Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 15

Requested move 16 February 2021
2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol – There has been no other past or future stormings in the USC than this, so an addition of "2021" is redundant.  Gerald WL  13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Gerald WL  13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS MOVE. THE MOVE SHOULD BE UNDONE. Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)m revision 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE ANY MORE WP:RMs NOW! IP75 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was on the fence, but seeing you SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS convinced me... that you are wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is hardly a rational editorial response. The move appears to be not a bona fide RM but a unilateral error on the part of someone who has little or no recognition of what has already been discussed at length, and who does not know how to undo it. My alert to the untimely actual move was not a contribution to this untoward RM, but you are welcome to moving off the fence. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking to me instead of SHOUTING AT ME. Now I will examine the merits of your argument. You say "little or no recognition of what has already been discussed at length" but I cannot find any such discussion. I see extensive discussion of riot/insurrection/siege/breach/storming/assault/rampage/invasion/raid/protest/occupation/incident/coup attempt/QAnon self-guided tour of the Capitol floor but no discussion of whether to include the year. Can you provide a link to this "extensive discussion" about whether to include the year?
 * As I surmise you know for yourself, RM has been discussed at length (now Archived), as mentioned in ! votes below. Agreed, whether or not 2021 should be retained was not the main discussion point, but that does not signify that a change should have been made without consensus. Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Now why on earth did you do that? It doesn't take much sifting through the archives of this talk page to know that there's no consensus for ANY RM whatsoever.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose talk about ignoring consensus... or just failing to even check the talk page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. Enough already, this has been discussed to death. The present name is fine! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see zero prior discussion about this specific move. It appears to be a completely uncontroversial change, completely in line with WP:MOS, that should not result in any complaints. Those complaining above are confusing the difficult question of what to call this with the easy question of whether this needs a year to differentiate it from all of the other times there has been a storming (or whatever) of the US capitol. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * this was discussed extensively previously. There is consensus for this name and this RM is in no way uncontroversial. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please. Show me a diff. I see extensive discussion of riot/insurrection/siege/breach/storming/assault/rampage/invasion/raid/protest/occupation/incident/coup attempt but no discussion of whether to include the year. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * there's (procedurally closed), as well as discussion of said name at . Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all you have? One procedural close without discussion and one discussion about whether to call it 2021 United States Capitol protests or 2021 storming of the United States Capitol? Clearly you couldn't find a place where including/removing the year was discussed either. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the title "Storming of the United States Capitol" was brought up at the latter move. I'm in favor of removing the year, but there needs to be consensus to do so - which there currently is not. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can call one person suggesting "Storming of the United States Capitol" with nobody bothering to agree or disagree an "extensive discussion", is it OK for me to call one person suggesting "Storming of the United States Capitol" with nobody bothering to agree or disagree an "extensive discussion with 100% consensus for removing the date and no opposition"? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (not much), there was also limited discussion of explicitly removing the year at Talk:Storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_11 and Talk:Storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_3, although not formatted as RM. Lester Mobley (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Not exactly a "extensive discussion" but at least it was discussed. Would you say that the consensus in those two discussions was for or against inclusion of the date? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Looks to (inexperienced editor) me that the consensus was against inclusion of the year in those limited discussions, with only a couple of objections. Lester Mobley (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to include the year has been part of every RM discussion. There has been no consenus. Here are a bunch of quotes from these discussions:
 * 16 January: "the discussion up the page that so far has preferenced including the year 2021 ... I think the year inclusion is a major point of debate", "Inclusion of the year still got the most support", "Leaving the year out is a good idea", "I also agree that the year should be included", "I also think the year should be included", "If used, 'riot' is general enough that the year would be important to include", "I would add the curent year to the title", "Oppose strongly, the proposed title [...] omits the year", "too vague without the year", "Oppose [...] does not include the year", "I support as long as the year is included", "I think the new name should include the year 2021", "I would support this title change, especially removing the year", "I think any page move should keep the year in the title", "I think the new name should include the year", "the year is not needed"
 * 23 January: "I don’t think you need a year", "It's probably best to keep the year", "no strong preference for the year being included or not", "Once the appropriate noun is chosen we can decide about details like including the year or not", "a year is recommended per WP:NCE", "I think WP:NOYEAR applies here"
 * 4 February: "There was some debate over the inclusion of the year", "I support including the year in this RM and any future RMs"
 * — Chrisahn (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear, I was only commenting on the two limited discussions explicitly about inclusion of the year, and did not claim that there was broad consensus to exclude the year. Your examples provide additional evidence (requested by Guy Macon) of previous discussion on this topic, which is clearly not settled. Lester Mobley (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that Storming of the United States Capitol appears to be a clear and unambiguous natural name for the event, and see no reason not to use this as the article title. Jonathunder (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the consensus goes against "storming" it should be, say, QAnon self-guided tour of the Capitol floor, not 2021 QAnon self-guided tour of the Capitol floor. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the title Storming of the United States Capitol, but the move should be undone while the discussion here continues. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - According to the letter of WP:CONCISE, it may technically be unnecessary to include a year identifier, but in general for events like this we do include the year, just because it makes it *much* easier for readers to identify what the subject is. And that's a key part of the WP:RECOGNIZE policy. See for example: 2016 Munich knife attack (redirect from Munich knife attack), 1997 Asian financial crisis (redirect from Asian financial crisis), 1977 Atocha massacre etc. Also, although this is technically the only *storming* of the capitol, there have been other events that could possibly be confused with this one. 1998 United States Capitol shooting for example. Overall it's much better to retain the year, and also there is a real fatigue with constant move requests on this page. We need a moratorium. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be replacing the clear instructions of WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that") with your personal preferences. I agree that there may be other Asian financial crisis' or other Munich knife attacks, but there is only on Atocha massacre, and I have started the ball rolling to remove the unnecessary "1977". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It turns out that there has been more than one thing called "Atocha massacre". So all three of your examples need dates to differentiate them because multiple incidents are called the same thing. I have yet to see anyone in this discussion point to anyone anywhere calling the burning of Washington or anything else any time in history "storming the US Capitol". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This controversial move should be undone ASAP. All RMs for this article so far also discussed whether to include the year, and there was no consensus on this point. It was a mistake that this move was added to the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section of WP:RM/TR by, and it was a mistake that the request was implemented half an hour later by . Anthony, could you revert the move? This obviously isn't "uncontroversial". Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Could someone please explain why this should be an exception to WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that")? Do any of you think there were other examples of storming of the United States Capitol that need to be differentiated from this one? What purpose does the "2021" serve? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care what the title of this article is, but "Storming of the United States Capitol" makes me think it could have to do with Burning of Washington in the War of 1812. Maybe that's my problem. Lester Mobley (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) In previous discussions about whether to keep the year in the title, the burning of Washington during the War of 1812 has been brought up repeatedly. Quote: "Upon arrival into the city [...], the British targeted the Capitol (first the southern wing, containing the House of Representatives, then the northern wing, containing the Senate). Prior to setting it aflame, the British looted the building..." — Chrisahn (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like adding a "not to be confused with" would fix that. I searched, and could not find any source calling the burning of Washington "storming of the United States Capitol". We have had a fair amount of discussion about whether to call this page something with "protests" in it, and the consensus was that the storming of the US capitol was one thing that happened during the larger protests. In like manner, the Brits setting fire to the capitol in 1812 was part of a much larger attack on the city that burned multiple government buildings -- which is why nobody calls the burning of Washington the "1812 Storming of the United States Capitol". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose and enact a 1-year moratorium on future move requests. this move was controversial; inclusion of the year has been discussed extensively on this talk page without development of a clear consensus. Can you please rv the technical move? VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: "inclusion of the year has been discussed extensively on this talk page", diff please. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The move discussion closed 2 weeks ago is the first that comes to mind. It is a low bar to establish that a move is not uncontested. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me I didn't actually provide a reasoning with my vote. WP:NCE recommends including the year, plus there is the potential for historic confusion with various other protests over the years and the British invasion/burning in 1814. Sure, the 2021 storming is highest on our minds now, but only time will tell if that is only because of recentism. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Undo controversial move (SPEEDILY) - Can you undo this move. It was not an uncontroversial request, as seen above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Come on now, what is this? We just went through about 10 RMs to get away from the current title and all were shut down after weeks of debate, and now this has been speedily moved without discussion? What is happening here? When I posted the attack RM it was based on arguable consensus at the time from the RM before it, and even that wasn't an instant move (because opposition was anticipated, and rightly so). BlackholeWA (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Whether or not there has been any prior discussion or not to include the year is immaterial. This is a controversial move for a controversial topic, one where the scope constantly changes from week to week. If we have to have the discussion again, let's have it again.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gershonmk (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose. This article should never have been moved without a full discussion. It should be moved back to the previous title immediately. However, I support the removal of the year in the title as it is unnecessary overdisambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I've reversed the move from earlier today that removed 2021 from the title, as the discussion here clearly indicates that there was no consensus for this change. I have no personal preference regarding either name. signed,Rosguill talk 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion should be closed. It has been mostly about the problem that the move was done without discussion. Most !votes didn't even address the question whether there should be a year in the title or not. We can't change the subject of this discussion anymore – it would be unclear what the existing oppose comments are opposed to: the removal of the year, or the lack of discussion? Cc (who had closed the discussion),  (who reopened it). — Chrisahn (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close on the principle of taking a break from constant RMs. I see no rationale for taking out the year at this time. The US Capitol was invaded and stormed in 1814. Moncrief (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we all pleaseeeee be WP:CIVIL and understand that I did not do harm?! Everyone here shouts and makes it as if I'm disrupting the project by making an RM which can be closed in no time. It feels super disappointing that I was just trying to voice an opinion in civil fashion, but others think as if I don't and went on to make me FEEL like the bad person. Yes, I am wrong for not checking through the 1000 archives, but can we please correct each other in civil fashion, so that we can understand each other? It's really frustrating to discuss when others are heated and don't WP:AGF, and makes it seem as if I'm a criminal for making an RM. I'm happy for this be closed if there is consensus to do so, but incivilities like this make such pages not fun to edit, and particularly for me it has been a harsh experience. Not one that builds, but one that cripples.  Gerald WL  01:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Completely inappropriate firing up of flamethrowers. I hereby volunteer to be abused in Gerald WL's place. After creating WP:CANCER and WP:YWAB I got used to being called a nazi pedophile robocalling bedwetter. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please accept condolences and imaginary barnstar for undue outspokeness and martyrdom. Qexigator (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have people really attacked you over those? Both, especially YWAB, are pretty good. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Very much so. There are people who make a boatload of money by tapping into the W?F's spending. We had an outgoing CEO warn us about them. Not surprisingly, they hate my WP:CANCER page. One of them even openly mocked me for being a cancer survivor!
 * As for WP:YWAB, once again it comes down to money. There are Ayurveda practitioners who have become rich by poisoning their patients. In fact, most of the items my YWAB list have somebody who is making money off of them. They are not happy with YWAB.
 * "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ― Upton Sinclair
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. Oh well. (this is off-topic, or I would have more to say) Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't take it too hard. Yes, some comments were a bit blunt, and some users were a bit angry for a moment, but the move was reverted quickly, and people moved on. No harm done. As I said above, I think it was a mistake to post the request at WP:RM/TR (and a mistake by the admin to actually move the page), but we all make mistakes sometimes. No big deal really. Happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I honestly believe that 2021 storming is the only storming known on US Capitol, but I honestly think that there's LOT of stress regarding the RM's here. I will stand in the opposition for now, but I could change my mind.  Mario Jump  83!  12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need to comment on this, this was procedurally closed, I think. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Move Moratorium
The endless churn of RMs is distracting at best. I propose a ~9 month moratorium on move proposals (through the end of 2021). VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm pretty sure I have commented on or supported a similar proposal previously, all of this continual move nonsense is detracting from the discussions regarding improving the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC) - EDIT: Per later comments, I agree 6 months should be plenty... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 6 months - 6 months will put us into August, which hopefully being virtually between major election years (halfway from 2020 to 2022) will be at the most "peaceful" and people can actually argue policy instead of feelings like has happened in every single RM so far by a decent number (not necessarily a majority, but the large minority of people making such arguments taints the RM and makes finding a consensus difficult if not impossible). Oppose anything shorter than 3 months or longer than until 1 November 2021 - anything in between is okay to me and 6 months is just a round number. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose — there's no need for a year disambiguation in the title and it would be ridiculous to keep it there for months because some editors don't want to consider improving it. Jonathunder (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Gershonmk (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose everyday there is increasing recognition that this was an insurrection. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/15/ron-johnson/yes-jan-6-capitol-assault-was-armed-insurrection/ Caffoti (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See this failed RM. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's near universal consensus that it can be called a 'riot' or a 'storming'. Perhaps it was an insurrection, but is there a rule that says you have to use the strongest possible term in the article's title even if there's considerable public debate over it? Ar85ar (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – I guess few Wikipedia pages have seen so many failed move requests in such a short time. These continued RMs are wasting everyone's time that could be spent more productively. But maybe nine months is a bit long? I think there's a chance that in six months or so, a common name for the event will have emerged. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- Agreed we would be better engaged on something else than another RM, whether about words or year in or year out. How long for a moratorium? 6 months minimum. By then maybe it will be clearer how things are beginning to firm up for mid-term congressional election, and what will then be the ongoing narrative of public discourse that may need adjustment to the article's name. Who knows? But I'm thinking whether McConnell's post-acquittal statement will be gathering support or otherwise, and what will become of Pelosi's proposed inquiry, not to mention the other issues keeping the situation churning. How, as they say, Will it play in Peoria? Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC) ed. 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral (comment) - I don't like the idea of not having the year and I am kind of sick of RMs also, but I also think that the current title still probably isn't ideal and so I won't vote to close all suggestions just yet. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, with an exception allowed if a clear common name develops in the media and through public usage before then. Without doing a lot of research, my memory is that the term 9/11 didn't arise in universal usage until a few months at most after the event, after which there were few people if any, at least in the USA, who didn't call it that. I would hate to have a mandatory 9-month moratorium that couldn't be budged to accomadate a linguistic development like that. But otherwise, yes. We certainly don't need to keep revisiting a new RM every week or two. Moncrief (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think an exception to a moratorium with a subjective standard like that is workable. There is either a moratorium on RMs for a specific period of time or there isn't one. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 6 months. There is clearly no consensus on changing the descriptive term in the title (i.e. protest, attack, terrorist attack, riot, insurrection, etc.) based on the dozen RMs over the past 6 weeks. However, I think a discussion on whether or not the year disambiguator in the title is necessary is fine to have. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 6 months the current title is fine and we're going to get nowhere discussing this. After 6 months, hopefully, we can get a clearer view from RS on what this should be called. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Blocking a title change until the end of the year is just going to cement the current title as the accepted one, even though it's one of the least-used terms as per the ongoing analysis of naming trends section above. A month after the event, there's more than enough data to show that reliable sources are coalescing around "Riot," "Attack," and "Insurrection" to describe the event. There's no reason to block name changes on this, especially until nearly a year after the event occurred. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As multiple lists of search results and numbers presented during previous discussions have shown, "riot" and "attack" have been the most common terms since right after January 6, and "insurrection" has always been among the top five or so. We've had move requests for all of these terms, and all three have failed. It's true that reliable sources have been coalescing around these terms, but that's nothing new. I think it's unlikely that much will change in this regard in the next couple of months, and starting a new RM for any of these three is likely to have the same result as before. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose There might be requests like the above that aren't ready for primetime. That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a discussion about the year. That said, the move discussion has come to a natural end. Why put an artificial moratorium on that natural end?Casprings (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Jonathunder is correct. There is zero need for a year in the title and it would be ridiculous to keep it there for months because some editors don't want to follow the clear instuctions at WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that") but are not willing to try to change that policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Conciseness one of the five major characteristics in that policy. Reasonable editors can disagree on how best to balance them when deciding an article title. But the strength or weakness of the rationale for any particular name isn't the reason I proposed a pause in new move discussions. It is because endless back-to-back RMs are distracting regardless of their merit. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A 30 day pause would be more than enough to accomplish that goal, and might have garnered more support. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for at least 90 days and no fewer than 30 days. This article cannot be in perpetual RM status, which it has been since it was created.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - If there is no reachable consensus, the rule in Wikipedia was and should be no change. I understand the frustration of who does not like the current title, but sometimes it is better to wait, because insisting will only harden each position. Citing from WP:CON:
 * Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.
 * It addresses both positions, but clearly the filibustering is more on the side of repeating RMs. Wikipedia is not a social media, and not a democracy, vote counting and aggressive pursuit are damaging. Sometimes, it is important to realize that Wikipedia can wait. I warmly recommend to read (if not already done) WP:WAIT. --Robertiki (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, probably until New Year's Day 2022. Oh god, there is too much RM's regarding this article. Per nom, basically. But I would extend it as far as the next year.  Mario Jump  83!  12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure I would go so far as to say do a blanket moratorium, per WP:CCC. But at the very least, the RMs should be discussed prior to carrying them out.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A non-administrative blanket moratorium may always be discussed. What is proposed is little more than get a consensus not to do RMs for a while. Let us put this way: if a moratorium is reached, RMs may be opened inspite, but little or no partecipation, as per moratorium, would give them little value. --Robertiki (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That means there's even less point to the moratorium, especially since given the above discussion, there doesn't seem to be much of a firm consensus to put one into place anyway.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose there were several commonly-proposed alternate names, and it looks like all of those debates (except the current debate on including the year) have happened. I think we're fine; people shouldn't be proposing the same move after a month in any case.  If somebody comes up with a new name, we might as well discuss it now. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The current title was never intended to be the final name. When we moved to the current title, it was noted that "storming" was preferable to "protest" (the old title) but there was never any consensus for "storming" as a permanent title.  In the move requests since there seems to have been plurality support for "riot" or "attack" (but not majority support).  When either is proposed as a title those supporting the other seem to unite with those supporting the current title or another (ie "insurrection", "protest", etc).  That way the alternative is defeated, despite no title archiving majority support (nevermind consensus).  I think the work at the top of this page is helpful.  We should continue to discuss and try to build consensus for a better name. There is no consensus for the current name, so we shouldn't freeze it in place for an extended period.  If there is a moratorium, it should be a brief one, while we consider headlines and how other WP:RS are referring to the event.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and suggest moratorium for two years or more instead in order for article stability. I believe that there are many users that request the article to be moved and in turn threatens the stability of the article. I don't like it to be moved at least until US politics was cool down. I'm for Indonesia despite i know about US politics situation, but i doesn't have fluent English. 36.65.38.154 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - we don't normally !vote on whether to impose a moratorium, it's up to the closer of the RM whether they think one is justified or not. Voting is a bit pointless because it ends up being a rehash of the RM, with those who like the current name supporting a moratorium. Personally I think there should be one, but it seems nobody has decided to impose it yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Closers of RMs can unilaterally impose moratoriums? I thought it was either imposed by admins, usually as a discretionary sanction, or by community consensus? On that note, it does seem the consensus for a moratorium is not apparent here, or at least it's not very strong. I think the most likely route to a moratorium is to ask an uninvolved admin or post a Arbitration enforcement request. I do personally think further RMs are unlikely to be productive for a period of time and there is obvious RM fatigue on this talk page. A moratorium of 6 months would likely be good. When an RM does happen, if there remains no clear consensus between multiple titles at that time, then imo the most likely route to a consensus on some kind of move is likely a multiple-choice RM (ranked/preference vote, or some such). On a given RM the opposes can be a mix of 'the current title is best' and 'a different title is better'. It would be much more apparent if there's even consensus for the current title in a ranked vote (eg top 3 preferred titles, in order, including the current title as an option). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, generally it would be an admin who performed a close that would also instate the moratorium. And I don't think it has anything to do with arbitration enforcement, it's just a tool available at the time of closing. See for example Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_8. The decision could always be challenged by talking to the closer or raising a request at WP:AN of course. But having the decision rest on a further discussion like the one here seems counterproductive, for the reasons I've given above. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

With Anti-KKK law against Trump
Pease add:

5.4 Federal Lawsuit Accusing Trump and Giuliani of Inciting Capitol Riot

On 16 February 2021, Trump was sued by the nation's oldest civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on behalf of the House Homeland Security chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi for conspiring to incite the violent assault at the Capitol. Included in the federal lawsuit as defendants are Trump's former personal lawyer Giuliani, and the two neo-fascist, far-right organizations Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. The lawsuit alleges that, by preventing - "by the use of force, intimidation, and threat" - the Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties, Trump, Giuliani and the hate groups directly violated the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. The law was first passed following the Civil War to combat the Ku Klux Klan violence and allow African Americans to take action against hate groups who use “force, intimidation, or threat” to prevent leaders from doing the duties of their office. --217.234.67.241 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a decently sourced section. I added it, though I can't guarantee it will remain in it's current form. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Substance of classicly fascist video
This televised news interview features a fascism expert, who examines the the short video played at the "March to Save America" rally. Our article covers what the former president said in his speech, but this video is fascinating and disturbing for its persuasive fascist imagery. I wonder how the substance of this arguably influential video could be summarized (maybe it's discussed in print journalism elsewhere). Just throwing this out there. Mcfnord (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to that fasci-nating video made as the trial entered its third day. Given that there is no reason to doubt Jason Stanley's interpretation of events as being offered by him in good faith from his POV, is he to be regarded as an oracle and RS for the 'storming' article? Maybe he has bees in his bonnet? Maybe, unlike Senator McConnell, he represents a certain naivety? Qexigator (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Did you notice there was a video played in the same event where the President spoke? This article doesn't mention this video at all. I see a video with many unique characteristics. I myself have little interest with the guy who interpreted the video. But the video itself was played, and has incredibly interesting traits. How would you characterize the video? Mcfnord (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That video should not be included anywhere in Wikipedia. Jason Stanley has been complaining about Trump for years, see here. I am Jewish, and I am offended by the video, as Stanley starts going through who is Jewish in the Senate and who isn't. Furthermore, if we are going to include THAT then we should include this treif article featured in the latest issue of Time magazine: Written by acclaimed journalist Molly Ball ("Yale graduate and TIME's National Political Correspondent. Previously, she covered U.S. politics for The Atlantic and Politico, and worked for newspapers in Nevada and Cambodia. She is the author of Pelosi, a bestselling biography") her news report of 4 February 2021, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, she explicitly states (rather than doing an interpretive work like Jason did on youtube):

"This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster....That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures."
 * I do not consider that appropriate content for this article.--FeralOink (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Did you notice there was a video played in the same event where the President spoke? This article doesn't mention this video at all. I see a video with many unique characteristics. I myself have little interest with the guy who interpreted the video. But the video itself was played, and has incredibly interesting traits. How would you characterize the video? Mcfnord (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A lot of people have been "complaining about Trump". Complaints have been coming since 1927. Since Fred Trump. Since that Trump was arrested wearing Ku-Klux-Klan-robe in 1927! He is a second generation fascist. In New York, where he is known, he could not have been elected to anything. "I am Jewish" is an argument for what? Arthur Finkelstein and George Birnbaum - are also Jews themselves - but those right-leaning American political consultants helped create the world's largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory! Could they have anticipated the deadly scale of their supposedly "ingenious" invention "Der böse Jude"? Yes, they could.
 * Ball may be typically diligent reporter, and there are things in her article worth knowing and exploring, but she really should have been much more careful about throwing around terms like “conspiracy” and “cabal” and asked harder questions about what her sources. Jason Stanley's seeks to explain ‘how propaganda works’ and ‘how Fascism works’ at a academic and and scientific level. A much welcomed and needed work! --217.234.66.101 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that is NOT correct that "Fred Trump was arrested wearing Ku-Klux-Klan-robe in 1927! Multiple WP:RS and WP:NPOV sources including Reuters confirmed that pictures of Fred Trump wearing KKK robes were photoshopped. The circumstances of Fred Trump's arrest in 1927 are provided in his Wikipedia BLP. Your statement is defamatory about the 45th US president: he is not a "second generation fascist". There isn't any "world's largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory" under discussion in this article. One of the Jewish men you listed is deceased, and the other lives in Jerusalem and was chief of staff for Netanyahu.--FeralOink (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021
https://vimeo.com/497719926/recommended

In his video, President Trump is just using two prompters to read a manuscript produced by staff. This is no worse than inciting the riots by Democrats instigating BLM, and if Trump says it instigated, the staff who wrote the manuscript should be blamed. Also, in his speech, he calls for a peaceful procession.

and after this we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you we're going to walk down we're going to walk down any one you want but I think right here we're going to walk down to the Capitol how do I get to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we'll probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness you have to show strength and you have to be strong we have come to demand the Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated lawfully slated I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today we will see

and never voting for anything not even one vote but we're going to try and give are Republicans the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our which was going to try and give them the kind of Pride and baldness that they need to take back our country so let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue I want to thank you all God bless you and God bless America thank you all for being here this is incredible thank you very much

In addition, Trump's speech ended at 1:12 pm, and according to Parler, there was no riot from 1:13 pm to 1:47 pm. At 1:48 pm John sullivan instigated the crowd with his black megaphone. One of the crowds responded by spraying the police officers guarding the barricade. The crowd broke through the barricade when the police turned sideways.

”Full Video: The Seige On United States Capito" by John Sullivan ”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P34tO5eaLhg&t=1370s" "https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/"

Please check the video. Even inside the Capitol, it was John sullivan who was instigating.

X-2-neider (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Melmann 16:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Bold in the lead sentence
The title of the article (2021 storming of the United States Capitol) should not be bolded in the lead sentence since it is not a widely-accepted name for the subject (MOS:BOLDLEAD). In other words, the title we have picked is descriptive, so it doesn't need to appear verbatim (MOS:LEADSENTENCE).


 * I will leave a modified version of a previous lead here that I think is a good start, if someone wants to make a bold change. The usage of wikilinks and references could use some work, in particular:
 * Protestors supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election stormed the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. After breaching multiple police perimeters, they occupied, vandalized, and ransacked parts of the building for several hours. The attack led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol building and disrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes and formalize Joe Biden's election victory as President of the U.S. The protestors gathered in support of Trump's false claims that the 2020 election had been "stolen" from him. Five people died and more than 140 were injured.

— Goszei (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely correct that it shouldn't be bolded. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Trumparoo" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trumparoo. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Factually misleading language
Within the articles first paragraph strongly implies and in some cases directly states that trump called for the riot at the Capitol. This is factually false as there were numerous points within his speech which showed intent for a peaceful demonstration.

Examples include: - “I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” This statement explicitly states his wishes for the demonstration to be peaceful, the complete opposite of what they became.

- “If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are." This statement also shows clear intent to peacefulness as instead of calling for the protester to force politicians to follow their wishes but instead to wait until the primaries to democratically vote out politicians whom they don’t want.

- Finally, he called to “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

He at no point encouraged violence or rioting. By purposely omitting those points and through the language used, implying that he encouraged a riot when he did not is disingenuous and is false information. Tfost73 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your viewpoint does not reflect the current consensus. Please read the notice at the top of this talk page.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He used the word "peacefully" once. He used the word "fight" 20 times. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, this wiki article is factually misleading at best and the epitome of fake news naratives being spread by the MSM and this wiki platform... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.76.63 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * IP: You are welcome to suggest contributions based on secondary information from reliable sources, although given your current contributions to date, I'm not holding my breath.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what someone said yesterday at Trump's impeachment trial:
 * January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he’d lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. [...] There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the President’s intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ‘trial by combat.’ It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President. [...] The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. [...] This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
 * Is this "disingenuous"? "False information"? "Factually misleading"? "Fake news narratives spread by the MSM"? You decide. You can read the full statement by Mitch McConnell, the U.S. Senate Republican Leader, here. I guess we should quote it somewhere in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Impressive rhetoric, but ultimately still a nay-sayer. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is good to be reminded of McConnell's statement. Anyone could pick and splice bits or portions of it to suit any POV and NPOV. Read as a whole, and knowing that it was composed with the skill of an experienced longtime senate majority leader in a difficult party postion -- and with an eye to the future, which took him and his party and the government and people of his country to the acquittal of citizen Trump after a hearing of the best the House Managers could do in support of the impeachment and the well presented defence -- now many may be left feeling passionately that justice has been denied, but others that justice has been done, while congressional business will carry on as before in the name of 'one Nation under God'. Ongoing reviisions of the 'storming' article and others linked in the main body will maintain npov with that in mind. This may result in further discussion on this page. Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No soapboxing please, Chrisahn! Do not clutter the talk page with 200 words of Mitch McConnell's oratory. I disagree that it needs to be quoted here. A better place would be the impeachment article, if anywhere.--FeralOink (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I got a bit carried away here, trying to defend the article against these rather unfounded accusations. Sorry about the wall of text... (By the way, I actually found the quote in the impeachment trial article. A small part of it now occurs in this article as well. I think it's a very useful addition. But I also think longer excerpts would be unnecessary here. All is well.) — Chrisahn (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging graciously. I'm glad that the quote is reproduced in the impeachment trial article, which is a fitting place for it. Sorry if I was BITEY.--FeralOink (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did any of you actually watch the live stream of the "breach/riot". BI did. Based on what I saw, it was basically a giant tour of the Capitol in the very beginning, and the only violence I noticed was when the police shot one of the protesters. I don't mean to be rude, but this is actually what I saw. Prairie Astronomer  Talk 15:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh really? So you did not see the break-and-enter, wilful damage and looting? Yeah, just a "giant tour" ... WWGB (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Break and enter may have happened, but seriuosly, looting and willful damage, that part I don't believe. Supposedly, the guard let the protesters take over the Capitol, saying it is all theirs. Prairie Astronomer  Talk 20:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You might try reading 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I watched the live stream of the "breach/riot". You are not being rude. To me, the salient point is that no firearms were discharged by any of the protestors or riot participants. I believe it is accurate to describe the event as transitioning from a protest to a riot. We've had a lot of those since May 2020.--FeralOink (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Try here, here, and here. There are many others. There are also those bizarre videos of officers taking selfies with protestors etc, and obviously protestors who likely walked into the building later and were not part of the initial attack. Police stopped trying to defend the building because they were so outnumbered. Ar85ar (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree, this article is outright propaganda and in complete violation of Wikipedia rules. It claims that thousands gathered in response to calls to action by Trump, that many then stormed the building. This is blatantly untrue. Yes tens of thousands gathered for a peaceful rally, but many did not storm the building. Police opened barricades and doors to permit hundreds of peaceful rally goers to wander around the Capitol and do the tourist thing. An incredibly small minority had other plans and broke windows, damaged doors etc. Since those who engaged in violence were not exclusively pro-Trumpers - Sullivan etc, and that's only one of many total untruths or blatant skewing of the fact I'd recommend either a radical rewrite, or this page be deleted until some time as it can be rewritten factually. 人族 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you disagree with the literally hundreds of reliable sources which extensively discuss the violence and mayhem, including the fatal shooting of a protestor who attempted to breach the security of the House chamber while members of Congress were present. Your disagreement with those reliable sources is not relevant to Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm sorry, but to some of the editors who have recently posted here... Please read the sources used to cite the claims in the article, and avoid interpreting events based on your own original research. All of what's presented in the article has been extremely well-documented by reliable sources. They weren't a tour group. It doesn't matter if some were wandering around (which is noted in the article). There was theft, vandalism, and wanton destruction of property. There was also conspiracy to overturn the results of the election, as well as intent to carry out other illegal acts by some of the people there, by their own admission. This can all be verified by reading the supporting sources in the article. This isn't a forum for expressing your disagreement with the reality of what happened, per the consensus of reliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Numbers
Is "thousands" still really the best estimate of the number of those participating in the insurrection? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Military-grade gas?
Is it true that those participating in the insurrection were carrying military-grade gas, and, if so, where could they have obtained such equipment? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Senate hearings
Shouldn't information (or at least the dates) of the Senate hearings into the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol be included in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC notification
I have started a discussion at ] regarding whether the events of January 2021 should be considered a coup in the United States. Your comments are appreciated. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are we still counting five dead?
When Officer Brian Sicknick first died, there had been numerous false reports that he had been beaten by a fire extinguisher, and it seemed reasonable to suppose that likely had something to do with his sudden death. We now know he wasn't beaten, and that he reported no health problems after the storming. He happened to die the next day. Why is there still a presumption his death was related to the storming? Also included among the dead are two other people, Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips, who appear not to have anything to do with any violence. It seems there were only two people who were killed as a result of the storming, and one of those was an unarmed victim of a police shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMarshCTR (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Half agree [] Makes it clear there is still confusion as to how he died. But "due to injuries sustained while on-duty." is still what the police say, So whilst we do not know why he dies, we know he did as a result of injuries sustained while on-duty at the riot.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't count five dead. We report that reliable secondary sources say "five dead". Unless someone can post links to multiple high-quality sources that give another number, we will continue to report what is in the sources. We don't decide how Brian Sicknick died. We report what the sources say ("injuries sustained while on-duty at the riot"). When the sources get more details, so will we. We don't decide whether Brian Sicknick is one of the five. We report whether reliable sources say that Brian Sicknick is one of the five. Even if we are convinced that the sources are wrong we report what is in the sources. Don't like it? Take it up with The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hence why I only half agree, we can't say what he died of (as that seems to be up for doubt) but it is clear he died as a result of being on duty at the riots, so we can say that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sicknick didn't die "during the event," as this article says, he died the following day, according to reliable sources. News reports are the first take on history and get corrected as we learn more. This article should reflect that. It should also state to what extent the deaths of people following the attack were the results of it. TFD (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What the sources say is that Sicknick sustained injuries during the riot, and died of a stroke the next day. Have clarified that. Sources refer to 7 deaths including the two police officers who committed suicide after the event, I think that's adequately covered. . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that brings up something that has been bugging me for awhile now. We count the number of people charged which includes those charged after the event, but we do not count any arrests made that day or afterwards, and we only count deaths that occurred that day while not counting any afterward that were in relation to the attack.  It feels a bit inconsistent to me.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Video and social media
The video showed at the rally is remarkable stuff, but so far Wikipedia doesn't mention any video at all.

I also think there was a social media facet that we have not mentioned. This article has some interesting conclusions: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-during-trumps-pre-riot-speech-parler-talk-grew-darker/4297165001/

A reader might think a Presidential speech riled up a crowd. But this isn't 1921, or 1821. There was a remarkable video during the rally, and there was a surge in civil war discussions in cyberspace. I'm not sure how to cover all of this, but do think we're still missing key facets of that day's events. Mcfnord (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Coup attempt
Is there a reason this is put in the coup category? Violent insurrection and riot seem like more accurate terms. The infobox itself does not say coup so it's a bit confusing.--66.215.219.189 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat about it's inclusion in the coup *template*. Not sure what the rules are on consistency between templates, categories, infoboxes, and language in the article. Ar85ar (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021
Change "...was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021." to "was a riot and act of terrorism against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021."

The rationale is that upon investigations and hearings the reasoning behind the attack was undeniably political in nature, as in the attempt to change the material outcome of an election, which is has a clear connection to the word terrorism, though can be loosely associated with a riot. Both terms need to be represented in the article to frame the event in a historically accurate manner. In addition to the definitions of the terms and how they are described on Wikipedia itself, please also observe: 1) in the article in question, it is called out that dozens of participants of the attack were on FBI terror screening data bases, and 2) in the article the Joint Terrorism Task Force was notified of likely violence by the FBI. Huehewhoo (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please see this RfC. Majavah (talk!) 16:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article
This article is far from neutral. And before anyone suggest that these are back by sources, (which you are correct), one must weight these sources and wright them in a neutral tone. Ps this is not the only article that has these same Issues, Donald Trump page also has the same concerns I mentioned. BigRed606 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , You're going to have to be a lot more specific... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Like the mentioned of the word “false claim” which should rewritten As“ unsubstantiated claim” or something on those lines BigRed606 (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The claims are false, as extensively documented by reliable sources. Policy is clear: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. That you or anyone else disagrees with these sources is irrelevant. It is factually true that there was no significant election fraud and that Joe Biden fairly won the popular vote and the Electoral College. Full stop. The end. Non-negotiable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They were indeed fabricated as evidenced by the dozens of sources saying as much. The fact that someone signed an affadavit does not make it true, so stop with that nonsense. CUPIDICAE💕  00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have dozens of sources that say that Santa Claus is real. That's why we have a WP:RS page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow I am being ganged up on. Can I have a word in. I take the neutrality of articles very seriously it’s not none senseBigRed606 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you propose that we should remove sourced factual statements from the encyclopedia and replace them with Trumpist wishcasting, you will indeed find many Wikipedians ready to push back and reject your proposal as fundamentally at odds with our mission. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, I am here to talk about neutrality issues and you just wanting to attack me with political rhetoric.BigRed606 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the neutrality issue? Neutrality does not mean all viewpoints are treated equally. We give due weight based upon a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, and reliable sources are unanimous on this issue. No reliable source gives any credence to any claim of meaningful electoral fraud or irregularities in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Believing that the 2020 election was "stolen" is worthy of the same credence this encyclopedia gives to Holocaust denial - to wit, none whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Many in the crowd breached the capital? First off it was couple hundred of people out of many thousands at the capital. That’s still a lot but that’s only 10%. It should go like this “around 300 out the the thousands of people storm the capital”. See how that’s sounds more Neutral.BigRed606 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Many" is not a relative term. "Most" is a relative term, and its use here would be incorrect. But "many" is fine. soibangla (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ganging up on you, but you gotta realize that the term you proposed above, "unsubstantiated claim", isn't neutral at all, nor is it even factual. Unsubstantiated means "not yet proven true". In this case there's overwhelming evidence of the claims being outright false. We have to call a spade a spade. Facts often don't come across as neutral, especially to to those like Trump who deny them and live in world of alternative facts (i.e. falsehoods), but verifiable facts are just verifiable facts, you can't get more neutral than that, so that's what we must put in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ‘No Evidence’ Of Election Fraud In Battleground States, Statistical Analysis Finds As Trump Continues False Claims -- Forbes
 * No Evidence For Voter Fraud: A Guide To Statistical Claims About The 2020 Election -- Hoover Institution
 * Backstory: We investigated claims of voter fraud in the election. Here's what we found. --USA Today
 * Nine Election Fraud Claims, None Credible --FactCheck
 * Why Trump’s Election Fraud Claims Aren’t Showing Up in His Lawsuits --Snopes
 * BTW, nobody thinks that Forbes and Hoover Institution are part of the "liberal media". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

, having read through this, I'd like to share two thoughts with you, and the larger community. (1) The editors who have been monitoring pages relating to the 2020 elections have been dealing with the issue of wording, especially "false vs. unproven", for four months now. It's a hot-button issue which I see led to some less-than-civil tone, that you took as "ganging up". If you haven't been around these 2020 election articles, you'd benefit from reading through their archives to see how this issue has been debated. Keep in mind that many disruptive threads were deleted, not archived. (2) "Neutrality" as we come to understand it from the media is not actually "neutral". We are used to seeing a news program with a TV host bringing on a Republican and a Democrat to yell at each other over an issue, or reading a news article that tries to give equal coverage to "both sides" of the issue. In a case like this, where the election was clearly not stolen, this approach is not neutral. It provides WP:FALSEBALANCE to a WP:FRINGE theory. It is our duty to provide the facts, which mean stating that the "stolen election" allegations are "false". I hope this is helpful. Please continue to review articles for neutrality issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Muboshgu for considerate and polite tone, unlike NorthBySouthBaranof, who reverted to using political rhetoric instead of a calm, polite and organized debate. I do apologize using the word ganging up it was out of line. I do not doubt that the election was indeed secure and that the election was not stolen, but what I had a issue with was not rather the election was stolen or not, but the tone of the article. Personally it my belief that to avoid debate and conflict it is best to write Wikipedia articles as required by Wikipedia standards of Neutrality. Although I think that words in the article could be rewritten, it may be best to leave the article how it is until cooler heads prevail before parts of the article can be reworded.BigRed606 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've had a look through the lead and have read other parts, my impression is that it's well sourced and accurate. Neutrality as a WP policy is quite complex, and "tone" tends to be subjective. Appreciate your willingness to leave the article how it is, I'm sure discussion on this talk page with careful reference to good sources will help to resolve any significant issues. Minor thought: in the political context, a Cooler Heads Coalition is not what we need. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

List of specific charges

 * Capitol riot arrests: See who's been charged across the U.S. -- USA Today

We need to be careful about what we say the crime a person is charged with is.

Some participants were only charged with entering a restricted building or grounds.

One was charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers; obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder; entering or remaining in restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conducted in a restricted building; physical violence in a restricted bulding; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds -- clearly a more serious charge.

Nine Oath Keepers members were indicted on charges of conspiracy with no allegations that they entered the building.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Cancellation of 4 March 2021 session
Just fyi, the US House has cancelled their 4 March session due to apparent plots to attack the capitol again, see,. Not sure if this should be mentioned in the article. Juxlos (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree it is relevant. TFD (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not news. As of yet, it is just another one of thousands of "threat assessments" that are made and result in disruptions to daily life, the vast majority of which do not get any mention in Wikipedia. Not to mention that the connection to this specific article is tangential at best. Does not merit mention here, and I think it likely (but not certainly) does not merit mention in any article I'm aware of that exists currently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it’s here soibangla (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Domestic Terrorism
So today at a congressional senate hearing on the intelligence related to what happened on January, 6th. FBI Director Christopher Wray stated that the department considered the storming 'domestic terrorism,' I'm wondering if this constitutes listing the 2021 capitol storming on the Domestic terrorism in the United States article?NSNW (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I support adding the term "domestic terrorism". As noted by in the above section, there was an RfC on this that closed with no consensus, but that closed a month ago, and this is a new development that I believe would lead to a different result if that RfC were to rerun now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I just reverted an attempt to add the domestic terrorism infobox while we are still discussing this. I Oppose ignoring the existing consensus from the RfC and just going ahead and adding the infobox. I also have serious doubts as to whether this fits the definition of Terrorism. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please read that RfC, there was no consensus. Another RfC would waste a month when we can just listen to the words of the Director of the FBI, whose opinion carries weight. Wray called the attack an inspiration to a number of terrorist extremists How can we ignore that? After all, Christopher Wray's public comments are his first since the Jan. 6. assault by Trump supporters. The past RfC is moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. You don't get to just decide that the fact that there was no consensus for calling this domestic terrorism doesn't matter and just do what you want. Please seek consensus for the change. Seeking consensus does not require an RfC. You can reach consensus with a simple talk page discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think Chris Wray gets to determine whether or not this was "domestic terrorism". I'm not deciding anything, I'm looking to the guidance of our top law enforcement officer and the reliable sources discussing it, which changes everything from that past discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The opinions of Chris Wray are OK for attributed material in the body. They are not OK for adding an unattributed category or infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Past RFC is clearly mooted by subsequent developments since Feb 6, and I'm not seeing any good arguments against using Wray's characterization.  Stare decisis and Guy's personal doubts don't meet the threshold for RSes, and pipe bombs are routinely regarded as domestic terrorism in US.  It was wise for us to wait for a definitive statement from the FBI, but it's no longer appropriate for us to exclude this characterization . Feoffer (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't get to just declare an RfC as being moot. If we allowed that, every RfC would be declared invalid by someone who didn't like the result.
 * Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 13 is valid until overturned. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , when the facts change, old conclusions become moot. We do not have to have an RfC to overturn a "no consensus". We need a consensus here, in this section. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Who determines that the facts have changed and that the consensus of an RfC is "moot"? You? And I have to accept it because you say so? Do I get the same privilege? If you can declare that the no consensus RfC is overturned and that the result is actually a consensus to include, why can't I declare that the no consensus RfC is overturned and that the result is actually a consensus to exclude? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that allows anyone to go against the consensus of any RfC just by pointing at some new comment somewhere. You need to seek consensus that the new material overrides the existing consensus. You can't just decide to not follow the existing consensus because you decided that the new material is significant. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The question before us is whether to include Wray's characterization. You shall not find any opinions about including a characterization made on March 2 in a discussion that concluded on February 6.  Feoffer (talk)
 * You are mistaken. The question before us is not whether to include Wray's characterization. Go ahead and include it. I won't have an objection. This discussion started with these edits: --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article should note that the FBI is treating the incident as domestic terrorism. That the FBI considers the storming a domestic terrorism incident—as opposed to us reaching the conclusion that it was domestic terrorism—written in a way clearly attributable to them is a neutral statement of fact, verifiable, and is not an original interpretation of diverse sources, so it satisfies all of our pillar content policies. No opinion on whether the infobox is necessary or not. Tito xd (?!?) 21:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That would apply to adding material about what the FBI said in the body of the articlewhere we can attribute it, To add an infobox or a category that says in Wikipedia's voice that it was domestic terrorism and has no place to add attribution -- after an RfC resulted in no consensus to call it terrorism -- requires a new consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A statement by a police officer, which is what the head of the FBI is, is not a reliable source for conclusive proof of criminality. That's why the U.S. and other countries have a criminal judicial system. Only judges or juries can determine matters of fact. Even when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, Wikipedia does not assert that someone committed a crime until they are convicted. Of course we should mention Wray's opinion, but it is too early to elevate it to fact. TFD (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that DT is the opinion of one senior bureaucrat, and should be expressed as such. That is not sufficient to enable a DT infobox, label or category. It is merely an in-text attribution. WWGB (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is no federal statute for "domestic terrorism", hence it is not something that will be determined by the criminal justice system. Wray is Director of the FBI, not some beat cop. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Domestic terrorism is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions. And it doesn't matter what level a police officer attains, findings of criminal guilt are made by courts, not police. TFD (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FBI Director is a Senate-confirmed position with access to intelligence. And there is no criminal penalty attached to U.S. Code § 2331, hence it is unused while prosecutors go with charges that are associated with time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Criminal penalties for offenses for terrorism as defined under 18 U.S. Code § 2331 are listed under § 2332. TFD (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The FBI absolutely has authority to classify an attempted bombing as an event of domestic terrorism.  No one was ever found guilty of the 2001 anthrax attacks, but our infobox correctly describes it as bioterrorism.  Feoffer (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A case where we don't know who did it is a poor example for going against our rule that we don't call the accused criminals before they are convicted. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Guy, the authorities don't know who planted the bombs and the FBI has now publicly classed it as terrorism. Feoffer (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying the same thing I am saying. We obviously can't require a conviction to support a terrorism claim if the authorities don't know who planted the bombs. No BLP issues if nobody is charged. In a case where they have identified and arrested over 300 people BLP does apply and we need some convictions before we call it terrorism in Wikipedia's voice, not just the opinion of one senior bureaucrat. Remember, nobody is saying that we shouldn't report the opinion of the senior bureaucrat with attribution in the body of the article. This discussion is about unattributed infoboxes and categories making claims in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree procedurally with Guy Macon that we should wait for consensus here before adding "domestic terrorism" to the infobox. I have philosophical objections about how infoboxes are used across Wikipedia; but given current infobox usage I expect consensus to say that the phrase "domestic terrorism" should be included, and have no strong reason to not include it.  I will note that "terrorism" is not a synonym for murder. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Guy. The FBI has also said no guns were recovered in connection with the 'Storming of the Capitol' nor has anyone been charged with weapon offences. As it stands the event barely rises to the level of the 'fiery but peaceful' protests as covered on CNN etc. As far as I'm aware Wikipedia barely mentions any of those events, and does not classify them as terrorism or treason. IMHO this risks NPOV standards. 人族 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
I request to change the obvious bias against Donald Trump, who, as the article falsely states, did not 'incite' a rebellion. 174.78.159.3 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not how you make edit requests. As was clearly communicated to you, "Please change X" is not acceptable, so I rejected your request. Please make exact, specific requests backed with reliable sources. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, is biased here? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Federico Klein
Should we add Federico Klein, the Trump Appointee With ‘Top-Secret Clearance’ Arrested For Role In Capitol Rio ? --87.170.204.176 (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been mentioned in Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Love of Corey (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word "Terrorism"
I believe Huehewhoo requested this above, but I wish to come to a consensus: Can we "Change '...was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.' to 'was a riot and act of terrorism against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.'"? I personally believe that this qualifies as a terrorist act, as it was an attempt to stop a democratic and Constitutional process, all political opinions out of it. JoeMT615 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion is more appropriate in the Domestic Terrorism section above. WWGB (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Already decided: no consensus to characterized the event as terrorism.
 * Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 13
 * You are free to post a new RfC if you think the consensus has changed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you can count me as Opposing calling this event terrorism. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as unarmed terrorism. Even calling it a riot is pushing the limits of truthfulness given the massive number of peaceful rally goers. In testimony at a Senate Homeland Security hearing the FBI testified no firearms were confiscated during arrests of individuals in or on Capitol grounds. Worse, the only firearm used was that which killed Babbit. 人族 (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Two working bombs were placed, the perpetrator is still at large. Feoffer (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The event in question is in the article name 'Storming the US capitol' by hundreds, not the crowds of thousands milling peaceably around in the capitol area. All viewers of the break in and what happened inside the building, at the time and in replays, including replays in the Senate at the impeachment trial, could see, regardless of RS text sources, that it was riotous and violent, but not even the impeachment which failed asserted '(domestic) terrorism'. Qexigator (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If "attempt to stop a democratic and Constitutional process" qualifies as terrorism, then the Brooks Brothers riot would be a terrorist attack. Ar85ar (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If "attempt to stop a democratic and Constitutional process" qualifies as terrorism, then the Abolition Riot of 1836 would be a terrorist attack. Slavery was constitutional until 1865.
 * Another example would be the "group of outraged black men" who entered a courtroom and used force to take Shadrach Minkins from US marshals. Again, the proper term for what happened at the Capitol is Sedition, not Terrorism or Coup. Words have meanings, and we should use the correct word. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no deadline, but if the FBI is calling this an act of terror, I don't see any grounds for our infoboxes and categories to overrule them. There were two bombs, that's classic domestic terror. Feoffer (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If the FBI director really thought that it was terrorism he would have had the FBI arrest the participants for terrorism and asked the prosecutors to charge them with terrorism. That didn't happen.
 * Violence in the wake of protests was not terrorism
 * Capitol protest was not terrorism
 * Was the US Capitol attack "domestic terrorism"?
 * Who is a terrorist, actually?
 * '''"There are many definitions applied to terrorism, both legally and sociologically. Generally speaking, what unifies all these definitions is that terrorism is an organized, violent campaign directed against civilians with the intention of causing fear and intimidation.
 * Individuals can, however, be charged and convicted for sedition. What happened at the Capitol was seditious, in that civilians were trying to disrupt and undermine the constitutional government. They were delusional people that thought they could stop the change in government.
 * That said, we should be careful about exaggerating the risks to the state and the risk to governance in our use of terms like 'domestic terrorist' and 'domestic terrorism.' Certainly lawmakers, staff and media in the Capitol felt they were personally under attack — and they were  — but this was a seditious insurrection, not terrorism, and the distinction is important." --Terrorism expert Jytte Klausen
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's BLP, hey, no rush.  I can't imagine anyone making any decisions based on how our infobox characterizes it. But long term, it's not our place to second-guess what law enforcement "really thought", appeal to our own favored definitions, or to re-litigate the fugitive slave act.   Feoffer (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There's an article, "Who is a terrorist, actually?" by a counter-terrorism expert, Daniel L. Byman, written last September. He points out that low level street violence should not be considered terrorism and quoting Bruce Hoffman, terrorism is “designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target.” So I think for most definitions, this doesn't meet the standard. I don't think my remarks are OR either, because we are discussing language usage in the article.
 * The planting of pipe bombs probably meets the definition of terrorism and if it was coordinated with the attackers that would elevate its severity. But we don't know who planted the bombs or what their motive was.
 * The riot presents problems because since it is rarely prosecuted as such. I don't know if anyone faces that charge. Usually participants are charged with specific actions they took, while in a riot, every person is responsible for the actions of everyone else and and historically faced a life sentence.
 * TFD (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

'117th' United States Congress
The first sentence would be improved by piping the link to read
 * The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Qexigator (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I see support for removing '117th' in the discussion above as well. feminist (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Editorialized photos are defamatory
Every photo showing peaceful protesters legally protesting in front of the capitol building that describes them as rioters is editorializing. Photos showing no rioters or protesters in foreground labelled rioters include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#/media/File:DC_Capitol_Storming_IMG_7942.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#/media/File:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09254-2_(50820534063)_(retouched).jpg 68.134.72.214 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The first photo shows no rioting, so I changed it to 'participants'. However, the second photo does shows people on the Capitol building, so I'm leaving the caption intact pending further discussion. feminist (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Thousands"
If this article purports to be encyclopedic, can't we show better specificity than an estimate of "thousands"? Weren't there up to 40,000 protesters outside the Capitol, and 3,000 to 5,000 who broke into the Capitol building itself? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To be encyclopedic, we can only use what is reported by reliable sources, whose numbers vary themselves. If you can find a source for your numbers, please provide it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems RS agree there were approximately 800 who were on Capitol grounds (given that "rioting" is a crime, I'd question whether calling innocent people "rioters" is a WP:BLP violation). One of the currently cited sources says an official claimed "more than 800" (which is the phrase used in the Wiki article) but the other says between 700-900 and more sources here and here both say c. 800. It seems to me that "approximately 800" is preferable to "more than 800", a figure only ascribed to a single individual by a single RS. The BBC says there are some 540 "suspects" of whom some 275 have actually been arrested. Hope that's helpful! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

First sentence
It seems pretty clear to me that the first sentence should include "insurrection" as along the lines of the following:


 * ''was a riot, insurrection, and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The word was removed with an edit summary that asserted this was "unconfirmed" but that's simply not accurate; all the high-quality sources use insurrection (often in conjunction with "riot"). See, for a few: PolitiFact ("Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'); NPR public editor Kelly McBride ("insurrection" is word used "most often" in NPR reporting; "By definition, 'insurrection,' ... [is] accurate. "Riot" and "mob" are equally correct. While these words are not interchangeable, they are all suitable when describing Jan. 6."). Neutralitytalk 16:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, and is “the 117th United States Congress” specifically supported by sources? soibangla (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point. It's correct but probably needs specific sources, e.g., ("Just weeks into the 117th Congress..."). I would support moving the 117th Congress detail to the body of the article, if that works for you. Neutralitytalk 20:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The word has been used by some in connection with this event, but that looks more like overstatement, not warranting undue prominence in the first sentences of the lead. Some of the malefactors may have manifested insurrectionist intent or aspiration, but that does not make the event an insurrection. It seems unlikely that such an event would be described as insurrection in any other country except by a repressive regime when crushing anti-government protesters, or where unstable governments have suffered uprisings of real potency. Could this be an example of a less robust 'American exceptionalism', or simply confusion or hyperbolic usage for sensational or alarmist effect, with a literary or political or commercial motive? Historic examples would be the civil war in seventeenth century Britain, the thirteen colonies rebelling against the British Crown, the civil war among the states of USA. Note that the Insurrection Act of 1807 "was invoked during conflicts with Native Americans [and].... during labor conflicts... [and] used to enforce federally mandated desegregation, with Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoking the Act in opposition to the affected states' political leaders to enforce court-ordered desegregation". Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)long overdue correction 11:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We follow what the sources say, not editors' interpretations of history or linguistics. I understand you personally may not believe that it meets the definition, but we go by the reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * For perspective, see media critic Glenn Greenwald on The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot, including:
 * "Then, perhaps most importantly, is the ongoing insistence on calling the Capitol riot an armed insurrection. Under the law, an insurrection is one of the most serious crises that can arise. It allows virtually unlimited presidential powers ... Insurrection even allows for the suspension by the president of habeas corpus: the right to be heard in court if you are detained. So it matters a great deal legally, but also politically, if the U.S. really did suffer an armed insurrection and continues to face one. Though there is no controlling, clear definition, that term usually connotes not a three-hour riot but an ongoing, serious plot by a faction of the citizenry to overthrow or otherwise subvert the government." Terjen (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If sources were near unanimous, or even a majority, in calling it an "insurrection", maybe this should be considered. A majority of non-opinion sources (i.e. those which are written by staff writers as news, not "analysis" and the like) don't do so. "Riot" and "(violent) attack" are both much more common than insurrection, thus that being in the lead sentence (or in the lead at all, outside the limited uses it has now) is very undue. One's personal opinion as to whether the sources are right to not use the word insurrection exclusively does not mean we simply ignore uses in sources. Please feel free to look at the plethora of RMs that failed to find any consensus for insurrection being a common name for the event - while this isn't about the article name, one must seriously consider that if such a strong and charged word isn't common enough to be the title of the article, it also likely doesn't have any place in describing it in WP voice in the lead/body either. To be quite honest, I think there needs to be a 6 month ban on any addition of the word "insurrection" outside of direct quotes that are discussed beforehand on this article. This now makes over a dozen unique discussions in which "insurrection" has been proposed for the title of this article and/or a prominent place in the article (infobox, lead, section header, etc). It's clear that some will simply not rest until that word is given extreme prominence in this article - even when consensus has been time and time again that it's not due weight. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A page title is very different from the a section. While an article can have only a single title, a topic often can be described in multiple ways. As to the recent sources, there is a strong number the use the term expressly (PolitiFact: "Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'"; Reuters: ("the Capitol, the scene of a deadly insurrection by Trump supporters"). There is, of course, no consensus to ban use of a term. Neutralitytalk 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not some "strong number", and in fact, as I pointed out in the past (few? at least two) RM discussions, more sources don't use the term "insurrection" (outside direct quotes or individual opinion) than do use it. Finding a few links (and cherry-picking quotes from them) does not make it a good argument. Note that the Reuters piece calls it an "attack" just as often as an "insurrection" - so it can hardly be argued that source is "strong" given it doesn't even agree with itself what to call it. I'm happy to change my opinion and admit I'm wrong.. if I am, but it's going to take a much more thorough analysis of sources than simply providing a few links from cherry-picked sources to convince me (and I presume others) that your argument is correct. I encourage you to do something similar to what was done for some of the RMs and pull dozens of recent sources without discriminating against ones that don't ever say "insurrection", count how many times each word is used to refer to the events in that source, and post that compilation here with the dates of each source. That's what was done for the RMs to argue against the use of the word "insurrection", and that is what should be done to counter such an argument here - otherwise, it's perfectly valid for people to opine "I feel the same arguments that applied in the RMs apply to this discussion", which is in fact what I'm arguing - not that it's not different, but that the same arguments are valid for a reason not to include it here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What is an insurrection? I can only find two uses of the term in legislation. The British used it to describe resistance by Irish republicans and the U.S. uses the term in legislation authorizing the use of government force. But there's no crime as such. It apparently means resisting authority, but that's true of any illegal activity or even nonviolent protest. We should choose words with clear definitions rather than emotive terms if we wish to accurately convey what happened as opposed to editorializing. TFD (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The (non-opinion, straight-news) sources frequently use this term (PolitiFact: "Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'"), so I don't think it would be accurate to call this "editorializing." One could say that the term riot is equally unclear and emotive. Both terms are sometimes hazy descriptors, but they are what we have, and what the sources use. Neutralitytalk 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that, unlike the cases with "Coup" and "Terrorism", we don't have multiple high quality sources specifically saying that "Insurrection" is the wrong word. "Sedition" (which is a specific kind of insurrection) is still the right word, but few sources use it and it may be unfamiliar to the reader, so insurrection is most likely a better choice for us, even if less precise. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent point, . And I would add that in addition to being routinely used by a multitude of high-quality news sources (without attribution), many experts have expressly used the insurrection. To take just two examples, Naunihal Singh of the U.S. Naval War College, for example, wrote that the attack on the Capitol was "an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government" (but not a coup) ); Benjamin Wittes and many others have also described it frequently as such (see here, for example). Neutralitytalk 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The full quote by Singh is "What we’re seeing here is better described as an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government. It’s sedition but it’s not a coup". (Emphasis added) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

compiled this list of recent public discussions about the event in universities and other forums:


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


 * This usage in academic discourse confirms what we know from press reporting: "insurrection" is frequently used alongside "riot" or the other terms, at similar rates. This seems to me to be overwhelming evidence that we should use it alongside the other terms in the first sentence of the article. I would like to know whether this changes anyone's mind. Neutralitytalk 20:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. My answer is No, for reasons stated above. Basic WP guidance is that robotic number counting is not enough without regard to context, both of any given source and of any given article and the place in the article. For an immediate instance, the words 'academic discourse' with reference to the items listed in the table would not be well-chosen in a more exacting context, but knowing what is here being loosely referenced as such in the course of our present discussion, it is needless to point out that, of the range of meaning, it makes no distinction between the excited chatter of students and a carrefully considered discussion among respected academics with the kind of discernment and expertise that could be more worthy of attention for the purpose of improving the article in question. My supposition is that this comment of mine will not be mistaken as an Argument from authority --Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at all the links that use the term insurrection, but they appear to be for planned discussions involving academics, journalists and others about the Jan 6 events. It might be prudent to see how these people describe the events and whether they use the term insurrection. In the meantime, we should avoid it per Manual of Style/Words to watch, which cautions us in using terms that are not clearly defined, especially when they are emotive.
 * The term insurrection in the laws of the U.S., Britain and other countries is left to the government to define. If they declare something to be an insurrection, it allows them to suspend civil liberties. In this case, the authorities did not do that, although one officer said that a riot was in progress. Although the U.S. Insurrection Act of 1807 does not define the term, Canada's notorious War Measures Act provided a great definition: "The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that...insurrection, real or apprehended, exists." In other words, an insurrection is whatever the chief executive (which ironically would have been Donald Trump) says it is.
 * 18:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaker Two (09:45) https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/house-minority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-press-conference-transcript-march-18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.166.109 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021
Though the number of people arrested is large enough to defy generalization, at least 17% were tied to extremist or fringe movements,[523] including the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and Patriot Front,[526] as well as the Texas Freedom Force.[25]

Delete Patriot Front from list above. None of the sources listed prove they had a member at the Capitol. Johnny boy 210 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Sources support this. I have adjusted the citations to clarify this point. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect date
Under Aftermath > Disinformation, there is a sentence beginning with "A poll released in late February 2020" which is false and needs correction. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Nintendofan885T&amp;Cs apply 10:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested change declined
Please update this page so the title is Attempted fascist coup January 6 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.0.115 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Declined, and reverted along with edits the IP made to other people's posts. . dave souza, talk 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue with "Deaths and injuries" section
There's not enough clarity in terms of the differing level of involvement of the individuals who died: three are grouped together, even though the first died in the midst of the riot, the second died on Capitol grounds but prior to and not as part of any "storming" (from what I can tell), and the third died during protests and was never even on Capitol grounds. Given WP:BLP considerations, don't we have a duty to make it more clear, at the very least, that the latter two individuals weren't involved in "rioting"? It seems this could be accomplished by separate paragraphs for each, perhaps? Would love to hear practical solutions to help clarify and avoid in any way insinuating that entirely peaceful protestors were "rioters". Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. There should be separate sections. One for unarmed protestors killed by police and another for people who later died who may have been involved in the protest at an earlier date. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll need good sourcing making that distinction, WP:SYN isn't acceptable. It's also dubious describing as "unarmed protester" someone breaking and entering, climbing through a broken window to confront the outnumbered police who were focussed on protecting the escape of congresspeople from an angry and violent mob. Think in much less threatening circumstances people failing to obey every whim of the police are shot in sometimes gets described as "suicide by cop", though that depends on unknowable intent, so beware of martyrology promoted by those backing the rioters. . . dave souza, talk 10:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with separating out those who died during and those who dies after. But we should not be separating based upon value judgments as to (for example) being unarmed when we do not know for sure anyone was.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well we do know that only one person died during the protest. That was an unarmed protestor. The rest of the people that passed away did so at a later date by either suicide or natural causes. It seems rather careless to lump the killing and the suicides/medical issues together. Innican Soufou (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The so-called "unarmed protester" was trying to force her way into an area that had been secured and barricaded to protect members of Congress, and was met with an appropriately lethal response. Some clarificaion as to the nature of the deaths and injuries may be fine, but we are certainly not going to memorialize Ms. "Unarmed" here. ValarianB (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but attributing motive to a victim of police violence is not something we do here. Or, at least, we shouldn't. Innican Soufou (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aw, the shame. Once more, with feeling, WP:SYN isn't acceptable.WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are policy. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you ok? I'm not saying that we should WP:SYN anything. You seem to be arguing with someone who isn't in this thread and isn't saying the things you're pretending they're saying. I'm proposing that we separate the one murder that took place (of the unarmed civilian by police) and the other suicides/medical issues that people who may have been involved in the protests died from, days later. Try to stay focused. Innican Soufou (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of reliable sources attribute that motive to that "victim", I'm sorry to say. Rioter, insurrection, and so on. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So is there any other narrative as to her motive other than illegal entry?Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "murder of the unarmed civilian by police"? Editors with such a mindset come here to pov push. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be careful about casting aspersions. Innican Soufou (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And you need to read WP:BLPCRIME, your post is a violation of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources claiming Babbitt's death was a murder? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 10:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A Homicide and four other deaths. -- Qexigator (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Qexigator, you appear to have forgotten that WP:SYN, WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are core policies. By the way, Justifiable homicide is not murder. . . dave souza, talk 12:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting us know that you are aware that homicide is not necessarily murder, that is why, in view of the above discussion, I mentioned it as leaving the question open. Qexigator (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or we can say killed attempting illegal entry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

My proposed text, "Five people died or were fatally injured during the event: one was a Capitol Police officer, and four were among those who stormed or protested at the Capitol, including one rioter the police shot". Let's say who did it and why.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was some edit conflict, I had not seen this last comment of yours. So let's say "Five people died or were fatally injured during the event: one was a Capitol Police officer, and four were among those who stormed or protested at the Capitol, including one rioter shot inside the Capitol building". But was the shot fired by 'the police' or by some plain clothes security officer from within the chamber as seen on video? Qexigator (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [] "The officer who shot her has been placed on administrative leave but has not been identified". yes he was a police officer according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so let's say "Five people died or were fatally injured during the event: one was a Capitol Police officer, and four were among those who stormed or protested at the Capitol, including one rioter the police shot inside the Capitol building". Qexigator (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK by me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Qexigator (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Are these videos public domain?
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-washington-field-office-releases-videos-of-assaults-on-officers-at-us-capitol-seeks-publics-help-to-identify-suspects Victor Grigas (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Unless otherwise indicated, information on Department of Justice websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the Department of Justice as source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. The use of any Department of Justice seals, however, is protected and requires advance authorization, as described below.
 * If a source other than the Department of Justice or other federal government agency is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. Please note that some photos, graphics and other materials used on this website are copyrighted. For information on materials generated by external entities with Department of Justice funding, please refer to individual component policies."


 * I don't see any indications on the videos (either the copies on fbi.gov or the copies on YouTube) that "a source other than the Department of Justice or other federal government agency is indicated", so it looks like public domain to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy Macon that there is no indication of source other than the FBI, thus while I doubt the FBI created the videos it seems likely that they are in the public domain... but that doesn't mean the video(s) are appropriate for this article. At its core, addition of any one or combination of the videos would basically be indiscriminate information that is not appropriate for Wikipedia - I do not see any encyclopedic information and recommend that this addition be undone. It brings up the point as to whether there is any encyclopedic information in the image directly above that addition - the poster. I can see the case for the poster being used to illustrate the amount of independent investigations taking place (as each image in the poster is theoretically a separate investigation even if they result in charges/identification of the same person) - but I see no such case for full video(s) being added to this article. If it is determined that any video(s) are appropriate, it needs to be based on prior discussion on this talk page to identify what encyclopedic information each individual video that is added to the article would be contributing - not just simply selecting one of them as was done in that edit. Pinging User:Victorgrigas and User:Guy Macon per their previous comments in this section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree on all counts. Good analyses. I am going to put in a request to double your pay. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ashli Babbitt
Will you please add information regarding the unarmed female air force veteran citizen Ashli Babbit they shot and killed in the 2021 Capital siege page.She was not a terrorist or insurgent she was veteran protestant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.253.138 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Babbitt is already mentioned at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. As an aside, I think you mean she was a "protester", not a protestant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Gorillawarefare, you think they're implying a christian sect by not capitalizing protestant. Check merriam webster's. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Protestant (noun): one who makes or enters a protest. Terjen (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, today I learned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, that's the origin of the term "protestant" for the Christian denomination. Maybe bears a hatnote at Protestantism, since Protestant redirects there. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it used in that sense anymore? I would think that "protester" has completely replaced it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Opening discussion
An edit was made today to capitalize the word "storming" in the lead sentence, which I undid per standard case in Wikipedia for non-proper nouns. That being said, the title of the article includes the year, but the bolded term in the lead sentence does not, and the year doesn't appear until the end of the sentence. This makes it seem that either the title should not contain the year (as if the year is important, it should be more prominent in the lead sentence), or that the lead may need to be reworded. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, I feel that the current title with the year does not does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, and thus we should eliminate the bolding and restructure the sentence to eliminate the desire to bold a term that isn't the title of the article. I propose simply removing the bold and allowing the term to stand in the sentence on its own, but I could also see an argument that the entire sentence should be reorganized to start with the date of the event (such as "On January 6, 2021, a riot and violent attack..." or similar). Thoughts? Proposals? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reorganizing the sentence is certainly a viable option. Compare similar articles such as Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot or Christchurch mosque shootings, neither of which use bolding. feminist (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see nothing unacceptable about the current version, beyond an unimportant point of pedantry, but I would say that a minor re-wording as follows would also be acceptable, and may be also an improvement:
 * The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on 6 January. It was carried out by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th U.S. president, in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the November 2020 presidential election, and was part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests,
 * Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The current title is for disambiguation, really - calling it the "storming of the United States Capitol" and bolding that is fine. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've made somewhat of a bold change, and implemented a non-bolded version. I raised some of the same points about WP:BOLDLEAD and WP:LEADSENTENCE in the last archive (link).
 * On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, the riot and violent attack disrupted the joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes to formalize the victory of Joe Biden. The District of Columbia was placed under curfew, and lawmakers were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. Five people died and more than 140 were injured.
 * [This passage was later edited by others to look like this.] — Goszei (talk)  21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Revised version: On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, the riot and violent attack disrupted the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Joe Biden's victory. The Capitol complex was placed under lockdown, and lawmakers and staff were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. Five people died and more than 140 were injured. — Goszei (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I also removed some references that were only used once. They seemingly were meant to support the "riot" and "violent attack" labels, but were rather weak for that purpose. I don't think those characterizations need specific citations, because they are accepted by virtually all sources. — Goszei (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My un-bolded version has been reverted by User:Qexigator. I continue to think we should not have a bolded title, particularly for this article, where past RM discussions and analysis have made clear that there is no common name. It is (1) redundant, and (2) creates a false impression of a common name. This is the rationale behind MOS:AVOIDBOLD. — Goszei (talk)  19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * not sure about that - would that rationale apply to something like February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm? (just curious for your thoughts here) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It reduces redundancy, and doesn't falsely imply a common name. A major winter and ice storm affected large swathes of the United States, Northern Mexico, and parts of Canada from February 13 to 17, 2021. It should be made clear to the reader that there is no "set name" for a topic, and that we are using a descriptive/unique title of our own conception. — Goszei (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * fair enough, feel free to change it to something like that (though the name Winter Storm Uri should still be mentioned in the lead).
 * Going back to this article, I wouldn't oppose a rephrase that removes "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" from the lead as long as it flowed better. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The bolding stems from 11 January. Given the article name, there is no good reason for departing from it, and the two opening sentences and what follows read no less fluently and concisely. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the significant volume of RM discussions (as indicated at the top of this talk page) indicates that the article name is far from settled. Goszei's change avoids redundancy and is visibly more concise. In this version, the first paragraph (excluding footnotes) is 612 characters long, whereas under the current version with the bolding, the first paragraph (again excluding footnotes) is 693 characters long. This means the version without the bolding is much more concise. feminist (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a good reason - including the long article name (even without the year) in the first sentence is unnatural - even if this is considered to be the common name for the event, it is more concise to simply describe the event rather than try and shove all of these words next to each other in the first sentence. I support Goszei's edit, and I encourage anyone opposing it to attempt to explain how this isn't more similar to the examples of when not to bold presented in MOS:AVOIDBOLD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that my comment expressly states " Given the article name ". Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that my comment expressly states " Given the article name ". Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuation 1
Guy Macon - If you cannot explain your edit of 08:15, 18 March 2021 I can only suppose it was a good faith error so far as concerns the lead, and I will undo. Qexigator (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Try asking me if I made an error (I didn't) instead of assuming that I did and edit warring. Try asking what my reason was instead of assuming that I have no explanation. The reason is that I believe that there is a stronger consensus for User:Slatersteven's version than there is for yours, and I ask you to not edit war but instead to discuss why you think your version is better than Slatersteven's and see what the consensus is. BTW, repeating the phrase "given the article name" as if it was a magic word allowing you to add "riot" makes no sense at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to AGF on your part, not an intent to engage in edit warfare. You believe 'that there is a stronger consensus for User:Slatersteven's version than there is for' mine. Your opinion about that is not sufficient to remove my edit which restored long-standing bolding as stated above. There is nothing to show the 'stronger consensus' you assert.Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors who appear to disagree with you (ranging from mild to strong disagreement):
 * User:Slatersteven
 * User:Berchanhimez
 * User:Feminist
 * User:Goszei
 * User:Guy Macon
 * (If your name is listed above, please review and let me know if I got it wrong and you prefer Qexigator's version to Slatersteven's version.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I have ever said anything more than it was not a storming it was a riot (and that was about the page title, not the lede). So yes, I would say I would prefer riot to storm.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that both words should be in the first sentence, which should be worded similarly to “stormed the capitol building during a riot” or similar. This article is about both, and both words signify different parts of the days events. That being said, I think Guy Macon’s version is an improvement on before. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, are you willing to take a shot at creating a lead that is better than either versions we have been discussing? I could give it a go but you are a better copyeditor than I am (I am best at gnomish work like verifying citations). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GM, for gathering the above comments. These confirm my understanding that there was and remains insufficient support for Slatersteven's version that was undone with my edit summary undo, lacks consensus, given current article name. and the bolding stems from 01,58, 11 January, stable until non-consensus edit 07:16, 14 March, undone 09:30, 15 March.While it remains open to make a further step toward improving the article by composing a further version for discussion here, in my view, and may be others', it should not fail to use the customary style of incorporating the article name and bolding it. So, in the meantime, it will be better to restore the status quo ante. Of course, questions about whether or not to remove '2021' from the article name, or to put another word in place of 'storming', have been previously discussed, but, as above said, when discussing the lead, the current version of the article name is a given, regardless of personal opinions which may in time turn out to be acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuation 2
The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a series of incidthereents that started as a demonstration then devolved into a riot and ended as a violent assault on the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, carried out by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the sitting president, as part of a wider (and failed) attempt to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden in the November 2020 presidential election.

What do we think?Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As the opening sentence or topline of an artticle in a well-edited weekly/monthly/quarterly/annual it would look good as leading an educated reader with some knowledge of the topic to expect that the article as a whole would be soundly based on fact and presented in an acceptably balanced way. (I would only quibble about using 'devolved'.) But may be  it is too well suited to that kind of writing. It opens with the writer's/editor'sub-editor's overview, but in that sense imposes an interpretation in a way which, as it seems to me, is not so well suited to Wikipedia composition. Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Support the Slatersteven 10:49 19 March suggestion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t support Slatersteven’s suggestion because it is a run on and ignores MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Move “On January 6,”... to the front, remove the title, and make the rest grammatically correct with that change and I think it’d be fine. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

On January 6 2021 there was a demonstration at the U.S. Capitol which then developed into a riot and ended as a violent assault on the United States Congress  carried out by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the sitting president, as part of a wider (and failed) attempt to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden in the November 2020 presidential election.

How about this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is an improvement on the version I laid out above (which leads with "a mob stormed ..."). I understand the rationale for elevating "riot" and "violent attack" to the first sentence, but the version you wrote contorts itself to do this, imo. It is important to convey that there was a breaching of the building (the most important part of this whole affair) immediately and in no uncertain terms: perhaps an alternative to "stormed" would be "a mob forced its way into ..." (?), though I am struggling to find something more concise, unequivocal, and commonly used than "stormed". For me, "the riot and violent attack disrupted..." in the second sentence is more than enough to add extra labels to this event.
 * I continue to oppose any lead that has the article name in bold, per MoS and my arguments above. In response to Qexigator's "given the article name" refrain: all editors here recognize the article's name, and a majority have made specific arguments why the article's name should not appear in the lead. Consensus can change, as it evidently has in this case. — Goszei (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I continue to oppose any lead that has the article name in bold, per MoS and my arguments above. In response to Qexigator's "given the article name" refrain: all editors here recognize the article's name, and a majority have made specific arguments why the article's name should not appear in the lead. Consensus can change, as it evidently has in this case. — Goszei (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

We keep on being told it violates bold, can I have a quote as I can see it saying that

"If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:" and "Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way", bold seems to say we should bold the article title in the first sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:AVOIDBOLD: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy. AVOIDBOLD is a clarification on BOLDTITLE: "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" is clearly not formal, or widely accepted.— Goszei (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It does flow naturally, and calling it storming of the United States Capitol is a widely accepted name.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t flow naturally - it is repetitive and redundant to information in the rest of the lead, and greatly extends the lead sentence length to do so. This is virtually identical to the examples of when to not bold on the guideline page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuation 3: Three versions proposed to replace current version
There now seem to be three proposed versions for replacing the current version: Of those three, I see no.2 as more acceptable than the other two, and no.1 as more acceptable than no.3. If a wider consensus emerges for changing the current version, I am inclined to support no.2 Qexigator (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, the riot and violent attack... per Goszei, 19:18, 17 March, who continues to oppose any lead that uses the article name in bold.
 * 2. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a series of incidents that started as a demonstration then devolved/developed into a riot and ended as a violent assault on the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, carried out by a mob of supporters... per Slatersteven 10:49, 19 March.
 * 3. On January 6 2021 there was a demonstration at the U.S. Capitol which then developed into a riot and ended as a violent assault on the United States Congress carried out by a mob of supporters... per Slatersteven 14.37, 19 March.
 * I am fine with either of Slatersteven's suggestions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Between Slatersteven's non-bold proposal and my own, I prefer my own, for the reasons I have stated above. — Goszei (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your version looks pretty good. 2 is also acceptable to me, not such a fan of 3's wording. "There was a demonstration" is too much passive-voice and if we're gonna do awkward linguistics, we should bother to include the bolded title. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In the now current version of the lead the first sentence being discussed above has been made into two and the now second sentence merged with a sentence from further on. This revised version could be tweaked by taking from version 1. above the words a series of incidents to read as follows:
 * The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. A   + an event in a series of incidents on January 6 when a violent and riotous /+ mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attempted to overturn his defeat in the 2020 United States presidential election by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Joe Biden's victory.

I see this tweak as an acceptable improvement consistent with comments in the present discussion (but mindful that at least one commenter remains opposed to the bolding). Qexigator (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at these options, suggest a first sentence more specific than "a series of incidents": The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was the culmination of a rally and march "to Save America" which led to a riot and violent attack against the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The second sentence, "A mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attempted to overturn his defeat ..." to remain as it is now. . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. The reasons for saying 'a series of incidents' are, first, that the 'storming' is the major event (from break in to re-securing the building for the continuance of the electoral business of the joint session) in the series of incidents described more fully in the following sentences and paragraphs of the lead and in great detail in the main body; and secondly, that the words 'storming of the United States Capitol...when a violent and riotous mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attempted to overturn his defeat in the 2020 United States presidential election by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Joe Biden's victory.' are more fully informative about the significance of that event, and the series of incidents before and after, whose effect would be dissipated or obscured (editorially speaking) by wording such as 'was the culmination of a rally and march "to Save America" ', which is only one part of the series of incidents, but also fully detailed in the article. Also, note WP:SYN, WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My preference is for Option 1. Both Option 2 and 3 involve a run-on sentence, which is terrible for readability. The first sentence should be focused on defining the event so that readers who are short of time can identify the topic as quickly as possible. The significance of the event can be discussed in the rest of the paragraph. I may support a modification to Option 3 which splits the run-on sentence: e.g. "On January 6, 2021, a demonstration at the U.S. Capitol developed into a riot and ended as a violent assault on the United States Congress. Carried out by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the sitting president, the storming was part of a wider, failed attempt to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election." feminist (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that a wider consensus has not emerged for removing the long-standing bolded format, I am going ahead with the tweak shown above. But this leaves open the emergence of support opposing the customary bolding, and consensus for another version. Qexigator (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please let an uninvolved editor assess consensus and implement the result. You have been pretty insistent with implementing boldface and I'm afraid you may not be the best editor to judge on whether this is appropriate. This is not the first time you have been called out for jumping the gun on this. feminist (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * noting minor fix per MOS:LISTGAP to the comments above - I agree that this should not be changed pending a clear consensus here, but I agree with Feminist in entirety in that Option 1 is preferable, but a modification to Option 3 may be even more preferable. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * feminist: Please review this discussion and my remarks more carefully. I must correct you. I have expressly acknowledged that there is opposition to the pre-existing long-standing bolded versions, and that remains open, but, as clearly stated, my tweak edit was to the existing bolded version, and without prejudice to a consensus emerging for an unbolded version, which is not yet there. Until then, the customary bolding style has been used in this article and is widely used elsewhere in Wikipedia articles. Whether or not some editors and, perhaps, readers, do not like it for one reason or another, unbolding is a departure from long-standing Wikipedia practice. Please explain what you mean by the assertion 'This is not the first time you have been called out for jumping the gun on this.' I am prepared to AGF on your part, not an intent to engage in edit warfare In case you or others have not understood, I will repeat (from the end of 'Opening discussion' above (09:38, 17 March): Please note that my comment expressly states "Given the article name ". (I do not know why commenters are now indenting with bullet points).


 * I have opened a fourth sub-heading for the discussion of unbolding. Qexigator (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Prefer option 1, out of those options. Strenuously oppose 2 in particular, which is an extremely awkward run-on sentence; "...was a series of incidents that started as a demonstration..." is just too much.  3 has passive-voice issues and retains awkward phrasing. I would propose an alternative to the first one along these lines, if bolding is the issue:
 * The January 6, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol occurred when a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.
 * I note that someone else seems to have suggested something similar to this (move the January 6 bit before the bolding), but it wasn't one of the options listed here. I don't feel the demonstration needs to be in the very first sentence, and it seems like any attempts to crowbar it in results in extremely awkward wording - this article is about the storming, which the first sentence ought to define as concisely as possible. The demonstrating leading into it is vital context and background, but is still just context and background, and can be mentioned further down in the first paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, but why not complete the sentence to read:
 * The January 6, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol occurred when a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the U.S. Capitol building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to formalize Joe Biden's victory.
 * Qexigator (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Having to bold only part of the date is a very good reason to avoid boldface here. feminist (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree - the fact that these awkward sentences have to be constructed in order for the full title of the article to appear early in the first sentence is the exact reason AVOIDBOLD exists. I'll note that nobody here has actually countered the argument that those are awkward - and I presume it's because everyone knows that it'd be awkward to have the year bolded but not the rest of the date, but maybe it does need stating out loud... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the issue is about 'awkward sentences' I do not see that the revised version above at 12:44, 21 March is any more awkward than the others, in fact that version is well suited to the article topic irrespective of the bolding, which is inessential to the wording. But I can see that version could be more acceptable if the date were moved to read 'The storming of the United States Capitol occurred on January 6, 2021 when a mob of supporters....' Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using bold that way looks bad. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuation 4: Why depart from bolding first sentence?
In view of the above discussion so far, is there a case to be made for departing from using the long-standing 'bolded style' for the first sentence of this article? That style is frequently used, and here is a sample list:
 * Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower
 * First impeachment trial of Donald Trump
 * Second impeachment of Donald Trump
 * 2021 United States inauguration week protests
 * 2020 United States presidential election
 * 2016 United States presidential election
 * California v. Texas
 * Withdrawal from the European Union
 * R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
 * Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives
 * Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch
 * Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens
 * Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point
 * 2021 Formula One World Championship

In support of not using the bolded style, it will not be difficult to assemble a comparable list of articles. Qexigator (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Books are not a good comparison because the entire name of a book is functioning as one proper noun, meaning that even if its placement within the sentence appears awkward at first glance, it is not actually so. Other examples you give (such as California v. Texas, GBSSP) are also functioning as one proper noun, not multiple words, and as such their placement is not awkward. That style is frequently used, and as has been stated before, it is used when it is possible to include the exact title of the article in the first sentence without it being awkward or leading to grammatical issues/flow issues, and not being redundant to the rest of the sentence. You'll also notice that almost all of the titles you reference as using bolded style are covering a longer-term and more abstract event - as opposed to a short (few hours/one day) event that is concrete (the storming, as opposed to the events leading up to and of the election, as well as the results of, etc). That being said, MOS:AVOIDBOLD even suggests that those election articles may need review as to whether the bolding is appropriate. Just above AVOIDBOLD is MOS:REDUNDANCY which states The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive - and that's where we're at now - the title of this article is not really a proper noun, but is instead descriptive of the events of a day.Now, I suspect that in a decade or two (maybe sooner, but based on history it'll likely take at least that long) there will be a short "colloquial" name given to these events - perhaps it would be "Trump's Capitol Riot" or something like that, or maybe it will simply begin to be called "2021 Capitol Riot" or something. At that time, that name would be a proper noun (instead of a description) and would be appropriate to include in bold in the first sentence - as is done at Storming of the Bastille, even though that is a descriptive title, because it is the proper noun universally used to describe it. For other recent and descriptive article titles for articles about events which are not bolded, see 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, 2021 Myanmar protests (where an alternate redirect is bolded but the title is not included/bolded), 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, heck, almost any descriptive event from WP:ITN that isn't over 5 years old. So, TLDR, while I appreciate the goal of looking to other articles for precedent and guidance on applying MOS:AVOIDBOLD, it's important to look at similar topics, not just similar titles - and similar topics almost always don't force the title into the first sentence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that well reasoned reply. Yes, the article title is descriptive, and we cannot yet know whether 'Storming of the US Capitol' will become as widely used as 'Storming of the Bastille'. For one thing, the location of the Bastille is understood to be Paris, but states of the Union also have their capitols and at least for some time it will be necessary to retain 'US' in the description, unless it is considered acceptable that in this context the federal Capitol is to be taken as read, and the name of the state would be used in respect of any other capitol. Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We have many articles with descriptive titles that avoid superfluous bolding. Some examples: Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Parity of zero, 2007 Boston Mooninite panic, 2011 Mississippi River floods, Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn, 1985 Nepal bombings, List of English monarchs, 2013 Moore tornado, Boston Marathon bombing. We don't need to bend over backwards with awkward phrasing to have the title in bold in the lead, and in fact the MoS tells us that the practice is not mandatory. WP:BOLDITIS is the explanatory supplement on this subject. — Goszei (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

JSTOR Daily article
The Legacy of Racial Hatred in the January 6 Insurrection is interesting because of the context it provides. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits
This is one of 800+ articles edited by a UPE sockfarm closely associated with Michael Patrick Mulroy. Their contributions usually introduce refspam to articles written by Mulroy and his associates, as well as promote Mulroy in many places where it is not due weight. Since there are many editors in this article, I think the best course of actions is that someone familiar with the topic does a review of their edits and check if there is any problem with them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of these five edits, three appear to be of no significant concern (they do not introduce refspam). 1 and 3 need further investigation. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yep, the other two include himself... Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed 1, 3 looks fine (and on closer look doesn't mention him, just someone with a similar name). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Should work this in
Seems that Trump's opinion needs to be added. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/26/trump-defends-capitol-rioters-in-fox-news-interview-claims-they-posed-zero-threat/ Not sure where is best though. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I added it to the "Domestic reactions" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Lack of evidence for planning or capture/killing of officials by Oath Keepers and Proud Boys
AP has reported that prosecutors have been forced to "walk back" claims about the Oath Keepers and/or Proud Boys planning to attack the Capitol in advance of 1/6. To report that purported members of these groups were "charged" with crimes, but to omit that prosecutors are now acknowledging lack of compelling evidence for those charges, seems to me to be an issue of accuracy and WP:BLP protections. But my edit incorporating this fact was immediately reverted—apparently because the editor "isn't sure" that the AP report is "that clear cut". The sum of those strikes me as "clear-cut"—although upon reflection I can see that perhaps saying that they've admitted to not having "any evidence" might be better phrased as (to borrow a phrase!) "clear-cut evidence". I've changed the edit to reflect that and welcome further discussion. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the AP: "Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6 ." Obviously if the state had evidence of such a plot, it would be "clear", no?
 * Prosecutors acknowledge that they: "do not have at this point someone explicitly saying, ‘our plan is to force entry into the Capitol’” and that there wasn't "as concrete a plan as one might expect" if the groups had, in fact, an advance plan. That's the prosecutor putting the best possible spin on it.
 * As a defense attorney summarized: "The government presented a theory (without evidence) that there was a weeks long plan to invade the Capitol. There was no such plan.”
 * The judge, who had refused a defendant bail because "evidence showed he 'engaged in planning [for] a potential military-like incursion on the Capitol on January the 6th,” reversed his own decision and released the man, explaining: "30 days ago, I was convinced that it was a plan to execute an incursion on the Capitol building. You’ve raised some evidence that, I think, rebuts that notion.”
 * So, the 80 terabytes of content scraped from Parler before it shut down contains zero evidence? I'm skeptical. Maybe the rules of evidence prohibit using that data? More information is needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re the last bullet point [pun not intended], the judge also "on Friday ordered Meggs to remain locked up, calling him a danger to the community. The judge said his communications in the weeks leading up to the attack show he was planning for violence in the streets of Washington even if none specifically mention a plot to storm the Capitol." per AP, "There’s little doubt the Oath Keepers were planning for something on Jan. 6. The question at the heart of the criminal case against its members and associates in the attack on the U.S. Capitol is: What, exactly, did they intend to do?" . . dave souza, talk 14:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also "In one case, prosecutors declared in court documents in January there was “strong evidence” the pro-Trump mob aimed to “capture and assassinate elected officials.” The Justice Department quickly clarified it had no such evidence,". It relies too much on what the defence is claiming as well. I do not think based on this we can say it in wikipedias voice, and it may fail wp:undue anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Page move request to 2021 United States Capitol insurrection
I propose that this article be moved to 2021 United States Capitol insurrection to distinguish from the April 2021 United States Capitol shooting. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That second article shouldn't exist - it is pure WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM - not every crime is notable enough for its own article, no matter how many people die. Aside from that, even if that was an acceptable article, it's not ambiguous - nobody is yet calling the current event a "storming". This is simply a veiled attempt to go against consensus which has consistently been against insurrection as the title by providing a flimsy non-reason. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Several reputable sources are distinguishing between the two events by referring to the January 6 event as "insurrection" (e.g.,, , ). Thank you. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have presented two local and known biased sources, and one CNN source. However, maybe you failed to actually read those sources - the Seattle Times calls it a "riot" more often than "insurrection", and the CNN piece calls it a riot/insurrection equal amount of times. So even if three sources were enough to counter the hundreds of sources examined in last discussions, these are not good at all. Feel free to create an actual RM based on those three sources.. but it's not going to get consensus to move, because a simple google search shows "riot" is used about 60-65% of the time in reliable sources by a simple quick count. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A Capitol Police officer died in that event, a rarity for the department in question. It's notable. But hey, at least I know where your true opinions lie. :) Love of Corey (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Insurrection is too vague a term to use. Under U.S. law, it requires a declaration by the president, which last happened during the 1992 LA riots. TFD (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight note there -- the insurrection act gives the president tools to deal with insurrections, but is not a sine qua non of identifying them.  Note that the term shows up in other places, such as 18 USC § 2383.  One could imagine insurrections which did not require invocation of the insurrection act to put down.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. But I can't find any examples of anyone being convicted. According to an article in The Marshall Project, insurrection is "nearly impossible to prove." Canada's War Measures Act said, "The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that...insurrection, real or apprehended, exists." That seems to be the case too in the U.S., where a president can declare an insurrection, which allows him to suspend civil rights. TFD (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just me being overly nitpicky. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not support such a move. Per, "insurrection" is a pretty vague (not to mention loaded) term to use in this context. Plus, the April attack article has a disambiguation note to help distinguish it from this event. Love of Corey (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Insurrection might happen later if there are convictions for that – but not now. And if you're serious about proposing a move, you have to use the process at WP:RM.  It doesn't look to me like this idea has a chance, so probably don't bother. Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Trespassing, Not Insurrection
While this article makes a big thing about the insurrection claim, it's now being reported elsewhere that most of those arrested and charged for their involvement in the 'storming of the Capitol' are likely to face only minor trespassing charges. Yes prosecutors did try to push the insurrection angle but judges are demanding prosecutors either put up or shut up on the sedition aspect. At least one prosecutor has been rebuked and the DOJ is now launching a misconduct investigation. Trump himself is pushing the angle that there was no threat, that some people were waved in, they entered the Capitol, which perhaps they shouldn't, but they were hugging and kissing the cops and guards, and once they were done walking around they walked back out again. There is also the fact that attempts to disrupt congressional hearings or even House and Senate floor sessions, are somewhat common. Should Trump supporters be punished any more harshly than other protesters? Only time will tell, but if the charges for most are token misdemeanor while the hype, and this article, are still promoting 'insurrection', that'll be more than a bit embarrassing!!! 人族 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you proposing specific changes based on what specific reliable sources say, or just expressing your personal opinion? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have specific sources to back up your claims? Love of Corey (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No I'm not proposing changes at present - the judges slapping prosecutors likely isn't worth including, rather I'm noting that changes\additions may be required if the courts go the way it is being suggested they will. Per the bolded section 'only time will tell' but if the court rulings fall on the misdemeanor trespass side then a clear distinction will need to be made in this article about what was claimed at the time, and what the courts ruled was fact. This will be an important distinction! 人族 (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the purpose of article talk pages is to propose and discuss specific, actionable proposals to improve an article. Talk pages are not for speculating about what may or may not happen in the future based on your personal theiry of the case. Please read and understand WP:FORUM. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Study of the protestors
There's a good new study of who was involved and their motivations at. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021
i see that the Black Hebrew Israelites arent mentioned as part of the perpetrators, even though, this source: (https://www.businessinsider.com/hate-symbols-and-extremist-groups-at-the-us-capitol-siege-2021-1#black-hebrew-israelites-10), says that they indeed, participated on the attack, aswell as the "America First" group, the "stop the steal" movement, the "Gays For Trump" (according to this source: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/gays-trump-wave-pride-flags-104207236.html) and the "Save America" protest participants, even though the "among others" includes these groups, they should be put as they had quite a big amount of participants on the rally, different from other small groups that by "among others" are included. 179.234.163.90 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

there should also be mentioned about the fact that some rioters used "kek" flags and norse symbols (mijonir and stuff) during the storming (together with the part where it says that some wore neo pagan clothes and stuff). 179.234.163.90 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true that one of the many Black Hebrew Israelite groups was present outside the Capitol on January 6. However, I searched quite extensively a few weeks ago and was unable to find any evidence that any of them crossed police lines or engaged in any violence or illegal activity that day. Simply being present outside the Capitol that day does not merit mention in the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Business Insider article does not say that the Black Hebrew Israelites "participated in the attack" or were "perpetrators". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 23:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Cause and manner of death for four of five released
Might be useful, I can't paste refs, removed Boyland's debunked homicide for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good work, ! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Which wording's weirder?
and I have a difference of style. He thinks calling the officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbit "her killer" or "her shooter" is awkward. I think calling her killer "the officer who fired the fatal shot" or "the officer who fatally shot her" is clunky. What say others? Are we perhaps both wrong/right? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The word "killer" can be read to imply malice. I note that in Killing of George Floyd, we nowhere describe Derek Chauvin as "his killer," despite his being on trial for murder. "Shooter" is ambiguous. "the officer who fatally shot her" is direct, to the point, and states the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Chauvin is a named BLP who disputes the accusations against him. This guy indisputably shot his victim to death, lawfully and on camera. Big differences (and even "the shooter" isn't ambiguous in this one-bullet case). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, and it might just be me, fatally shooting somebody sounds every bit as malicious as the short version. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think "killer" is the proper word to use here. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As Drmies said, I think there needs to be a way to specify this without the charged words/phrases of "her shooter/killer" or "fatal". Yes, she died, but at the same time, there's a way to describe that without implicating someone as doing so maliciously. I've taken a step back from this article so I'm not sure exactly what part of the text is in question here, so maybe referring to the specific part of text being considered here would help? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Ashli Babbit paragraph of "Deaths and injuries", the sentence "Following the routine process...declined to charge x." Earlier in the paragraph, it's established that he shot and killed her. No mentions whatsoever of his character or intent in doing so. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Killer" carries strong connotations of criminality. Similarly, "malicious" carries connotations of evil intent. By all reliable accounts, this appears to be a person carrying out their lawful duty to protect and defend constitutional officers. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer NBSB's wording, for the reasons set forth by Cullen. Neutralitytalk 18:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Killed does not mean murderer, he shot her and she died. He killed her.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the song has it, "Officers kill without a cause, then complain about funny laws". . dave souza, talk 09:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that NBSB's wording is the better option, as a matter of style "fatally shot" seems odd (to a non-American), also superfluous given that the fatality has already been established, and the sentence is about "Police-involved shootings". Suggest simply "the officer who shot her", or to be more specific, "the officer who shot Babbitt". Just an opinion. . . dave souza, talk 09:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Babbitt – opening sentence

 * The sequence of the sentence looks awkward, focussed on her being shot and playing down the context. Suggest: Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt, a 35-year-old from San Diego, attempted to climb through a shattered window in a barricaded door leading into the Speaker's Lobby, through which House members were being led to safety. A Capitol Police officer defending the doorway fired his handgun at Babbitt, fatally wounding her in the shoulder. dave souza, talk 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That could work. Or maybe not. But the sentence in question here is the one about the MPD declining to charge whatever-he's-called, not the killing/shooting/wounding itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies! Have added a subhead to be clear this is separate, and will leave the idea for review. . . dave souza, talk 09:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, no (further) objections! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Police officer deaths
Should the officers who killed themselves afterwards be counted as deaths due to the riot? Elliottharvickfan94 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the general consensus from past discussions was that unless/until reliable sources directly connect the cause of suicide to their participation in the day's events, they shouldn't. Wikipedia will not speculate as to anything - even less so the reason for someone's suicide. Temporal correlation is not causation and does not mean a connection. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
I would like to add the Traditionalist Worker Party to parties to the civil conflict. On the Pro-Trump side. GeorgeMemeulous (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 13:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick stroke not substantiated by citation
Current version:

Deaths and injuries

''President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden attend the viewing of Officer Sicknick's remains at the U.S. Capitol on February 3, 2021. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, 42, a 13-year veteran of the force,[409] was pepper-sprayed during the riot, and had a thromboembolic stroke the next day.[379]''

Reference 379 does NOT say "thromoboembolic" stroke. That is either original research, looked up by a nurse working in the same hospital, true but cited elsewhere, or fake news. Solution: remove "thromoboembolic". Simply say it is a stroke. Inkfo (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , why, when it's completely verifiable that it was a stroke caused by a clot - and thus meets WP:V even if it's not verifiable by the references currently in the article. Things will not be removed simply because sourcing is not adequate when the sources exist and just need added - WP:V does not require citation in an article, just that the information could be verified - which it can be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Its verifiable that there was a stroke and it was caused by a clot, but where are you getting thromoboemboic/thromboembolic from that source? Are we taking description of the stroke and defining it into a medial term that readers of the source or Wikipedia article might not know? If the sources aren't using the term it is probably because it is better for readers to describe it as it is defined, rather than use a word which has no meaning to them. If we are going to use thromboembolic to be specific we should probably define it as well, but rather than do that it seems easier to describe the stroke as sources do, or simply call it a stroke. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 14:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Philips and Kevin Greeson
Philips died in the morning four hours before the riot began, why is he included as a fatality in the Capitol storming event? Also Kevin Greeson apparently died around 2 pm which was ten minutes before the actual breach of the Capitol (according to the timeline). I feel less confused by Greeson being inlcuded since it was so close to the actual event (although still prior to and from natural causes) but why is Philips being included as part of this event, what am I missing because doesn't make sense to me? Yodabyte (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Nobody has any thoughts on this issue? Yodabyte (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did, added a clarifying "before" earlier, just mentioning it here now. As to why things are missing and what's left doesn't make much sense, I blame a lot of downfalls, no simple solutions. But before, during and after, that's still a pretty easy concept to grasp (for now). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean, are you drunk? Not trying to be rude, only asking because your response is unintelligible. Yodabyte (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the COVID, probably; see my edit at 01:04 today, UTC. Thought it was what you asked for. If not, it's still good. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just curious why do you write on Wikipedia in a strange cryptic way (not just here but in your edit summaries and throughout talk pages)?? Yodabyte (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as as my actual question what I'm getting at is why should Greeson and Philips be included AT ALL in the article since they both died of natural causes prior to and separate from the riot/storming. In other words, the article should state that three people died directly/indirectly related to the insurrection - Boyland, Babbitt, and Sicknick.Yodabyte (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I'm a strange and cryptic person, obviously. If I wrote this article, I'd cut them (and Boyland, too). But they've been part of it for so long that I think others would miss them, especially whoever added them. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Revert explanation
Hey, could you please explain your reversion of my copyedits , since you didn't include the information in your edit summary? I was just trying to cut down the overlong lead. Thanks, — Wingedserif (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The intro has been worked on and worked on for months. Deleting "violent attack," when that's been painstakingly decided on through long-running consensus, was not acceptable. Moncrief (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Riot and violent attack" is redundant, which is a problem given how excessively long the lead is (which has no prompted an issue template on the page). I also found very little about the specific combination of those terms in the talk page archive. There were also worthwhile, non-controversial copyedits in the edit; you didn't have to wholesale revert. — Wingedserif (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Babbitt?
According to the current article Babbitt was fatally shot once in the shoulder. Is it even possible to be shot fatally in the shoulder? None of the references appear to give details, other than that she was shot so where is this claim coming from? As far as I'm aware she was shot in the chest. I'm also under the impression she was shot without warning whilst attempting to climb through a window but this isn't mentioned. I'm also seeing it claimed Capitol Police officers were warned by Metropolitan Police that participants were carrying concealed weapons, but the references do not make this claim and a couple of quick searches are not returning any results. I can see articles saying Capitol Police were generally ordered not to use less-lethal options on the day, but nothing about concealed weapon warnings. Anyone able to clarify this? 人族 (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond in part, the current DC Medical Examiner has stated (news reports) that Babbit had been fatally shot in the shoulder; I think the quote from the medical examiner himself provides a good source here for that fact. If you'd like to provide context into the shooting, and you find reliable sources that describe the circumstances in which Babbit was shot and killed in the way that you are recalling, then I don't object to adding it per se, provided that it doesn't begin to take up an unduly large amount of space and that it reflects reporting from reliable sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, keywords can make all the difference. Looks like the bullet entered via the front left shoulder. Doesn't state the course so perhaps it travelled through the torso rather than out the back of her shoulder? ME ruled it a homicide. 人族 (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A gunshot to the shoulder can be fatal without reaching any other part of the body if it severs the subclavian artery (that branches out from the Aorta to supply the arm with blood). If this artery is severed in the arm itself the bleeding can be stopped by e.g. a tourniquet applied around the arm. However, such a bleeding inside the shoulder (where the artery carries more blood) cannot easily be stopped - especially not be a first responder. Lklundin (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * shot without warning - she illegally broke into the Capitol Building and was attempting to breach a locked and physically-barricaded set of doors leading to the House Chamber. What more warning should she have been given? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC
 * The punishment for that isn't execution. There were heavily armed responders standing very close to her who did not appear to try to stop or warn her. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not from the images I have seen, it was one side on one side of the doors.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in the video of her being shot. When she falls to the ground after being shot there is a group of officers holding long guns who appear to attempt to render aid. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After she was shot, and even if they were on her side of the doors, they were trying to prevent the attackers from breaching. So even if (and I have seen nothing to say at the time of the shot they were anywhere but on the other side of the door) they were on her side, they were already engaged and busy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And besides, they were wanted when they breached the outside barriers, the outside doors, the inside doors. They had been wanted (both verbal;y and by police forcing them back) at every stage of illegal entry. There comes a point when the warnings have to stop and action needs to be taken when that is an attempt to breach an inner (high security) chamber by an armed mob that is it. She must have ignored multiple warnings to have got to where she was.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So that’s when it’s ok to kill people? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My views on whether or not it is OK to kill people is not a matter for discussion, as I was not in DC at the time of the killing, nor had any influence over it (please read Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "punishment," it's lawful defense of the literal House Chamber, Members of Congress and the Vice President of the United States from an armed mob of violent insurrectionists who attempted to stop the Constitutional processes of government. I'm sorry that you think white Trump supporters are entitled to kid-glove treatment, and I feel sorry for her because she was egged on by a torrent of seditious propaganda from the president and his sycophants... but yeah, that was a clean shoot. She had several choices, and she made all of the wrong ones. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No I get it. It’s just weird seeing you say it’s ok for cops to kill people for trespassing. I feel sorry for her too. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * trespassing - entering a closed building with the intent to commit a crime is not trespassing, it's burglary. And people get shot and killed for burglary of an occupied building fairly frequently, because that tends to be defined as home invasion and it is lawful to use deadly force against an unauthorized intruder. Please show the case law where an armed person lawfully inside a building has to "warn" an unauthorized intruder before using deadly force against said intruder. Note the "middle-ground" stand-your-ground law in D.C. - there is no duty to retreat, rather the question is whether [defendant] reasonably at the time of the incident believed that s/he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to repel that danger. If I'm a Capitol Police officer whose sworn duty is to defend the lives of our country's democratically-elected lawmakers, and I'm confronted by a violent mob smashing windows and attempting to breach locked and barricaded doors leading into the House Chamber while members of Congress were present and being evacuated... yup, I'd have pulled the trigger too. The fact that there are unjustified police shootings does not mean all police shootings are unjustified. I would be happy to point to dozens upon dozens of police shootings which were clearly justified uses of deadly force. Like, say, this one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm curious. If you illegally entered a Federal building as part of an armed mob, and broke down a door guarded by armed police who were protecting elected officials from the mob, what would you expect?
 * The USA certainly has a problem with excessive use of deadly force by police, but this is not an example of that. The tired old phrase cops are trained to use when they shoot unarmed Black people - being in fear for their life or safety - absolutely legitimately applied here. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just watched the video, how is that a justified police shooting? Looks like the guy is running away when the cop shoots at him Yodabyte (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, did you watch as the suspect fired multiple shots at the police officer? The suspect attempted to murder the police officer, and then attempted to steal the officer's motorcycle. That is about as clear-cut a legitimate and justified use of deadly force as it gets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on police being able to defend themselves if they are shot at. But from the video it appears the suspect is running away at the time he is actually shot and killed. Yodabyte (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to get too far off on the tangent, but once someone assaults a person with a deadly weapon, the officer is entitled to use deadly force to stop that person, period. The armed suspect was not surrendering, he was attempting to continue to flee, and it is objectively reasonable to assume that the suspect would have continued to attempt to murder the officer and others, had he successfully escaped. The armed suspect forfeited any right to an "assumption of good faith" when he drew his weapon and tried to kill the officer. It would be different if the suspect had clearly thrown the weapon away and surrendered himself - but an armed suspect who attempts to commit murder does not have the right to attempt to flee justice. That use of deadly force was righteous.
 * Nota bene: This is a great example of where body cameras protect officers - the video provides clear and unambiguous evidence that the officer's life was in imminent danger and that his use of deadly force to stop the threat was justified. This shooting happened in the East Bay, which right-wingers love to trash as the "liberal antifa hotbed of everyone hating cops" - yet there was zero outcry about this police killing, because as tragic as it was, there can be no serious doubt that the officer acted appropriately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * whether or not you personally believe the shooting was justified has nothing to do with whether it should be included in the article that it was without warning. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source says there was no warning? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To add, as part of a forced entry during a riot in which cops had already been attacked.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Attacked by completely different people, who were successfully defeated without gunfire, if that matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , no it doesn't. An armed mob was storming the Capitol, isolated and greatly outnumbered groups of cops were trying to defend the building and those in it, and in the chaos it seems unreasonable to expect them to compare notes on the progress of the insurrection elsewhere in the building. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I get your opinions, they're already prevalent in the lead, just consider mine for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the officer who shot Babbitt was defending the access to the speaker's lobby. As the footage of the Senate chamber clearly shows, once the targets of the mob had been taken to safety, the insurrectionists were basically left to take over. There's no comparison between retreating from an empty Senate chamber and defending a door that people are trying to break down in order to - according to their own rhetoric - murder the Speaker. I know the narrative on Fox is that the officer shot, without warning, an unarmed woman exercising her First Amendment rights, but that narrative is rejected by the Capitol police, and it appears that the use of force was justified.
 * This is not a George Floyd, a Breonna Taylor, an Eric Garner, a Michael Brown, a Philando Castile. Babbitt was not pulled over for Driving While Black. She was a believer in insane conspiracy theories who was engaged in a violent attempt to overthrow the government. We are not, and should not be, in the business of drawing false equivalency between this and the killing of people engaged in peaceful protest or no protest at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Over a hundred officers, with guns and getting actually hit with physical objects, hard sometimes, fired zero times, however you explain the actions of one bad apple. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, that's a remarkable testament tot heir restraint and (of course) to white privilege. But it's irrelevant because the shot that was fired, was justified under the circumstances. I know Tucker Carlson is outraged by the fact that Derek Chauvin is in jail and this officer is not, but there is no equivalence in real life. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That "irrelevant" violent threatening mob was your justifying circumstances for the shooting of an unarmed woman a moment ago, so I give up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that the story of Ashli Babbitt — the only *actual* fatality of this riot — has been all but entirely airbrushed out of this article. Her shooting can't be a source of controversy if she's an Unperson. Good going, Wikipedia! LewisChessman (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Her death is in fact covered in the article. Feoffer (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "All but entirely", said the Chessman. And I agree. Compared to Shooting of Justine Damond, Babbitt is basically a cameo here, barely audible above the weight of fantabulous media circus elephants. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Justine Diamond, who was lawfully on the street in front of her home. Ashli Babbitt, on the other hand, voluntarily took part in a violent mob which feloniously broke into the United States Capitol, and was further attempting to breach locked and barricaded doors into the House Chamber. I'm sorry that your false equivalency is false, and I'm sorry that Babbitt was so thoroughly duped by Trump's seditious lies that she threw her life away for nothing. That's the tragedy here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * InedibleHulk the difference between Damond and Babbitt is Damond was just on the street and was shot for no reason by an overaggressive cop. Babbitt was breaking into a secure area of Capitol building when she was shot. I still think she shouldn't have been shot though. Why wasn't she tased, she would have fallen back thru the window from the shock of the taser. The officer would achieve the same goal of protecting members of Congress without killing someone. Yodabyte (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not flat-out equating the circumstances. Just comparing and saying, there's a remarkably large difference between having your name in the title and not even featuring into the lead. Some additional prominence is due here, I think, especially given the government's broader campaign against forceful police forces. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. See below. This article is about the insurrection. Babbitt wasn't an organiser or leader, there's no particular reason to believe that she would have been one of those charged had she not been shot. There won't be protests because of her death, as there were for Justine Damond. There's no evidence that the police officer acted unreasonably. This is not a George Floyd scenario. A mob was smashing down a door defended by armed police, and one of them got shot. The only remarkable thing about this is that she was the only one. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, so remark upon it like it is the only one, don't bury her true story with people wrongly assumed to have been killed by insurrection. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the story is not "buried". It's given the prominence it deserves in the context of an article that is about the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Insurrections kill many people and last for more than an afternoon, in my mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the main damage the insurrection has done is becoming apparent: the Republican Party has effectively normalised it, and punishes those who criticise it, and rewards those who led and inspired it. It was the beer-hall putsch of the Trump movement. We now have to sit back and find out whether they will proceed to the Reichstag fire next time. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both political camps have been normalizing punishing criticism since 2008, that's Twitter's problem, not imaginary insurgents who watch Fox. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the "problem" with Twitter is that when you shut down white supremacists, and all the white supremacists turn out to be members of the same political party, that party sees it as "oppressing" them rather than indicating a problem with white supremacism among their supporters. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem I mean is just the encouragement of anger and kneejerk responses from the safety of home. Includes white supremacy topics, but nowhere near exclusively. Anything can catch fire online. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On the opinion that Babbitt wasn't an organiser or leader, she did in fact take the initiative to enter and lead the charge. Terjen (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , what are we supposed to say about her? There's a paragraph on her death, but there's no indication that she was particularly influential in the insurrection, and her death didn't change anything about its course. I know that some of the more ardent seditionists consider her a martyr, but we're not going down that rabbit hole, right? It's also tendentious to claim that she was the only "actual fatality". It's extremely unlikely that Brian Sicknick would have died had he not been assaulted by the insurrectionists. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

OK others have asked now I will, do any RS make a claim she was shot unlawfully or without warning?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Google indicates Tucker Carlson and a large number of far-right webshites, but I can't find a RS yet. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, no, then.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , just so. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * She is generally described as an insurrectionist, already criminally trespassing just by being inside the Capitol, who attempted to force her way into a barricaded, secured area of the building. A member of the Capitol Police, rightly & justifiably, used lethal force to prevent potential harm to members of Congress he and others were protecting. The man's actions have been cleared, so, this is open and shut. ValarianB (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think much space should devoted to her. We don't know what her intentions were and the Capitol police has concluded that her shooting was lawful. WP:BLP among other things prevents us from speculation. TFD (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It would've been a conflict of interest if determining whether the shooting was lawful was left to the Capitol police. Rather, it was determined by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia's Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, joined with the Metropolitan Police Department's Internal Affairs Division; Their investigation failed to provide evidence that the officer violated 18 U.S.C. § 242, depriving Babbitt of her rights under color of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terjen (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Police Officer
Should the police officer be removed because he died of a stroke, unrelated to the attacks on the Capitol?

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/988876722/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-died-of-natural-causes-medical-examiner-ru

The above is an NPR source saying he died of a stroke. I believe we should remove the officer from the casualties for this reason. I am unaware of the circumstances of the other deaths listed (the rioters/attackers), but if their cause of death is similar (meaning they died of natural causes unrelated to the attack), they too should be removed. I am a dynamic IP and cannot edit, so any comments, thoughts, etc.? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:35A8:A436:4D28:FAFB (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would you think the stroke was unrelated? Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the coroner ruled it unrelated, hence the "natural causes" on the death certificate and NOT "homicide" (as marked on Ashli Babbets coroners report). Any claim of homicide therefore of Sicknick is therefore feelings based and not facts based. As stated in the other talk page however we can't simply remove Brian Sicknick from the article because the false claim he was murdered/killed/bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher or other conspiracy theories were used by Democrats and other activists as the primary reason for impeachment. Just because a hoax has been exposed, doesn't mean everything that happened before the hoax was exposed should be ignored.118.208.30.208 (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Any claim of homicide therefore of Sicknick is therefore feelings based and not facts based isn't really a civil way to communicate here.
 * I think the IP might have a general point. The medical examiner's report has been widely reported on, and it doesn't appear to be included. The phrase the case has not been established as a homicide seems a bit odd given the medical examiner's affirmation that the cause of death was a medical condition alone; it's true but it also feels awfully roundabout given the public reporting on this (and even seems to give what might be WP:UNDUE credence to us affirming that is a homicide). He's generally been included as a casualty in reporting regarding the riots prior to the release of the medical examiner's report, though the section could use a bit of a look over to update how the article describes the officer's death in line with newer information. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The suggestion to "remove the officer from the casualties" said nothing about homicide or not. Our reporting that "Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick sustained injuries during the riot and died of a stroke the next day" seems reasonably NPOV. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, what you are saying is a truthful sentence, though it also leaves out the context of the medical examiner's ruling. If we present those facts together, we probably should have some explicit reference to the medical examiner's report, seeing as we don't want to give off the impression that the two are causal in light of the report. Something along the line of One day after the Capitol Riot, Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick suffered a fatal stroke. Sicknick had sustained injuries during the riot and had been sprayed with bear spray not labeled for use on humans, though the D.C. medical examiner ruled that these injuries did not contribute to his death. Initially, it was widely reported that his death had been caused by injuries sustained in the riot. might be more neutral (and there's a bit of a WP:BLP issues if we are framing this in a way that gives undue weight to the claims that the two people arrested caused his death, though I don't think that we have that issue per se). This is obviously way too long for a photo caption, but feel free to take it if you would like to use it in the text of the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good wording. And IP is correct that his death should be removed from the tally as it was not caused by the storming/insurrection  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think that he should be mentioned as one of the casualties. He is of course notable in relation to the event due to the media coverage, but it should be relegated to a section regarding his death, and not included in the infobox. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the replies. As the original poster (I was not the second IP 118 that responded and babbled about hoaxes and whatnot), I think the death of Mr. Sicknick should not be in the infobox itself, but it should definitely be covered in the rest of the article. As far as I am aware, the infobox should have only people who were directly killed or injured in the riot. As his death was not related to the attacks, he should be listed as killed in said box, though listing him as injured, which was widely reported on, would be acceptable. The same criteria should also be applied to the rioters; I am unaware of the circumstances of the other deaths, however. I see that no one has yet removed Mr. Sicknick from the infobox. Is there still disagreement? There seems to be consensus here that he was not killed in the attack. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5066:37DA:6B8B:ABF9 (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, and as the section below mentions, Greeson and Philips also do not belong in the infobox. They also died of causes unrelated to the riots and should be removed. Greeson died of heart attack; Phillips, of a stroke. So only 2 people should be in the infobox. Comments? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5066:37DA:6B8B:ABF9 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Boyland died of an accidental amphetamine overdose, nothing violent, so maybe only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, I agree. Only Babbit then should be in the infobox as killed. Mr. Sicknick and the other three rioters died of issues unrelated to the violent attack. I cannot make this edit, so a relevant user must make this edit, if they concur. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:B583:A1F0:B26:94D9 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My relevance to this community is fading fast, brother, but ✅. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's still some citation overkill; editing the whole massive page at once hogs my meager CPU resources to a disturbingly stifling degree, save us, someone! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, same. Can you just change the 5 to a 1, though? It's kind of jarring. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:599B:F10B:80DF:6CF9 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did change it. Then today, it changed back. Only can say why the hell that happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition of groups and lead figures
The pro trump groups and opposing groups were added to the infobox on 12 April with no discussion or explanation despite previous discussions deciding against it. It might make sense to have groups in the infobox however some additions are undue or poorly sourced. The mention of neo Confederate groups is sourced to a snopes fact check about one guy with a confederate flag. The mention of neo nazi groups is sourced to an article talking about individual neo nazis being present as opposed to groups. There needs to be a discussion as it was previously decided against to have groups and it ought to a have a more coherent sources because it seems like OR now. In addition, editors keep adding lead figures which is unsourced including Gavin Mcinnes who wasn't even present in the city. Nettless (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, as the consensus at the previous discussion was very clear and all the arguments I and others made there still apply. Consensus can change, but there's been no further discussion that I can see. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , meh. Just put "Fa". That encompasses all of the above. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sicknick Death & Disinformation
Just saw the news that Sicknick's death has finally been revealed - death by natural causes due to a stroke. Yes he was pepper sprayed, but this doesn't appear to have been a factor - no allergic reaction to chemical irritants was discovered during the autopsy. Thus I'd suggest the section on his death be tweaked to make clear it was death due to natural causes - the section currently appears to imply it was death due to pepper spray triggering a stroke, which is not true. Further down I believe the disinformation section should be updated to reflect the fact that the media long claimed Sicknick was bashed to death with a fire extinguisher. While it has long been known this was untrue - no signs of physical trauma, it is only now that we know the actual cause. 人族 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * With this new information, the info box should be corrected. Or with a notation "originally attributed to the incident, later attributed to natural causes" in the info box. Such info should not be hidden in a footnote because that would be misleading.


 * Or delete his name or police officer in the infobox but still keep it in the article.Inkfo (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that he died of a stroke doesn't make his death unrelated to the storming of the capitol. From here, though almost all sources quote it: "All that transpired played a role in his condition," Diaz told the newspaper. Similarly, the Washington Post cites that quote and says: Diaz’s ruling does not mean Sicknick was not assaulted or that the violent events at the Capitol did not contribute to his death. The medical examiner noted Sicknick was among the officers who engaged the mob and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” Likewise, The Hill quotes the medical examiner's report as saying that The medical examiner's office said in its report that "an unprecedented incident of civil insurrection at the United States Capitol resulted in the deaths of five individuals." So on its own this isn't enough to remove him from the infobox, though of course the details should be noted in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Come on. This double negative from the cited source—"does not mean Sicknick was not assaulted or that the violent events at the Capitol did not contribute to his death"—obviously doesn't mean that the events did contribute. The fact that he died after the riot, of apparently unrelated and entirely "natural" causes, means his death ought to be either excluded from any "count" of deaths at or caused by the riots, since neither applies to him. Are we including anyone as a "death" in this article who died after the riot—and for how long? A week? A month? The fact that the media blew the story for months doesn't mean he now ought to remain in a death total—if the information known today was known the day after the riot, he never would have been included in the infobox in the first place, and of course it's enough to take him out. The medical examiner's report is a primary source—The Hill quotes it, but neither endorses it nor concludes it's correct. At this point, the most obvious relevance of Sicknick's death to our article subject is that, after months of media insisting he was killed by the riot, he wasn't—and died of natural causes. We of course should include that there was an enormous amount of media speculation that turned out to be spectacularly wrong—and leave any further speculation and innuendo out, please. Elle Kpyros (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The AP reports that the determination of a natural cause of death means the medical examiner found that a medical condition alone caused his death — it was not brought on by an injury. CBS reports that Diaz said the autopsy found no evidence of internal or external injuries, or of an allergic reaction to the chemical substance, that The "natural" classification is used "when a disease alone causes death," the medical examiner's office said in the summary. "If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural", and that the medical examiner acknowledged that all that transpired [during the riot] played a role in his condition. NBC's Washington D.C. affiliate reports that D.C.'s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner said Monday that Sicknick's cause of death was "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis," and the manner of death was "natural," not a homicide. He probably shouldn't be listed as someone who was a casualty based off of this—medical examiner reports are likely more reliable than general speculation by mainstream press on the cause of death—though I think that referring to the reporting on his death being possibly homicide as "disinformation" also isn't reflective of the situation—agencies were generally reporting based off of the information that they had at the time. Reporting has changed as the facts on the ground have developed, though, and I think that we should update the article to reflect more recent reporting. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about Benjamin Philips? He apparently died in the morning four hours before the riot began, why is he included as a fatality in the storming event? Yodabyte (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , it doesn't matter where the media sourced the info from if it was so categorically wrong. Note too that Democrats also referred to the Sicknick bashing as part of their impeachment efforts. Except Sicknick wasn't bashed. Thus the media and Democrat efforts to claim otherwise - whether through malicious intent or naked incompetence really doesn't matter. It was disinformation peddled for weeks on end! And why has it taken 3.5 months for the truth to come out when the autopsy was done something like 2.5 months ago? 人族 (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * medical examiner reports are likely more reliable than general speculation by mainstream press on the cause of death. This would be true if they contradict, but they do not.  The medical examiner's report specifically and unambiguously goes out of its way to decline to state that his death was unrelated to the events the prior day.  Therefore, the other sources remain the best available sources on whether it was connected, and it must continue to be listed in the infobox.  Furthermore, the medical examiner's report specifically and unambiguously says that five people died as a result of the storming of the capitol, so using it as an argument to change the number to four is a direct misuse of the source. These are not points of speculation - they are what the medical examiner's report itself says. Of course we should update it elsewhere to say everything sources highlighted as important in the medical examiner's report (including the "everything that transpired" line, which multiple sources obviously highlighted as relevant), but using it as an argument to change the number in the infobox or to remove Sicknick from it is a direct, unambiguous misuse of the source that would be using it to make a chance that directly contradicts what it says. It establishes that Sicknick's death was (probably) not homicide, although the final determination about that is of course ultimately made in court; it specifically does not establish that it was unrelated to the storming of the capitol, and there is absolutely no grounds to read it any other way, so we must continue to treat it as related, per the overwhelming sources that continue to do so, until / unless we have actual sources saying otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This double-negative—"specifically and unambiguously goes out of its way to decline to state that his death was unrelated"—in no way asserts it was related. And things can be "related" in any number of ways—time, place, inclusion in news reports which later turn out to be false—which is totally different from saying that one is contributory to or causal of the other (or that all related things deserve inclusion in a Wikipedia article). WSJ says: "Report cites natural causes in officer’s death, drawing no links to Jan. 6 attack ." NY asserts: "Medical Examiner: Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Killed by Clot, Not Rioters ." I'm unclear as to why there's such a strong push to claim, or even insinuate, a contributory and/or causal relationship here where none has been established—and indeed, has not even been claimed by the ME. Is this just a case of fundamental conservatism requiring more effort required to undo incorrect editing than to include it? Obviously the fact that "overwhelming sources" say something false does not mean it ought to be included in an article—that's obvious common sense. And what does "not homicide, [but] the final determination about that is of course ultimately made in court"—mean? And if there's no conclusion that Sicknick's death was caused by a person, no court case that alleges so, and indeed no evidence that it was—then we cannot speculate that his death was caused by a riot or rioters (for WP:BLP reasons, among others). I personally think that only people whose death was directly attributable to the protests should be included in the article (some of the people included here clearly didn't "storm the Capitol" and including them seems a WP:BLP violation)—do articles about other protests include deaths of people who died of completely unrelated causes during them—let alone those who died before or after ? What's next—people who died shortly before watching them on TV? Enough with this, please: we really need to stick to the facts and, by all means report that the media got this wrong—but not that Sicknick died as a result of, during, or in any way that was significantly related to the "storming". That is simply perpetuating obvious misinformation. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Still, Diaz told the newspaper that "all that transpired" on January 6 "played a role in his condition." There's your "contributory and/or causal relationship". .He was involved in a highly stressful situation, and then died of a cardiac event. It's not a fire extinguisher to the head, but it's clearly related. All that this means is that those guys with the bear mace likely won't be facing charges of murder. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like you should be more concerned about Wikipedia carrying false information for months at a time. That means the system did not work. This is not the place for rumors. To continue to propagate the information on the thinnest of justifications seems negligent. Nweil (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , we reflect what reliable sources say, and that includes their mistakes. When they correct the record, so do we. It's not rumor mongering to say that stress can provoke a cardiac event. That's been proven through medical research. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reflecting their mistakes has always been an inherently bad idea, encyclopedically. A stroke is a cerebrovascular event, not cardiac, and while stress and hypertension can be contributory factors, this report says nothing like that. Even his cherrypicked quote to a reporter only means what you think it does because it's vague as hell; "all that transpired" means literally every interaction that day is equally to blame. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this - we have the editorial discretion to reflect parts of reliable sources that are "more reliable", and I've had a problem with the "over quoting" that some people use to justify putting obviously wrong material into our articles just because it's in a reliable source. At this point, Sicknick's death cannot be considered connected to the events - the medical examiner obviously can't say "yes, for sure, the strokes weren't related" but unless someone brings forth a reliable source that says bear spray causes strokes then I think we need to use editorial judgement here and not connect his death to the events any more than "he was there that day then died the next". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with both and —why this insistence on connecting a death to events that no one is claiming caused it ? "All that transpired… played a role in his condition" is, as noted above, now the single thread holding this together and it's hopelessly vague, a truism, and it doesn't mean what's deliberately being insinuated here—the statement is true of everyone's condition at every moment of their life. As  pointed out above, Reuters quotes the city, which has made abundantly clear: "The city said it describes the manner of death as 'natural' in cases in which a disease alone causes death. If death is 'hastened by an injury,' then the manner of death is not deemed natural." His death was of natural causes—it wasn't caused, hastened, or otherwise connected with the events of the day before. Every fact-checker has confirmed this, as here So why is this simple fact, attested to by the official scientist making the legal determination and confirmed by dozens of RS, so difficult to accept? Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, people here are attempting to connect one person's opinion to the "official report" and give it the same status - there's a reason that the official report does not say it played a role - because the medical examiner can't include that in a professional, official report. His opinion, no matter what it is, should not be taken above the official report, and attempting to use his opinion as a part of the official report is a violation of SYNTH that I'm unwilling to continue fighting. The fact that people are attempting to justify inclusion because "stress can provoke a cardiac event" when that was not included in the official report is the most blatant violation of SYNTH possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Video shot by Congressman Dan Kildee D-Flint - via Michael Moore on Facebook Watch.webm

Lead Figures
Shouldn't Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and others who helped to incite the storming at the "Save America" Rally be included under lead Figures? Rudy Giuliani "Let's have trial by combat" Mo Brooks "Today is the day, American Patriots start taking down names and kicking some ass". There is a lot to quotes from key figures in the Save America Rally that seem to encourage the storming and violence. Many who stormed the capitol confirm they did so because of the words of their president and other speakers at the rally. DentalHygienist (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be completely removed. Its misleading and original research and is unsourced. Nettless (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see it was, and has been removed, no they were not leaders.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You believe that without Donald Trump's speech at the Save America Rally the storming still would have occurred? In your opinion there were no leaders or key figures in the January 6th Storming? Seems like a tough sell. DentalHygienist (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the beauty of Wikipedia - we don't have to care about whose "opinion" is right or not, because we just follow what reliable sources say - and I haven't seen a single source which calls Trump the "leader" of the storming. Kinda hard to lead something that you aren't telling people to do, aren't giving orders to people about, and aren't present at anyway, if you want my "opinion". And yeah, I think that there were enough wackos in DC on that day that there was bound to be some kind of violent riotous activity happen to something - there were some people who literally went there just to "stir shit", no matter how much they claim they were there to "peacefully protest" for Trump. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and Trump did not directly tell his people to storm the capitol. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html It is tricky to decide who counts as a lead figure and who doesn't. Trump organized that rally and that meeting of his supporters though. "Be there, be wild" His speech was filled with violent imagery. Without Trump organizing that Rally and without his claims of fraud and encouragement to "take back our country" I scarcely doubt January 6th's storming would have happened. The FBI has interviewed hundreds of suspects who admitted Trump was the reason for their behavior. United States Attorney for the District of Columbia discusses Trump's role here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoAqWnD7NTI&ab_channel=60Minutes https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-investigation-sedition-charges-60-minutes-2021-03-21/ DentalHygienist (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

January 5 Meeting
The current "January 5 meeting" category lists "Attendees included Donald Jr and Eric Trump, Michael Flynn, and Corey Lewandowski. Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville has since stated that he did not attend the meeting[123] but evidence appears to show otherwise.[124][125]" I believe that the names Rudy Giuliani and Kimberly Guilfoyle should be included in this list, and that Tommy Tuberville should be confirmed. This is based on information listed in a Facebook post and video about the meeting made by claimed attendee Daniel Beck; I find his video and post to be credible because of the corresponding locations and predictions that "something big" was planned for the next day. I cannot access the original Facebook post from Beck's page but a picture of it is linked here: https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/january-5-meeting-at-trump-international (I'm sorry if this addition is posted improperly! This is my first time editing.) Nmarcinkus (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable, secondary source that can be used on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , true, but it's worth watching - Abramson has a tendency to be annoying but right, and he shows his working, extensively. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added the statements of other attendees as to who were there. There were apparently 15 attendees, but we don't have the names for five of them. Maybe other sources will name them. Keep searching. -- Valjean (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I found two more. That leaves three unknowns, one of whom could have been Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Speech
Under "Donald Trump's speech," it lists the main points of his grievances with his loss, including that he called on Mike Pence to overturn the election results, which incited people at the riot to attempt to find Pence at the Capitol. This section should include that he bolstered his speech by posting the same sentiments online, reaching a wider audience (see his tweets and Facebook page from January 6). Also, consider putting under the general summary that he used his social media platforms to incite the sentiments behind the violence and was subsequently banned from many platforms. Nmarcinkus (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nmarcinkus! Can someone insert this reliable information into the Wikipedia page? -JSEMWiki21 JSEMWiki21 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021
It states 5 people died. It should clarify how. The way it's written the reader would assume it was bc of violence. This needs to be corrected, just as papers have done so. Only 1 woman was shot, by a capitol police officer & apparently later died. All others were of natural causes, heart conditions, strokes, etc. 2600:1001:B0D6:6FC4:7526:B8C0:412:8D08 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet - this is being actively discussed above and it appears likely changes will be made, but there's no rush to make changes as we aren't on any deadline and it's being actively discussed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Name change timeline?
Did we ever set a timeline for when a title change for this article can be considered? I was a proponent of the current title during the various attempts at name changes a couple of months ago. That was then, and this is now. I have no objective research to share to back up this point, but it seems as though the media (in the US at least) is at least somewhat coalescing around a common name of "January 6 [United States] Capitol insurrection." At any rate, the words "January 6" are included. (As spoken, it's an ordinal number -- 6th -- but that isn't great for Wikipedia namespace precedent.)

Not going to go on and on now. Just wondering if there's an idea when this can be reconsidered without driving everyone crazy. Moncrief (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea, research into sources is needed. Why not just "January 2021 United States Capitol insurrection"? Think that was the only one that month. . dave souza, talk 09:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think I've ever once heard anyone call it that. See also September 11 attacks. Moncrief (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Have we considered instead of changing the name of the article from "2021 Storming of the United States Capitol to "January 6th Terrorist Attacks"? According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is defined as "violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature" (https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism). I believe many would agree that those individuals who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6th would meet the FBI's definition for classification as a domestic terrorist. Given the ideologic influences that fueled the actions of January 6th, I believe that we, the Wikipedia community, should recognize the severity of these violent actions by correctly classifying them. -JSEMWiki21JSEMWiki21 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The "insurrection" name not only failed to get consensus in at least 2 move requests (one of which was requesting another name but many people still wanted "insurrection") as it does not meet COMMONNAME by far and was considered to be potentially not NPOV. There's a consensus against calling it a "terrorist attack" in the article - and that to me should be reconsidered before any name change request. No, the media is not "coalescing around" the "insurrection" name - in fact, the insurrection name was only common for about the two weeks following the attacks in some sources, but most non-opinion articles variously call it "attack" or "storming" or "riot" - with "riot" being the most common (a plurality, but not a majority by far). If you really want to convince others that "insurrection" is the common name, you should start to accumulate and post here reliable sources (i.e. not opinion/blog articles from otherwise reliable sources, but actual news), and you should do so for all common names, including "riot", "attack", "storming", and identify how many times each one refers to it outside of quotations. Quotations in RS are another problem - a reliable source that refers to it as "riot" but has 8 quotations of people who said "insurrection" does not mean that they are referring to it as insurrection. Personally, I don't have a problem with it being reconsidered at any point - I don't think (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that a moratorium did not reach consensus (or if it did I can't find it listed anywhere easy to see, so that probably should happen if it exists), and as such there's no real reason it can't be "considered" now. Like I said, however, that "consideration", to not be disruptive and be another frivolous and POINTy move request, should be accompanied by a thorough evaluation of reliable sources for COMMONNAME purposes - and I think it may be a better idea to just start to flesh that out here in a subsection before anyone even thinks about starting a move request. Most past move requests suffered because people !voted based on opinions without backing them up with evidence - and once the evidence actually started being evaluated (i.e. tables/lists of sources) then it was very clear that "insurrection" wasn't the common name - thus leading to the non-moves before. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a post script, the reason that it would be a good idea to spend at least a week or so with multiple editors accumulating sources for COMMONNAME consideration is that we all suffer from "selection bias" where we are more likely to select reliable sources that appear to align with our personal viewpoints. I'm not trying to say that User:Moncrief or anyone else is wrong to have a personal viewpoint, but if Moncrief and others personally think it was an insurrection, they are more likely to unintentionally ignore, pass over, or miss evidence or instances in reliable sources that do not call it an insurrection - which is why beginning with a "prequel" where people are all discussing sources would be a better idea and result in a higher likelihood of a consensus one way or another rather than another "no consensus either way so it stays". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All of that sounds good. I find it ironic that I'm the one bringing up a name change now, as I was very much in favor of keeping the title as Storming back in... February or so. At that point, there didn't seem to be any COMMONNAME we could refer to. You're absolutely right that we need hard data to move forward. I do hear "insurrection" continually in what I consider mainstream media, but I'm not consuming a wide enough sample to make this anything more than anecdotal, which isn't good for the purposes of this article. There was a vocal group of editors who were into accumulating data about media word usage about the event a few months ago, but I don't think they're active anymore. I'm not invested enough to become one of them, so I'm going to leave this be for now. I just hope that as a group we're still on the lookout for any broad-based emergence of a COMMONNAME. I'm not sure the current title is the right one to stand the test of time. Over and out on this from me. Moncrief (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried to do so back in the past move requests, but I got extremely frustrated that people were basically ignoring the evidence and that in at least one case the closer just basically did a headcount and ignored all the data and arguments we tried to bring forth. If another move request is made I will probably try to compile sources again, but I’m certainly too burned out to try and do so myself - storming isn’t that bad and while I think riot is likely to be the “correct” name per common name it’s just a word change that wouldn’t fix anything right now. I think the people working on it before may have kept the data on a subpage or something, I’ll try and look into this and reply here if I find it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "riot" name is probably not the best name for this article. If the name is potentially being changed, I'd like to point out the undertones of the word "storming," as many would not agree that "storming" is a neutral word. It tends to have more positive and noble connotations, such as in the storming of the beaches on D-Day or storming the barricade in the French Revolution. Just wanted to throw this out there to keep in mind if/when the name is changed. Also, how do Wikipedia elections work, such as a name change election would for this article? How many people would usually participate - lots of people or usually just those attuned to this particular page? Thanks for your help and consideration! JSEMWiki21 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To view past name-change nominations, look at the top of this page for the text "This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below." Click "Show" in that block of text. You'll see the scope of the !voting on the various title-change nominations earlier this year. Riot was one of the nominations, and you can read the discussion that ensued. Many people !voted in these nominations, but at the time there was more focused attention on this article. I'm not sure if you'd see the same participation levels today, but who knows. If you're interested in the discussion of the various pros and cons that editors brought up about the various naming proposals, reading through those nomination discussions would be useful. (By the way, I know my exclamation point before "vote" is a twee Wikipedia convention, but it's meant to reiterate that "voting" here isn't a majority-rules process.) Moncrief (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Note to archiver of talk threads: It'd be fine with me if you want to archive this. There isn't consensus to move forward on this now, and I'm not sure there's more to say at this point. Someone could bring up the topic again when they have evidence and a plan. Up to you, just giving my OK if you want to archive this. Moncrief (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Include under 'Terminology used to describe the event'
Domestic Terrorism? According to section 18 U.S. Code § 2331 domestic terrorism means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US or of any other nation State. The activities must appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Finally, the activities need to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the US. [1]

An attempted coup? A coup is an illegal attempt to overthrow the sitting government usually by the military or other government security forces. Advocating to overthrow the government is criminalised in section 18 U.S Code § 2385. However, it is unlikely that the current events qualify as a coup because those who have been identified with links to the military would have participated in an individual capacity, versus as part of an organised military or government force.[1]

A riot? Code of the District of Columbia Chapter 13 § 22–1322 states that a riot is “a public disturbance involving an assemblage of 5 or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” Though the protest was initially lawfully planned (and approved), it is evident that the definition of riot can be applied to activities that evolved throughout the day. [1]

ICCT.nl (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * We do as far as I know say it has been characterised as these.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The section is "Terminology used to describe the event." That means how reliable sources have described it, not Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is WP:OR and not very constructive. It's best to refer to the protests by what reliable sources call them. Innican Soufou (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
2021 Terrorist Attack on United States Capitol Historicfactualindividualseekingtruth202100 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Also domestic terrorism is already mentioned in the article.  Giving it additional weight, such as moving to a new title, needs a consensus of editors and strong support from multiple reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"induced by chemical irritants"
I can find no reliable source that explicitly claims the blood clots leading to his strokes were "induced by chemical irritants" in this article. Further, the text in the article doesn't support that assertion. Maybe I'm blind - so I'm posting here so someone can correct me if so - but if there is no reliable source saying it's been proven that a "chemical irritant" caused the blood clots leading to his stroke, I'm going to reduce the infobox to just saying that a police officer died. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Good call. The claim was introduced by in this diff. Terjen (talk) Terjen (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)