fort". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it is like this: imagine that last summer an angel appeared to you in a dream and told you that on 6 January 2021 the United States Capitol would be stormed or attacked and gave no other details. Which word would have produced in your mind a closer image to what actually happened? That is why "storming" is better than "attack" (which would include, e.g., a missile strike). Srnec (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This a really good argument and had me thinking quite seriously this morning about changing my !vote. I'm not switching yet, but I'll continue to think about it. I think you're right, that "storming" creates a better mental picture. But I still think it runs counter to the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, which asks that we follow the sources and use terms they use. Setting aside arguments about what queries are best, I'm satisfied that "attack" is and will likely continue to be more common in WP:RS. But also, your argument got me thinking about what we've done in the past. Was "attack" sufficiently descriptive or colorful for other horrific events? The obvious one was 9/11, for which we've titled the article, "September 11 attacks with redirects like Twin towers attack. We do have articles on the Storming of the Bastille and The Storming of the Winter Palace but I'm pretty sure that's really what the sources call those events. Anyway, you haven't got me switching yet, but I thought you had a very thoughtful argument. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Srnec's focus on the end product rather than rules is laudable, but ultimately, we take our cues from RSes: COMMONNAME does in fact apply. Even under Srnec's test of which word produces "a closer image to what actually happened", "attack" is the winner: there were bombs; there were radios, coordination, and planning. Feoffer (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You have information that the 800 or so people who breached and the few thousands who surrounded the Capitol were all involved in the coordination and planning? Does the FBI know? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your refutation ("not all 800 breachers coordinated") effectively knocks over a straw man entirely of your own creation. Feoffer (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What refutation? What was your argument, some people coordinated and planned an attack, therefore what happened must be called an attack because only attacks are coordinated and planned? I suppose the other assailants/trespassers/vandals were just normal tourists who happened to have confederate battle flags with them? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, no point in debating Srnec's ad hoc test, it's not poliy: COMMNONNAME wins. But to my eyes, "attack" would win even under Srnec's test -- if I heard a dedicated team descended on the capitol, used radios and coordination, add in the presence of two bombs, that's an "attack". But again, it's not up to us and our opinions, but when I hear bombs I think attack, not "storm". I never think "storm" tbh, it's a weird 19th century term. Feoffer (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, this has been argued to death at this point. There have been countless events in U.S. history that could be considered a run-of-the-mill "attack" on the Capitol, from shootings to attempted infiltrations to car rammings. This event was the largest breach of the Capitol complex in American history, and the most destructive since the Burning of Washington. It is without precedent, and "storming" is an apt description of these events, since they would otherwise not be notable if the terrorists had not breached and overran the building. The fact that some folks for whatever reason view the term in a "glorious" light is their own problem. I feel that by calling this simply the "2021 attack" it reduces its significance and turns it into yet another "xxxx year attack on blank" title. It obfuscates what actually happened. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the opposite is true; Attack is a far stronger descriptor than Storming. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support for title: "2021 United States Capitol attack". It was an attack; people died. There was deliberate aggression against officers of the law. It was not like a concert at a stadium, where an eager (storming) audience made collecting tickets irrelevant. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Keep support, per Liz. Tortillovsky (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Tortillovsky, what is the source for this eager (storming) audience? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Storming at a concert is similar to rushing the stage. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per Msnicki. Recursive backspace (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The language of "storming" is by no means romanticizing what happened. I would prefer "riot" to "attack" because it would more easily be applicable to what happened outside the Capitol Building, which this article describes in great length. In any case, I find "storming" to be more appropriate, as based on the many hours of footage I've seen, the vast majority of those who trespassed were simply trespassing. MeanMotherJr (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Would be a more NPOV title. Note that if you google "January 6, 2021 Wikipedia" it returns "2021 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia", credible search engines will not return the current POV-pushing goofball title.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Why would the search engine return the redirect page of "2021 United States Capitol attack" instead of the actual page "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" when we don't even put the word "attack" in the search? Does this imply that "attack" is a more common search entry than "storming" in this context? Z22 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke, Z22, you need to clear to your browser cache. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we were talking about Google search results which have nothing to do with my local browser. Just so to follow through with what you suggested, I cleared the cache anyway. Same result. I also used another old machine which haven't been used for years (so it is impossible to cache anything about Jan 6) and I did not logon to Google account so that Google doesn't associate to me in anyway. Then I tried to search again. Same result. Did you try the above and you saw the title for the first result that was not "2021 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia"? Z22 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I googled "January 6, 2021 Wikipedia" on Safari, Chrome, and Firefox, and on all three the top search result said "January 2021 storming of the United States Capitol - Wikipedia". Did you clear the cookies, as well, and then close and restart your browser? (In Firefox, for example, it's Preferences / Privacy & Security / Cookies and Site Data -> Clear Data.) Here's an article explaining it better than I can. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Just to be clear: "2021 United States Capitol attack" didn't show up on the first seven pages of the search results—which is when I stopped looking—but the "Province of Manitoba | Home page" did—no clue why, maybe because it has a news feed listing several items dated "August 6, 2021"? The mystery of Google search results ... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per The Four Deuces. The current title is a more accurate description than the proposed title. - Aoidh (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong and obvious support. Shearonink and others have conclusively demonstrated that "storm" fails WP:COMMONNAME. Entirely apart from that argument, I am independently persuaded that "storm" fails MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOVTITLE. In light of past extensive discussion, we should look for a snow close if appropriate. Obviously, the prior closer was the wrong person for the job, but a strong consensus for "attack" has existed for months. Feoffer (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. As I've followed the debate, I've been struck that those preferring "storm" tend to argue either about what Google query is best for deciding what's most common in sources (it's "attack") or that "storm" is more "descriptive". I'm not insensitive to that argument about the better mental image conjured up by "storming" (see my earlier comments), but it's clearly an opinion, contrary to WP:NPOV, and it's not supported by sources or most editors as the best choice. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per OP. Additionally, I would note the connection of the word storm to events like Storming of the Bastille and to QAnon. Beyond the fact that the title doesn't meet WP:COMMONNAME, the word storm, in particular, is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Casprings (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per what Google returns and WP:COMMONNAME Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

SUPPORT: 30 OPPOSE: 8 (I think). Seems like a clear consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Now it's SUPPORT: 32 OPPOSE: 8. Even clearer. Let's wrap this up as soon as possible. Cpotisch (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And weighting of !votes makes it even clearer still. Feoffer (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe this should be closed and the title changed at this point. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The RfC sorry, my mistake RM has been open less than a week at this point. Commonly RfCs run for a month, but if the result is obvious an RfC can be closed sooner. It is possible to request closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, but it's probably too early. One consideration is whether discussion at the RfC RM has died down or there has been no new input for a few days; that is not the case here, people are still weighing in. One more thought: I would strongly advise that, given the controversy over the last closure, this should be closed only by an uninvolved administrator. In which category I do not include myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

But this is a Requested move! They're typically open for seven days. I do second the call for an admin close. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that if the breakdown of responses does not change, at the 1 week mark we will have every justification to close it ourselves and make the move. It's already extremely clear what the result will be, and I do think that WP:SNOW would cover moving it now, but out of an abundance of caution, I can wait a couple more days. I am concerned, however, that other articles linking to this one are going to have "attack" replaced with "storming", which we'll have to undo after the move. That will be a pain. Cpotisch (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – this was not an attack on the building itself. It was an attempted coup d'état against the United States Congress to overthrow their session to prevent then President-elect Joseph Biden from assuming the presidency. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That this is in essence an attack on the building itself is much more strongly denoted by the descriptor "storming". — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Can someone explain why this was moved back? No RS refer to it as a "storming", and the previous consensus was clear. Per WP:SNOW, this should be dealt with ASAP. Cpotisch (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Cpotisch, because the user who closed the last RM was WP:INVOLVED, which invalidated the close. We needed a new close, which is found at #Requested move 20 May 2021. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - attack is too much WP:UNDUE. What the media seems to be calling it most often is "insurrection" or "riot". So 2021 United States Capitol insurrection or 2021 United States Capitol riot, but not "attack". Aasim (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC) (Post was unsigned; adding signature and timestamp. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC))

Eventual closure

Given the vast amount of controversy every RM on this page has gotten, I propose the following be considered before anyone decides to close this discussion:

• To prevent any potential view of an improper closure, regardless of how obvious the close is/may be, this discussion should only be closed by an uninvolved administrator, or at a minimum an experienced editor who does not edit within the topic area of American politics.
• To prevent claims that people did not have time to opine, this discussion should run for at a minimum the full time an RM usually runs, and perhaps should be allowed to run until further comments have trickled down to a minimal amount - i.e. no new editors joining the discussion in a day or two. There is no deadline - leaving this open for another few days even if it could technically be closed would perhaps help avoid claims that it was too hastily closed. Put simply, no WP:SNOW closes before discussion dies out here simply given the past controversy.
• The closer of this discussion should preferably clearly discuss, even if briefly, the criteria they used to weigh !votes, so that it is clear to those who may disagree with the outcome why one position was considered "better" than another. Alternatively, if consensus is overwhelming, the closer should ideally summarize the views and policy rationales presented by people on both sides of the matter.

Yes, these are things that are above and beyond what policies/guidelines on closing require - and obviously we cannot bind a closer to follow any of these suggestions and do more work - but I personally think that if these three things are done, we may finally, 7 months later, be able to put a rest to this long saga of move requests to other titles by making clear that a consensus does actually exist and was thoroughly vetted and confirmed by an uninvolved, experienced editor. The third suggestion ensures that anyone can clearly see not just what the consensus was, but why it was the way it was - which while it may not change the minds of those who !voted here, may prevent others from creating future move requests with virtually identical reasoning. This is just my thoughts on how this may be able to finally be the end to this saga. I'm unsure if it is possible for any of these things to be mandated by a consensus of participants (or some other means), but I encourage those who watch this page/talkpage to consider opining here on how we can, now that a clearer consensus appears to be forming, help prevent future problems by making this as clear and "above board" as possible - and as clear as possible for posterities sake for those considering proposing future moves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Meh, I think we're already bending over backwards to accommodate minority views by even re-opening this discussion (on admittedly-valid grounds of INVOLVED). Normally, we'd have closed an RM this obvious before now. "Putting this issue to rest" is something of a pipedream on a subject such as this. Feoffer (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with Berchanhimez. This should definitely NOT be closed by anyone who has expressed an opinion in the discussion - no matter how obvious the result appears to be or how eager they are to bring it to an end. There has been enough controversy over this title, with the recently overturned (because of involvement) RM just the latest example. If we want to put this to bed once and for all, let's wait until discussion dies down, and let's have the closer be someone completely uninvolved, preferably an administrator. Hopefully when they close it, they will include a moratorium on further RM discussions for some reasonable period of time. In my experience that kind of moratorium has much more force if it is imposed by an administrator, even though closing RMs is not an admin action per se. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. Another reason to have an administrator do the close: only an administrator can carry out the move, since the article is move-protected. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You haven't voted, so, once it's time, why can't you be the admin who closes it? Also there really isn't all that much controversy to this. Every time there's an RFC, "Attack" gets overwhelming support. Cpotisch (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN explained here why she can't. BTW, during the previous RM many of the votes were for "January 6 attack" which happens to be in the name of the Select Committee which, in turn, is the reason some editors are voting for "attack" in this RM. And, if we go by what the Committee does (investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”), then we should move the page to "2021 domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol". I, for one, would support that move. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:51, 9 August 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.

Followup

The closer here, User:S Marshall, was unable to implement the move since they are not an administrator. I can implement the move, but I will wait a bit to see if people accept this close, which was done after the minimal time and while people were still actively commenting. I see that one person has already commented at S Marshall's page, not officially challenging the close, but not happy with it. And personally I wish the discussion could have been permitted to continue until it died down on its own. I had and have no opinion about the actual title. My involvement here was to move-protect the page to stop the move-warring, and my goal here has been a desire to get a solid, generally accepted result and avoid another questionable outcome. I will wait for 24 hours and then implement the result if it does not appear to be controversial. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I added a comment, too. Don't expect anything to come of it but—since the closer invited "comments, criticism, and abuse"—I obliged, with the first two, at any rate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Where did you add your comment, S4T3C2x? I have been unable to locate it.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This should just be moved. The RM isn't just to be taken in isolation, it was also the initial result of a previous request that was overturned largely on a technicality, because the closer was WP:INVOLVED. As such, the consensus seems crystal clear over a longer period of time. I endorsed the initial closure, so I won't get involved myself, but any challenges should be through MRV not by delaying the implementation of a close that's already happened.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Amakuru has expressed my thoughts exactly.—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's possible (albeit unlikely) that the close turns out to be controversial, several users complain, someone starts a MR, an admin reopens the close, whatever. Then we'd have to undo the move. As I said, it's unlikely, but there's no hurry. Waiting 24 hours seems reasonable. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can start a MR on any grounds. If someone wants to contest it right this minute, it will be easier for them to do it if the affairs are orderly and procedurally clean. Everybody deserves process to be followed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The best way to support the community consensus is for the first admin that sees this to start the move right away. I posted an "uncontroversial technical request" for admin help in case someone sees it there first. We should not wait for MRs to conclude before moving (the last one took months). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, all; I especially value the input from Amakuru and from S Marshall himself. So the feeling here seems to be that the close should be implemented immediately, and we'll just hope it doesn't result in another controversy. I do think that is unlikely, given the large majority on the one side. So I will go ahead and do the move of this article. The article has a lot of daughter articles which will also need to be moved; anyone can do those since they are not move protected, and I will leave it up to others to fix them. I will leave the move protection in place for this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, this page has been moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack. I had to separately move the talk page and each archive, which I did. The move instructions said all the article's subpages would be moved too; I would appreciate someone checking to see if that happened; if not, please carry out the necessary move yourself. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN @S Marshall I disagree with the original close and the resulting move - even though I was involved in the discussion (having opposed the new title in favor of something different), there appears to be a mix of support and oppose, and per Wikipedia:NOTVOTE. A requested move request's goal is to seek consensus for such a move, and being able to weigh all the options is very important. At best with weighing the oppose and support arguments, this should have closed as Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS, the title should have stayed as it was (or if there is great disagreement on what the title should be, the original title used by the article creator after the page ceased to be a stub), and maybe a followup discussion before another RM was done. It is very easy to forget that we are not here to count votes but to determine consensus based on the strength of arguments. Aasim (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not forget this, and I did determine consensus based on the strength of the arguments.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Something that might be interesting for a future move discussion: capitol riot, capitol attack, capitol insurrection, capitol storming - Explore - Google Trends

The most commonly searched title appears to be "capitol riot". It is searched six times more than "capitol attack", "capitol insurrection", and "capitol storming".

Of course, on its own, this is not enough to mean that we move to "capitol riot". Aasim (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you elaborate just a little per this suggestion: The closer of this discussion should preferably clearly discuss, even if briefly, the criteria they used to weigh !votes, so that it is clear to those who may disagree with the outcome why one position was considered "better" than another. Alternatively, if consensus is overwhelming, the closer should ideally summarize the views and policy rationales presented by people on both sides of the matter. I don't think this sentence does any of that: Having carefully considered and reflected on all the points raised in this discussion, I determine that the community has reached a strong consensus to change the title to 2021 United States Capitol attack. I also don't see why the two months the move review lasted should have played any role. If anyone had a reason to complain about that, it was the editors opposed to the move because the entire time the page stayed improperly moved. And if you take a look at the improperly closed RM, that outcome wasn't all that clear because many editors were opposed, quite a few of the votes supporting "attack" supported "January 6 attack", and the RM was closed while people were still commenting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x Hi, do you want to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Move review? I have a feeling that closing procedure may not have been properly followed. A close is not valid if appropriate procedure is not followed.

1. I and others have made very valid points about why we support or oppose this particular title. You cannot just count the number of "supports" and "opposes" and call it a day. Take Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_173#Deindexing_talk_pages as an example. It makes it clear that editors are split, but the "no consensus" close addresses the concerns.
2. Why is a page mover closing a discussion as "move" when they are unable to execute the task themselves? With deletion discussions, only admins may ever close a discussion as "delete".
3. The criteria for assessing votes, as Space Time Continuum has said, has not been clearly stated. It is very vague, does not show which arguments are getting weight, and does not show which arguments are not.
4. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, while not policy, shows that generally, arguments need to be solid to be given appropriate weight. Nowhere do I see which arguments are good and which are not.
5. This move appears to be a very contentious move, and if you give editors one option, it does not give the appropriate voice for all the options. I think the matter should be raised on Wikipedia:Move review, and next time a RM is opened, we give more than one option, not just one option. We could put a question mark in the move parameter to indicate that we are unsure.

Aasim (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I just saw S Marshall's comment below. That is good, but it does not address my point #5, which was also the whole reason @ProcrastinatingReader overturned the previous discussion. From my understanding of his overturn, it would be best to format this as an RfC (giving multiple possible titles), and assess which title is best, rather than to give one option to agree/disagree. Aasim (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• I do rather wish we weren't using this section of the article talk page to discuss my close. My talk page is the correct place for these queries. But since we're apparently discussing it right here, I'd respond as follows:-

  It's not the role of discussion participants to direct the closer about what he should say in the close. But I'm more than happy to set out my method.

  The prescribed method for weighing !votes is set out at WP:NHC, and I'll quote the relevant paragraph in full: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.

  I did not discard any !votes as irrelevant, counter-policy, based on personal opinion only, logically fallacious, or showing no understanding. I assumed that every !voter who expressed an opinion was basing this on the relevant rules and guidelines, all of which were set out in the debate, even when they did not explicitly bluelink some piece of alphabet soup.

  When assessing which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, I discarded one !vote, which was Pipsally's. That account was blocked as a sock before the discussion close took place. I take the view that a blocked sock is not a responsible Wikipedian.

  I gave somewhat less weight to !votes that depend on google trends searches. I considered that the article title decision should be based on what the highest quality sources said, and not what the greatest number of sources said. This was not a decisive factor in the close.

  Where some editors per-nommed or repeated other editors' arguments without adding more, I gave their view less weight. Where editors introduced their own thoughts and sources I gave them full weight.

• I realize you're a disappointed party, but I do hope this explanation gives you some comfort and confidence in the close, as well as clarification.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Disappointed and in need of comfort—nah. I live to fight another day. Clarification—not so much, although I finally figured out what "per nom" means. Progress! (Still baffled by "per OP", though.) I looked at WP:NHC before I vented, BTW. Other than various Google searches and references to other WP articles I only see a few sources (quality or otherwise) mentioned by any of the !votes. I’m not happy with what I consider to be a premature close, obviously (pinging Aasim), but meh—water under the bridge. Congress is in recess, it’s the summer doldrums in D.C., I can live with the four-week moratorium. I don’t know how to argue with "euphemism", "glorification", "heroic gesture", or "fanciful" other than "dictionary", and with "this is clearly the better alternative" other than "why". Quite a few editors supported attack as "better than" but second or third choice to something else. IMO the route to take is to keep track of developments in the news and then start over with an RfC (not sure whether the moratorium precludes an RfC, too, but what’s four weeks at this point). Sorry, "attack" is just too weak, wishy-washy, banal, insipid, nondescript for the [insert your preferred noun]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

PS.: I thought I had posted on your user talk page but must have forgotten to click "publish" before closing a lot of open browser windows. I already covered comments and criticisms above, so here's the abuse. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor ... September 11 attacks; do you think attack is "just too weak, wishy-washy" when used in these instances? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. "Military attack (or strike) on Pearl Harbor" and "September 11 terrorist attacks" would be more precise but the terms referring to the events and the Wikipedia articles are decades old and established. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Aughhhh, I cannot believe this is happening yet again. I thought we were done with this in January. For quick reference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, A, B, C. After the discussions of same-day RMs #1 and #2, we settled on a new title that stayed a while. Despite RMs #3 through #11, nothing appeared to have had any kind of effect until May (#12). This is really getting ridiculous.

Especially #8. Really? C'mon. Honestly surprised to see myself there. Plus the huge mess in Archive 12.

I really don't know what to say about #11... but it finally got people to again consider a moratorium (exhibit B) for at least 6 months, some saying 9 months. Like exhibit A, it appears to not have worked. I'm glad that there's a moratorium now, but, honestly, is this actually going to stop in September? I'd only read and not contributed for the rest of the winter hoping there would eventually be agreement. There were plenty more RMs than 12, I'm sure of it. I'm honestly curious how exactly we got a successful move seemingly randomly, in May. Or maybe something significant was in the news this past spring that I don't remember. But I know exactly what's going to happen after this title change and the four week moratorium. Exactly the same stuff. I plan to be here this time.

That said, I want to know if a survey similar to what we did last time I decided to get involved would be helpful if there is again massive debate over the title four weeks from now. I'm suggesting this because I think that now that many months have passed since the event as well as "strong consensus" having been reached, this will prevent people from bringing it up in the future. Also, someone made an analysis (exhibit C), would be cool to see one now that things appear to have changed.

I really hope this is the end. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 09:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)