Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

1st Amendment Praetorian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's with the blatant bias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title and Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on subject names in the lead sentence

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

---

Should the name(s) of this article appear in the lead sentence? AlexEng^(TALK) 02:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

As proposer, I suggest that focusing the discussion to one of the following three options will help streamline the process. Please feel free to add alternative proposals directly to this section.

• Option A:

  The 2021 United States Capitol attack, also referred to as January 6, occurred when a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.

• Option B:

  The 2021 United States Capitol attack occurred on January 6, 2021, when a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

• Option C:

  On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

  AlexEng^(TALK) 02:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D: The same as Option C but with an explanatory footnote that includes common names:

  On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump attacked the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Threaded Discussion

• Support A per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, MOS:ALTNAME, and WP:OTHERNAMES. The name January 6 is not just the date of the attack, but also a common shorthand name for the event itself, as supported by numerous sources, including international sources such as the BBC and the NZ Herald. In particular, WP:OTHERNAMES adds that

  All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term.

  This is the case for January 6. It's also the example we follow in September 11 attacks, which has the following lead sentence:

  The September 11 attacks, also commonly referred to as 9/11, were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the militant Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

  We should include both the name and the alternative name in the lead sentence of this article as well. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Community consensus strongly disfavors the notion that "January 6" is the common name. Therefore, it's inappropriate to treat and bold it as the title would normally be in the lede. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: this RfC is to determine community consensus on including a name or names used to refer to the subject in the lead sentence. Nobody is suggesting that we change the article title per WP:COMMONNAME. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "January 6" appears in the first three words of the article. This is silly, as has already been noted in the discussion above. Leave as-is. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  "August 28" appears in the first three words of Obama tan suit controversy, but only my close friends and I refer to the event as just "August 28". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option B + D. The title of the article should appear in the lead, but we should also be listing (either in a footnote or the lead as well) various common appellations. Just "January 6" by itself is by no means the WP:COMMONNAME of this subject, and does not have the currency of, say, "9/11' or "September 11" for a specific set of events.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D All the other other options, except C, read unnaturally and violate MOS:AVOIDBOLD. However, it's safe to say that this event does have some common names: Capitol riot, Capitol insurrection, or January 6. While none of these names are commonly used enough to change the title under WP:COMMONNAME, I still think they are significant enough to warrant a lede mention. Therefore, I see D as a good compromise that stays within guideline and provides significant information. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A per AlexEng, and please end all these extensive arguments about how to call it. The world of academia will notice that. (Same person as the IP in the previous section.) -47.196.35.44 (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D is the most encyclopedic. Option C as a second choice. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Question - I have seen it said they exist, but can someone show me an example of an RS saying "January 6th", not as part of a sentence, but as a title?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: if you'll check the reflist below this RfC, you'll find numerous sources saying "January 6" as the name of the event, not as part of a sentence. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option B A title should be in bold at the beginning. Even if January 6 is one of the common names, it is still an ambiguous English language phrasing, and unlikely to be a timeless name or the name used in translations to other languages where such a specific date would not matter. The descriptive unambiguous name is best. If there is really a need to discuss various names then there can be an etymology section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option C as a first choice, Option B as a second choice. Wikipedia guidance is clear that we should default to natural language always, and that we don't have to bend over backwards to bold the titles of articles, especially where the article title is descriptive rather than a proper name. This is a case where the title is descriptive and not a proper name, as bolding would imply. If we have a later section that discusses the nomenclature of the event, that's fine, but the first sentence should be as close to natural language as possible. C accomplishes this best, and B is fine too, as it appears to at least flow reasonably well if one ignores the bolding. I think that A and D are the least desirable for the simple fact that the event doesn't really have any formal name, there are dozens of variations used when describing it, and none really predominates. --Jayron32 13:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D as a first choice, Option C as a second choice, per discussion in above section Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Use of "January 6" in the MOS:LEAD of this article (pertaining to MOS:AVOIDBOLD, also WP:POSA). C is the longstanding and current version, and D is a natural step up from that version, while A and B would be a step back. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option B MOS:FIRST, MOS:Redundancy, MOS:BOLDTITLE Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D as a first choice, mainly per MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Alternatively, if there is consensus that the title should appear bolded in the lede, then I like User:SMcCandlish's suggestion of B+D above. (Summoned by bot) Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support B The title should be used in the lead. I also suggest mentioning other common names via a footnote. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein: that reasoning seems inconsistent with MOS:AVOIDBOLD. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  AVOIDBOLD only applies when Wikipedia has made up an awkward WP:NTITLE for lack of any better option. But that's not the case here. The exact phrase "2021 United States Capitol attack" and close variants of it like "2021 US Capitol attack" are in common usage, which you can find out in a matter of seconds [5]. Aside from "Capitol insurrection" this is about as close as we're going to get to a WP:COMMONNAME. That said, the world would not end if this phrase were not boldfaced; including the Option D terms, either directly in the lead or in a footnote, is really the important part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option D as first, Option C as second. The title of the article is descriptive in construction, rather than a solid common name, which is evidenced in the awkwardness of A and B. AVOIDBOLD should apply in this case. — Goszei (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Reflist for RfC

References

Notes

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

"Natural causes"

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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:

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

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

Elizabeth Warren quote

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

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

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

Is death toll in the 2021 United States Capitol attack WIKI accurate Following not listed

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

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

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

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

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

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

updated estimate of number of people breaching the building

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

Gas mask vs Escape hood

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

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

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

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

Double

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

Method

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

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

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

Vote on putting January 6th in title?

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

---

I was involved in many of the initial votes on this almost a year ago, but as time passes, it's clearer and clearer that the common name of this event includes the date January 6th. Wikipedia is out of step on this. Just wondering where we are with the idea of voting on this again. Moncrief (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Our naming guideline calls for us to use the most concise title that is unambiguous and commonly recognizable. WP:UCRN is not the entire guideline. There was no other US Capitol attack in 2021. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question, but I appreciate your opinion. Moncrief (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's an observation of fact not an opinion. WP isn't "out of step" in this regard. I feel like the where we are at on voting part was implicitly addressed in my last reply, too. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of your argument regarding the WP guidelines, there was the April 2021 United States Capitol car attack (also a US Capitol attack in 2021). From what I know, there was no other Capitol attack on January 6. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. Aligning with WP:COMMONNAME is worth the slight loss in WP:CONCISION. January 6 United States Capitol attack is not overly long and is a major improvement from 2021 United States Capitol attack. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

agree GordonGlottal (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I was holding out on this for a while, but, at this point, I'd probably support changing "2021" to "January 6". ––FormalDude ^talk 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like there's no current moratorium on proposing a vote on the title then. Moncrief (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree there's no moratorium. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

January 6 has clearly become COMMONNAME. Feoffer (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe a !vote is warranted and also that January 6th is now the common name. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. "January 6th Insurrection" is to "9/11" now.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose January 6th sounds almost like a meme to me, maybe a blog post. As an encyclopedia, I think the current title is appropriate. Will there be other Capitol attacks? I guess my point is, using numbered dates is problematic when you extrapolate 50 years into the future (e.g. May 23rd something something attack, November 1st something something uprising, etc., etc.) Many middle-aged Americans are familiar with the date December 7, 1941, but the corresponding article is aptly titled, "Attack on Pearl Harbor". Maybe the time will come when removing 2021 from the title is appropriate and we'll just have United States Capitol attack. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think "January 6th US Capitol attack" or something similar is appropriate. As others have pointed out, September 11 attacks is not called "2001 US airline attacks" or anything along those lines. "1/6", "January 6th", and "Jan 6" have become acceptable ways of referring to this, including in newspaper headlines, while few sources bother to include the year in their titles. Perhaps we can start a move request so we can discuss a specific title suggestion and vote on it? Toadspike (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

September 11 is an anomaly or outlier. Most articles do not use numbered dates in their titles, they use years and locations, with examples: 2014 Pennsylvania State Police barracks attack || 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting || 2009 Fort Hood shooting || 2019 Tacoma attack || 2015 San Bernardino attack || 2017 New York City truck attack || 1983 United States Senate bombing -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The unprecedented 1/6 attack/insurrection/storming of the U.S. Capitol is also a historical anomaly. Much more importantly, since we could debate that point endlessly and not reach a definitive conclusion, the Capitol attack is almost always referred to in media and discourse by its date alone, as are the ancillary official reactions to it, such as the the January 6th commission [6]. At any rate, we aren't voting now, so we (or at least I) can save our arguments for an actual vote. Moncrief (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not a complete anomaly; the Capitol was attacked and set on fire during the Burning of Washington. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the difference is that the Burning of Washington is not commonly known as the August 24 burning, while this event is commonly known as the January 6 Capitol riot, insurrection, etc. and not really by any other name. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 18:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The main historical difference is that the Burning of Washington was an attack by foreign troops, not US citizens, but that's a distraction I should have chosen not to engage with. Whether or not the Jan 6th attack is a one-time historical anomaly isn't relevant to what its common name is. Moncrief (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yah, the Capitol has been attacked twice. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You think January 6 United States Capitol attack is a better title? Does it not appear awkward to you? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside that neither I nor anyone else here (that I can see) has proposed a specific new title, it's not relevant whether or not I think it's awkward. So far, all of the reasons not to have January 6th in the title seem to be an appeal to Wikipedia's guidelines and bureaucracy rather than an acknowledgment of the event's common name in the wider world. No one is voting now or even proposing a name, so I hope not to get re-engaged in the discussion about this until a vote occurs. I've made my points. Moncrief (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant in the wider discussion (for what I'd hope to be obvious reasons) but I'll leave it at that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant whether or not I think it's "awkward" to have the date in the title. My personal opinions fall under the category of a personal point of view. Our goal here is to use commonly recognizable names. If you're referring to an opinion on the naturalness of the specific title you mentioned, I'll note again that no one here is advocating for that specific title. Moncrief (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We're clearly talking past each other so best to wait for other editors to chime in. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"January 6 United States Capitol attack" is an inappropriate hybridization of presumed COMMONNAME and a descriptive name. It is awkward. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Without knowing what the title will be how can we express any opposition or support for it? At this time the suggestion is just to add January 6th which means " January 6th 2021 United States Capitol attack" or "2021 January 6th United States Capitol attack" or "2021 United States Capitol January 6th attack". Anything else is not "just adding Jan 6th". So what is the actual suggestion?Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No one is asking for you to express any opposition or support for a specific title. There's no vote taking place. I started the section to ask "where we were" with voting again, an admittedly vague phrasing. I was wondering if there was a moratorium in place regarding voting on a new title. Sounds like there isn't a moratorium. Thanks, everyone, for the responses. Moncrief (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No moratorium, but a "January 6"-based RM was snow closed as not moved in November 2021. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

January 6 attack on the United States Capitol appears to be the COMMMONNAME. The phrase "Jan 6 US Capitol Attack" is awkward. Feoffer (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Section on january 6 anniversary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More categories needed

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

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

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

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

Readership spike

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

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

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

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

Oath Keepers' seditious conspiracy charges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only one person died on January 6th 2021 as a result of the capital riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film inspired by the attack

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

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

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

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

Wording needs to be less biased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add new law to domestic response section?

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

Requested move 8 January 2022

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus yet – there's an argument that Jan 6th is the common name, but it's not persuasive enough nor is the consensus strong enough yet that it's the case. I would suggest waiting a few months to let this aspect become more clear. Sceptre (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

---

2021 United States Capitol attack → January 6 United States Capitol attack – Per this discussion, which asked to hold a new vote on this move. The previous vote that proposed the change found that there was no consensus to move from 2021 to January 6, but did not preclude any further changes to that effect if something changed in the meantime, and anyway it tried to change two aspects of the title "storming -> attack; 2021 -> January 6". Another discussion was held in November, but it advocated a much shorter title. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Almost all of the links that appear after typing in "January 6" are about the Capitol attack - the first link not connected to that event was at the bottom of the fourth page of Google search (at least that's how Google in Poland works). Scholars seem to also refer to it as "January 6" and not by the current title (obviously, I only include papers from 2021 and on). I would say that at this moment, January 6 has already become a synonym to the Capitol attack being discussed here, just as September 11 is for the terrorist attacks on WTC. There are really few other events that are being referred by date as this one - we should reflect it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ignoring us and Britrainca, this is the first hit for "United States Capitol attack" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-capitol-breach.I also note the first page does not seem to include Jan 6th. Thus I am sure this is the common name.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Szmenderowiecki: My suggestion for you is to try capitol attack as well. Why should we be so specific? Also, I don't thin your comparison with the 11 September incident is fair, since it had nearly no alternatives (you can hardly find another common title for 11/8 incident). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I am unsure there is any common name really.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both options are equally recognizable, so WP:COMMONNAME isn't an issue. We generally use the year to disambiguate names of articles about events, so removing it seems a step backwards while simultaneously getting less concise. VQuakr (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "January 6 United States Capitol attack" is not the COMMONNAME, so the current title works better per enwiki standards. I don't think we have a COMMONNAME yet, though I am seeing "January 6 coup" and "January 6 insurrection" a bit. Maybe we're moving in that direction, but I don't know that we're there yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  "January 6 United States Capitol attack" bring up "About 532 results", "2021 United States Capitol attack" brings up About 48,600. Of course there will not all be article titles, but just usage within articles. But it is still an indicators that January 6 United States Capitol attack is not the common (or even widely used) name.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Typing in "January 6 Capitol attack" yields about 353K hits, but the problem is that the previous RM had the problem that when two changes were proposed, either could be attacked. I think this RM should focus on whether to substitute "2021" with "January 6", while whether to remove "United States" from there is something that can be debated later, in another move discussion, so that we are sure we are making one change at a time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Halt Consensus will not develop. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  That feels a bit WP:CRYSTAL. Moncrief (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm a sorcerer and a gambler, trust me. Or don't, if you're feeling lucky. Either way, that guideline is inapplicable to this arcane Wikipedian process, more about content and creation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Although I started the discussion above, I personally would have waited to start a !vote until exact wording of a new title could be hammered out and evidence for the change more fully collected, but I'll vote to support. "January 6th" has become the common name for the event and is the way in which this event is referred to across media and discourse, from news articles to the official commission established to investigate the attack. Ask yourself if people in your life wouldn't look at you cross-eyed if you called the event "the 2021 Capitol attack" rather than some combination of words that includes "January 6th." The pushback here against including "January 6th" in the title has so far seemed to revolve around Wiki-bureaucracy rather than an acknowledgment that "January 6th" is how people, in the nation where it occurred, refer to the event. Trying to insist that that's "just not so" is going to fall on deaf ears with me. I expect multiple counterarguments resulting in dreary data collection, but I think anyone who is actually honest with themselves knows what the common name is. Attention must be paid to the fact that Wikipedia is global, and perhaps things are less clearcut outside of the USA, but, as with the September 11 attacks, which for a time were called by other names in other English-speaking countries (11 September, or 11/9, and so forth), precedence ought to be given to the variety of language used where the event occurred. Moncrief (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as the generally accepted title for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. Even sources that defer from labeling the event still call it "January 6" [9] [10]. ––FormalDude talk 19:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Even sources that defer from labeling the event still call it "January 6" ... Which, in particular, indicates nothing other than "January 6" (used on it's own) possibly being a convenient media language construct used with increased frequency to avoid terminology potentially unpopular in certain segments. From which might arise a thought that using it would not make for optimal encyclopedic writing. And this is not at all related to reliability. (Even the most reliable news orgs employ the news style.) This happens in academic writing when writers use fairly artificial language to stress their detachment from the subject. We must be the most interested in instances of usage when the the sources are trying to be the most concrete and precise. (Also, yes, "Jan. 6" is conveniently short for headline use) — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose nothing wrong with the current title it says exactly what it is, and we normally only add a day/month if they were multiple events in the same year. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  we normally only add a day/month if they were multiple events in the same year There were multiple events in the same year -- this article begins with a hatnote pointing to April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Feoffer (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per MilborneOne nothing wrong with the current title and nothing gained by the change, will this be recognisable in two or three years? There is no reason to believe that a common name has yet formed, and we would expect the date to be the more common identifier in the same year as the event. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Can I state the obvious, that during 2021, all news articles are going to refer to the date, but ordinarily NOT the year, because date is sufficient as a clarifier. Now, and even more so in future years, the year will become MORE necessary, but the date less remembered, UNLESS the date aquires the kind of status that 9/11 has, which I find unlikely. Why would we be surprised at 2021 articles often using the date but not the year? Frequent use is not a clear indicator of COMMONNAME. Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There is some usage calling this "January 6 attack" but fortunately that is already a redirect to this page so it serves the same purpose as if we retitled this. There has also been some attempt, notably by Brian Williams, to call this event 1/6 (as comparable to 9/11); it hasn't caught on, but just in case somebody searches for it, this article is listed at the 1/6 DAB page. Bottom line: alternate names already redirect here, "2021 attack" as the current name is well established, and it appears to be the common name for the event. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. But see my comment below about United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would have to disagree with you that redirects fulfill the same purpose as actually renaming the article. If that were true, I could stop any requested move by just adding a redirect. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support because it's better than the current title per WP:COMMONNAME, although I'd prefer something a little shorter. – Anne drew 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, at least as an improvement before considering further refinements, as it is much more common to refer to "January 6" than "2021" to reference this topic. See, for example, the January 6 commission, the Justice for J6 rally and the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Proposal change to 2021 "United States Capitol storming". January 6 is bad, giving no year reference and in 2021 there is no doubt of what storming it was. --Robertiki (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Judge Amit Mehta of the District Court of the District of Columbia wording of what happened "forcibly storming past exterior barricades, Capitol Police, and other law enforcement officers to enter the Capitol building". --Robertiki (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  "Storming" was strongly rejected a while back -- dig through the archives if you wanna see that discussion. Feoffer (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- Jan 6 is clearly COMMMONNAME while 2021 clearly is not. There were even two attacks in 2021, making the existing title problematic. Feoffer (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Which other attack/storming to the Capitol was in 2021 ? --Robertiki (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  This article currently has a disambig hatnote pointing to the other 2021 attack:This article is about the January 2021 attack. For the April 2021 car attack, see April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Feoffer (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for helping. Anyway, "2021 United States Capitol storming" and "2021 United State Capitol car attack" would maybe make a better approach ? --Robertiki (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Some editors say that Jan. 6 has become a common name, but in reality, that is a name that some political and media elements have been pushing but has gained no popular acceptance. To the Democratic Party leadership, the attack has the same significance as Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. Zoomers will not be telling their grandchildren where they were when for five hours they watched cable news and wondered if the Republic would survive. TFD (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  As a project, we absolutely must stay above this zero-sum, battlegroundy American political lens. Editors argue that "Jan 6" is more common, more precise, and causally related to timing, being the statute-mandated certification date. We do these moves every day, this is nothing to do with Pearl Harbor or agreeing with your political opponents. Feoffer (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  There is obvious political motivation in trying to identify an event with a date, so that it is remembered. Remember, remember the 5th of November, the 4th of July, the Glorious 12th or "December 7, 1941— a date which will live in infamy." But none of this works if it is imposed from above, and it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to title articles in order to conform with partisan attempts to name an event. TFD (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Comments like this are why WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE exist. Besides, it's not partisan to use the date in a title, Fox News often uses "Jan 6" to refer to the events. "Jan. 6 Capitol riot – one year later, DC remains on edge", "One year later: Why January 6th still erodes our democracy" ,Hannity reacts to the January 6 riot , "Zero January 6 defendants charged with insurrection" ,"Democrats wants to politicize January 6: Rep. Scalise" Feoffer (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't use the term partisan and am surprised to see Fox News presented as a non-partisan source. Don't bring up AGF and BATTLE without explaining how they relate. I didn't say you invented the term. The term presents a way of looking at history that has no support in public usage or academic writing. TFD (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  You actually did use the word partisan: partisan attempts to name an event, hence why Fox was cited to demonstrate bipartisan usage of "Jan 6". AGF/BATTLEGROUND is relevant because you're arguing backward from the perceived political implications. Your reasoning is "some partisan I disagree with liken this event to pearl harbor or 9/11, I don't want them to win, so we shouldn't use the date in the title". But you were blind to other valid 100%-non-partisan reasons to use Jan 6 in the title -- Jan 6 is the common name, the precise name, the statute-mandated date of the certification. And you also failed to realize that that everybody uses Jan 6, not just one party. When you're talking about Pearl Harbor, you're kicking down a strawman only you can see. Feoffer (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are people who believe coronavirus is a hoax and the moon landing was faked. I cannot persuade them differently. But at least I should be able to persuade you that your take on the events has little if any support. BTW, read the news about Kazakhstan - that's a real insurrection. TFD (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Another example of "January 6" used by the right is the Justice for J6 rally, which was a right-wing rally. It does not appear to be a partisan term. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  To follow up on Feoffer's comment, I'm not aware of any partisan divide with the use of "January 6th." The differentiation comes in any terms used after the date (insurrection vs. protest, for example), not the date itself. To test this hypothesis, I searched the neutral word "Capitol" at Newsmax.com and OANN.com, two of the most ideologically pro-Trump "news" sources around. In both cases, most articles that came up in the search about the attack used "January 6th" in the descriptor, even when the words following it were "protest" and "demonstration." Long story short: January 6th seems to have become the common name for the attack in American discourse, on all sides of the ideological spectrum. (Edit: Wikipedia automatically tagging my edit with "unreliable source" reminds me to mention what I hope is obvious: I'm not suggesting we use either of these incredibly biased sources for anything other than my experiment of trying to see if "January 6th" was deprecated in far-right media. Take it or leave it if that's not useful for you.) Moncrief (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Please do not bring politics into this. I disagree with your comment on "no popular acceptance", not only from personal experience showing WP:COMMONNAME conformity, but also because sources on both sides ([11] [12]) of the political debate use "Jan. 6" in their reporting. As for the comment on "zoomers", it is both completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, and, funny enough, probably false. Toadspike (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While it has been common name in the United States, "January 6 United States capitol attack" is only used by some left-wing/Democrat media and political experts that never gain wide acceptance among centrism or other political spectrum. Additionally, people outside the U.S. did not calling the attack as the "January 6 United States Capitol Attack" but rather "6 January US Capitol attack" (using day/month format) or more commonly as "2021 United States Capitol attack". So, i don't see whether "January 6" will be more established as commonly usage name until at least 3 years. 36.77.64.79 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  is only used by some left-wing/Democrat That's actually incorrect, Jan 6 is used across the American political spectrum. See above. Feoffer (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  The date format of the name should be the same as the article, which is month/day due to it being a United States topic. And why 3 years? That seems really arbitrary. We are currently at the point where there has been another January 6 and yet it persists to be the common name. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support January 6 has been consistently used by media to refer to this event for months now. Clearly, it is the WP:COMMONNAME that has endured the test of time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as the current title is more in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions, and "January 6 United States Capitol attack" is not a clear COMMONNAME (you might have "January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol", or "United States Capitol attack of 2021", or any number of other things). While "January 6" might be more common in the media than "2021", COMMONNAME doesn't apply as various names are used interchangeably. I'd also support a move back to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol but I suppose that ship has sailed. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UCN. Reliable sources have clearly been trending towards the used of "January 6" in the name of the event, the year is not often used. --Jayron32 02:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unlike what some of contributors are saying in this discussion, WP:COMMONNAME only comes into play when we are discussing adding "January 6" instead of "2021", not when discussing the entire title. It has been over a year, it is very clear "January 6" will continue to be the common name. Let's also remember that there was an additional attack on the Capitol in 2021 (April 2021 United States Capitol car attack) so saying that the year is necessary for disambiguation is moot. Also see my comments in the RfC above. This is obvious, guys. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would be interested to know how many editors saying support are US editors. I say that because outside the US, “January 6” is not recognisable, it’s not like the September 11 attacks or some other extremely recognisable date. I fear this proposed move will make the article less recognisable to non-US editors, and that the year is probably more recognisable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  "Jan 6" is used outside the US. AU:Hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 have been charged. But a bombmaker remains free UK: Jan 6 riot news: Capitol Police officer sues Trump as Pence aide slams GOP ‘moral disrepair’ CA:A year after Jan. 6 riot, Americans and Canadians agree U.S. democracy in peril: poll NZ: Was the January 6 attack on the Capitol an act of “terrorism”? Feoffer (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I’m sure you’ll find articles with any given title in any country. My point is that it’s not common or recognisable. Eg The Guardian on average just says US Capitol attack, and uses Jan 6 once on the topic search: [13]. Same is reflected across all UK media. People will probably not recognise “January 6”, or at minimum it won’t be the first term to come to mind. I’ll take the assertion that “Jan 6” is most common in US media at face value, but I’m quite confident that’s not true outside the US. It could be true in Canada too, due to proximity with the US, but I haven’t checked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think there was much fear in Canada that the great American republic was about to collapse. TFD (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    it's not... recognisable I think it's plenty recognisable -- UK sources use the day of the year in titles about the attack all the time, readers aren't baffled. Feoffer (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    It's not uncommon for articles about the anniversary of an event, all of them published Jan. 6, 2022, to mention the date in their headlines. And your source, The Guardian, has tried to build a U.S. audience, so isn't typical of foreign publications. Next door to the U.S., the CBC headline was "Biden says U.S. democracy under threat on Capitol riot anniversary." Attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't include a date, although everyone at one time knew it. The September 11 attacks does, but it is known by the date alone. If we called this the January 6 attack, it would be confusing. TFD (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    If we called this the January 6 attack, it would be confusing Moot -- that title is not under discussion. Attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't include a date Compare/Contrasts with Pearl or 9/11 are a total red herring and a waste of time to discuss -- this isn't about the "historical weight" of the event, it's just regular naming guidelines and disambig. Feoffer (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not particularly troubled if non-US media have yet to settle on a common name, if that's indeed the case. US media have settled on a common name; and, per WP:TITLEVAR, the title of an article "should use that nation's variety of English." (Redirects will of course ensure that those typing in other terms are able to find the article.) No doubt some will counter by deciding to interpret the word variety narrowly, as only pertaining to spelling and word usage, but I think common sense and courtesy would include a more generous interpretation of the word. Just as I would expect any British Wikipedian to be rather rightly... surprised by an American editor insisting that, say, 7 July 2005 London bombings be renamed (dropping the date, for example), due to a lack of usage examples of that phrasing in US media, so I'm rather surprised at non-US editors making similar entreaties here. Incidentally and per that example, I quite like User:Paintspot Infez's compromise suggestion below of January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack. It serves the multiple purposes of including both year and date as a compromise, incorporating the common name for the event in the country where it occurred, and better disambiguating the January 6th attack from the April 2021 United States Capitol car attack, much as the 7 July 2005 bombing article has all those same qualities and neatly disambiguates the events of 7 July from the much less destructive 21 July 2005 London bombings. Moncrief (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    That fails WP:CONCISE. WP:TITLEVAR is clearly referring to things like "recognised" vs "recognized", as clearly illustrated in the examples (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense)., not saying use a name only common in one country. Non-US media did settle on a common name, it's just that they haven't accepted "January 6" as US media did. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    What is the common name that non-US media have settled on, please? Could you clarify why "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack" fails WP:CONCISE, but "7 July 2005 London bombings" doesn't? I just re-read the guideline, and nothing strikes me as indicating why one would pass the test and the other wouldn't. Is it the building name vs. a city name that you think constitutes the failure? Moncrief (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    As far as I can tell, they just refer to it as the "US Capitol [X]", where X is some verb such as attack. Per WP:NCEVENTS we'd add a 'When' into that, which would conventionally be the year. As for 7 July 2005 London bombings, it seems the reason why 7 July 2005 London bombings is titled as such is because For the bombings that happened two weeks later, see 21 July 2005 London bombings. The title is necessary to be WP:PRECISE. See WP:NCEVENTS which says The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident which applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC) e: 01:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC) (edited to trim info that doesn't apply, since I figured out why the title is named as such)

    As I mentioned, adding the date to this title would similarly have the added benefit of differentiating it from the April 2021 United States Capitol car attack, which itself was a notable event that resulted in two deaths (one of them the perpetrator). Moncrief (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Although I have supported keeping the current title "2021 United States Capitol attack", I feel compelled to point out that the House investigation is called United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. We also have Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, and if this article is retitled, that one should be as well. We should be consistent in what we call it, and the official Congressional title makes a strong argument for January 6. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, the title set by the majority of the House formally reflects the position of one of the chambers of US legislative government, which doesn’t have any basis in WP:AT and specifically WP:CRITERIA. It’s even less convincing when you consider in polarised situations these titles are just decided by the party with a majority in the chamber (currently the Democrats, but it doesn’t really matter which it is). We shouldn’t decide article titles like that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your apparent assumption that the choice of names may have a partisan or political basis. Are you under the impression that Democrats call the event "January 6" while Republicans call it "2021"? I am unaware of any such partisan name choice. IMO the actual partisan divide is that Democrats want to talk about it and investigate it, without having a particular preference about what to call it — while Republicans don't want to mention it at all but rather "move on". We can decide here what to call it, but I don't think the parties care one way or the other. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

      I didn't say partisanship, and that's not my point. My point is that WP:AT says articles are decided by the WP:CRITERIA. We don't even recognise WP:OFFICIALNAMES sometimes, consider eg Chinese Communist Party. We shouldn't be setting titles based on the titling of one house of US legislative government for their own committee. That isn't a strong argument for January 6. Just as we shouldn't decide what to title Chinese Communist Party based on what the Chinese government's position is. For one, it's US-centric, and leads to titles that are mainly only common in US media (c.f. Wikipedia:Systemic bias). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. While "January 6th" is a very commonly used name for the event, other names such as the "Capitol attack" or "Capitol riot" are still commonly used. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support January 6 is the clear common name for the attack.  Mysterymanblue  10:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per nom, for reasons listen by others above. (Additionally, quite frankly, I'd say the greatest compromise would be January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  That has bad date formatting per MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:DATECOMMA. (Moving the date to the end would be one way to take care of that.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. XtraJovial (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Instead of clogging this discussion with the hundreds of WP:RS that use the “January 6” name, internationally (see my local news: [14]) and across the political spectrum ([15] [16]), demonstrating that it is indeed a WP:COMMONNAME, I will try to push back on some of the counterpoints that have been made. First, this has nothing to do with the word “attack”, and opposing the move for that reason is not solving either issue. Second, the current title is not adequate or acceptable. There was at least one other Capitol attack in 2021, which makes the current title vague, and it is also not a COMMONNAME, shown by my web searches for “Capitol attack” simply turning up reliable sources using “Jan. 6” (again, I will refrain from providing excessive links because this should be replicable for all editors). Third, as linked above, sources on both sides of the political spectrum use “Jan. 6”, not just left-leaning ones. Fourth, comparisons to other articles such as September 11 attacks and suggestions of a decrease in specificity (such as Bneu2013’s comment above) are moot, as the proposed title retains “Capitol attack”, making it very clear that this is not some other attack that occurred on January 6 in some other year. Toadspike (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support This is the only incidents that most people know on Januari 6. We clearly should using the name that commonly used by Democrats and US media, regardless the outcome. 116.206.35.15 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Common name and there were two Capitol attacks in 2021. JJARichardson (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. "January 6" has become the common name for this event, so it needs to be in the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Kamala Harris said:

“Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault, dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars but a place in our collective memory: December 7, 1941, September 11, 2001, and January 6, 2021."

Some conservatives have criticized Harris for comparing the Capitol incident to events that caused serious loss of life, the Republican Party did not support the "1/6" commission and few Republican legislators joined the anniversary commemoration. As I said above, I don't think Wikipedia articles should take sides on political disputes.

01:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The calendar isn't partisan! Sure, Harris uses the date, but so does Trump: "they cannot sustain the preposterous fabrications about January 6 much longer.", "January 6 has become the Democrats’ excuse and pretext for the most chilling assault on the civil liberties of American citizens", "January 6 is also the Democrats’ excuse for trying to pass a radical Federal takeover of state election law". Feoffer (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It takes a closer with some cojones to avoid counting the raw numerical vote, but personally I would (and do) as a closer ignore any comments such as "January 6" has become the common name for this event that don't even link to any evidence. Linking to evidence doesn't mean specific articles, because we know any variant of a title can be found for a topic with as much coverage as this one, but rather comprehensive and objective reviews of sourcing holistically. That means neutrally looking at how reliable English-speaking media (per WP:COMMONNAME) refer to the issue. This can either be a holistic consideration of all sources (Trends etc - and as further proof of my geographical assertion above I'd refer to the geographical interest in the "January 6 attack" term which is exclusively US [17], relative to topical interest which is more global), or source-based (such as using the 'tags' feature on some newspapers, eg [18]). There's also no discussion of WP:NCEVENTS or WP:CRITERIA, which are the applicable PAGs in absence of COMMONNAME, and mention The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident. With this said, I'm going to unwatchlist this page, because I don't really care enough for the topic and reading the consensus discussions on this page consistently irritates me for their poor quality and the absence of any evidence-finding going on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

geographical interest in the "January 6 attack" term which is exclusively US That link points to an invalid comparison between a google topic and a search term -- note the boldface disclaimer: "Note: This comparison contains both Search terms and Topics, which are measured differently." The correct comparison, search term to search term, clearly demonstrates Jan 6 is far more common, locally and globally. Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. These are the results for all of the Capitol attack articles (based on the usual three descriptors) published this year. In many cases January 6 isn't used to name the event. We still see quite often the well known, from previous RMs, common name candidates in the form of "Capitol X" without January 6.

/table commented out until the mistake identified by Mysteryman is corrected/

The WP:COMMONNAME being the single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic, based on the above evidence, I conclude that "January 6 something something" is not the actual common name. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this logic holds -- the above chart doesn't examine the relative frequencies of Jan 6 vs 2021. "riot" and "insurrection" are not under discussion here. Feoffer (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)\

I too struggle to understand the purpose of that big chart or its usefulness. I don't see any comparative numbers. Clicking on any of the reference links leads to articles with "January 6" in the title. So I don't get it. Moncrief (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"January 6"-variant titles to be a sort of a polyvalent common name with the commonest element being "January 6" is something that must be determined respective to each of the descriptors used to name the event. We aren't considering the COMMONNAME only in relation to "attack" name variants. The event has many names, we aren't constrained to the "attack" title universe. Also the chart is not really a chart, it's just a set of links that you have to click and determine the frequency by approximation. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

For example: Here is a sampling of the first page of results from the Capitol riot Google news search per above:

/search results commented out until the mistake identified by Mysteryman is corrected/

— Alalch Emis (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I count 30+ instances of Jan 6, only 1 instance of "January 6, 2021", and only 1 instance of "US Capitol Riot of 2021". Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand this logic. You are searching for instances where "capitol riot" appears only in the headline; how it this a representative sample of articles about the attack? When you force "capitol riot" to be in the headline, it is more likely that they will not also say "Jan. 6" because they typically try to save room in the headline. In this Google News search, which includes keywords "capitol", "riot", "insurrection", "attack", and "january 6" in 2022, I find 66/100 headlines mention "January 6":

News articles about the insurrection

Headline News outlet 1 year later: Wisconsin's congressional delegation looks back on Capitol attack Fox11online.com 14 Michigan men charged in Jan. 6 insurrection: What we know WDIV ClickOnDetroit 17 Missouri residents have been charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Here are their names KCUR 5 takeaways from the Capitol riot criminal cases, one year later NPR 61-year-old Asian man head-stomped in brutal NYC attack dies 8 months later NBC News A man who allegedly stormed the Capitol requested to go to Jamaica. A judge nixed the trip USA TODAY A televised insurrection: AP video documents Jan. 6 riot Associated Press A year after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot: where criminal cases, sentencings stand The Washington Post After the insurrection: How domestic extremists adapted and evolved after the January 6 US Capitol attack Atlantic Council Analysis | The Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol: A guide to what we now know The Washington Post Archiving the January 6 Insurrection for History | Smart News Smithsonian At the Capitol, a Day of Somber Remembrance The New York Times Attorney - Tampa Bay Buccaneers used 'surprise attack' to release Antonio Brown amid doctor dispute ESPN Biden decries 'big lie,' blames Trump for Capitol insurrection WVIR Biden, Congress mark a year since violent insurrection Associated Press Biggest investigation in FBI history still has Merrick Garland in the hot seat CNN Capitol attack: Trump not immune from criminal referral, lawmakers insist The Guardian Capitol police officers reflect on Jan. 6 riot one year later: 'I'm still mad' NBC News Capitol Rioter Asks Court to Appoint U.S. Marshals to Subpoena Trump and His Allies Newsweek Capitol rioter compares attacks on her to treatment of ‘Jews in Germany’ NBC News Deeply divided Congress marks anniversary of attack on Capitol in moments of silence, education WGAL Lancaster Donald Trump Was 'Getting Off' on Watching January 6 Violence, Says Niece Newsweek Downplaying Capitol Riot Will Hurt GOP in Long Term, Warns Republican Governor Newsweek Exclusive: Secret Commandos with Shoot-to-Kill Authority Were at the Capitol Newsweek Fact check: Five enduring lies about the Capitol insurrection CNN Fact check: J.D. Vance falsely claims dozens of jailed Capitol protesters haven't been charged with a crime CNN Family torn apart by Capitol insurrection reflects on Jan. 6 anniversary ABC News Fears of extremist violence go 'well beyond' January 6 anniversary CNN Fox News goes through the looking-glass on US Capitol attack anniversary The Guardian Get the facts: A timeline of what happened during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6 WBAL Baltimore How false GOP views of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack came to be NPR How January 6 changed what it means to be a Republican in one Pennsylvania county CNN How many people were charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack? PAHomePage.com How teachers are talking about the Jan. 6 insurrection in schools NPR How the narrative of the Jan. 6 insurrection has changed in the last year NPR How to watch CNN's live event marking the 1-year anniversary of the Capitol insurrection CNN I don't feel like I did anything wrong': Alleged Capitol rioter reflects on Jan. 6 CNN Insurrection prompts year of change for US Capitol Police Associated Press Intel Reports Repeatedly Failed To Forecast Capitol Riot HuffPost Jan. 6 attack posed loyalty test for Indiana Rep. Greg Pence Associated Press Jan. 6 committee examines how Capitol riot unfolded – and how to prevent it from happening again USA TODAY Jan. 6 insurrection reverberates through Bucks County WHYY Jan. 6 tracker: Analyzing Capitol riot guilty pleas and sentences - POLITICO POLITICO January 6 Anniversary: Wall Street Journal, Lindsey Graham, Republicans Change Tune a Year Later Esquire January 6 Capitol insurrection: solemn events mark deadly attack one year later USA TODAY January 6 committee gets inside Trump's West Wing wall of obstruction CNN Law enforcement ramps up security efforts ahead of 1-year anniversary of Capitol attack CNN Live updates: The January 6 Capitol insurrection one-year anniversary CNN Looking back at Jan. 6 Capitol riot a year later, survey asks: Who's to blame? UChicago News Millions sympathize with the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, survey finds NPR Minnesotans charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack KARE11.com MN man admits to rushing Capitol police during Jan. 6 siege, helping open doors for more rioters Bring Me The News Mom who took her child into U.S. Capitol during Jan. 6 riot gets prison Los Angeles Times On Jan. 6 anniversary, DeSantis disputes that Capitol attack was an 'insurrection' Tampa Bay Times On The Anniversary Of The January 6 Insurrection, Corporate Leaders Need To Step Up Efforts To Defend Democracy Forbes On the Ground on January 6: Harrowing New Images From the Capitol Riot Vanity Fair One reporter's 21 hour nightmare inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 CNN One year ago, Republicans condemned Jan. 6 insurrection. Yesterday, their response was far more muted. PBS NewsHour Photos from Jan. 6, as a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol - Washington Post The Washington Post Port Orchard man becomes 12th Washington resident charged in Jan. 6 Capitol riot The Seattle Times READ: Vice President Kamala Harris' remarks on January 6 anniversary CNN Recent Interviews Shed New Light on Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol ProPublica Remembering Jan. 6, When He Was Trapped Alone in the Capitol The New York Times Remembering the Role Race Played in the Capitol Insurrection Diverse: Issues in Higher EducationOpinion Revisiting the January 6 insurrection, one year later : It's Been a Minute with Sam Sanders NPR Right-Wing Calls to Celebrate Jan. 6 Anniversary Draw a Muted Response The New York Times Romney on Capitol attack anniversary: 'Ignore the lessons of January 6 at our own peril' | TheHill The Hill Rosanne Boyland Was Outside the U.S. Capitol Last January 6. How—And Why—Did She Die? Vanity Fair Silence Marks First Anniversary of January 6 Capitol Riot VOA News Six Massachusetts alleged rioters in the Jan. 6 insurrection still await legal action wgbh.org Small group gathered in Helena supporting those jailed for U.S. Capitol riot KTVH Some Florida lawmakers were there when rioters stormed U.S. Capitol WJXT News4JAX South Lyon man who breached Capitol on 1-6 says unarmed protest was not an insurrection FOX 2 Detroit Suspects from Georgia in the Capitol insurrection | Where their cases stand 11Alive.com WXIA The insurrection is only the tip of the iceberg The Guardian The Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol: One year later Los Angeles Times The Next Big Lies: Jan. 6 Was No Big Deal, or a Left-Wing Plot The New York Times The people who turned in their parents for their role in the Capitol attack The Guardian The Real Tragedy of Jan. 6 Is That It's Still Not Over Daily Beast These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot The New York Times They stormed the Capitol. Now they're running for office. POLITICO To catch an insurrectionist: Facebook and Google are helping the FBI find January 6 rioters Vox.com Trump cancels event planned for anniversary of Jan. 6 Capitol riot CNBC Trump did not want to tweet 'stay peaceful' during January 6 riot, key former aide says CNN Trump maintains grip on GOP despite violent insurrection Associated Press Trump still says his supporters weren't behind the Jan. 6 attack — but I was there NPR Trump’s Changing Stance On Jan. 6 Attack—From Condemning Rioters To Backing ‘Protest’ Forbes Twitter convenes a team to prepare for Capitol riot anniversary Reuters U.S. House panel probing Jan 6 Capitol attack seeks information from Sean Hannity Reuters U.S. Republican Rep. Jordan not to cooperate with Capitol attack probe Reuters United States Capitol Riot, One Year Later: January 6 Insurrection Documentaries, Specials, Investigations Viewing Guide Decider Was the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol an Act of ‘Terrorism’? The New York Times Was the January 6th attack on the US Capitol a one-off or an omen? ABC News Watch: House holds moment of silence as Congress marks 1 year since Capitol riot KCRA Sacramento WATCH: Senators mark Jan. 6 attack anniversary PBS NewsHour We all saw the Capitol attack. Now many are 'denying the truth in front of their face.' USA TODAYOpinion What happened when during the Jan. 6 insurrection? Here's a timeline of events NPR What the History of the Word "Insurrection" Says About Jan. 6 TIME What to expect on the first anniversary of the January 6th Capitol riot CNN Where charges stand for the 8 suspects from Oregon, SW Washington arrested in connection to the Jan. 6 insurrection KGW.com

 Mysterymanblue  04:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a mistake when I forgot to actually include Jan 6 in the searches (it was late etc etc). I'll fix it. Not sure about your search, gonna have to think about it a bit.— Alalch Emis (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support - It's been over a year since this happened, and "January 6" is starting to become the prevalent WP:COMMONNAME being used for this event, much like "September 11" for the September 11 attacks. I continue to feel iffy over the exclusion of a year in the article title, but we still have an article title like "September 11 attacks", so... Love of Corey (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  * Weak Support Agreed. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - In my experience, the new title is used more often in discussion and seems to be a slight improvement over the old one. RFZYNSPY ^talk 05:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support January 6, Jan6 and J6 have become the common way to reference this event. ValarianB (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support - I agree with Love of Corey, and I also think it would be too lengthy if the title would be changed to "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack". Vida0007 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, after reviewing these points, I have decided to cast my lot in with the "Oppose" arguments. I think that there is no need to make the title longer, and that it is perfectly recognizable, natural, precise, and "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" as is. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 04:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

recognizable, natural, precise precision is failed, current title requires a disambig hatnote because there were two US Capitol attacks in 2021. At minimum, we need month added. Feoffer (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue: it may or may not be recognizable from the title. As Feoffer pointed out above, there is another 2021 US Capitol attack from April. However, I think the more salient point is that an ordinary reader would not immediately search for "2021 United State Capitol attack" in order to find this article. They would search for "January 6". Sure, a redirect would lead them here, but it still causes unnecessary confusion. I don't see a valid reason to trip all over ourselves to avoid calling the event what it is referred to as in reliable sources. For what reason? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, because I belive that certain events are unique to happen, unlike some, like the Coup d'état of Congo, where there was same, the atempt and as well as the successful overthrow. I fell ridiculous to change this name. After all, why give privilege to US related event articles? Tell me, is this going to happen again? If so, then no doubt, go ahead. But till then, the specific date of includeing "DAY" and "DATE" is just not right.

  I !vote against this notion. Utkarsh555 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support in line with September 11 attacks. I suggest the alternative January 6 U.S. Capitol attack to assuage worries that the recommended title is too long.—indopug (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since no similar attack happened in 2021, the year is clear enough. While mainstream media usually identifies it by the date, the title as is is clear enough. Songwaters (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: As others here have pointed out repeatedly, another fatal attack at the Capitol did occur in 2021, the April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Moncrief (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • That's not a similar attack, it's a widely forgotten, fatal and car attack, which virtually nobody calls the Capitol attack. This is the primary topic, by far. That's the one that needs (and doubly has) a qualifier in the title. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per List of attacks on legislatures, the title should keep with the established norm. However, I do believe the name should be changed from "attack" to "storming". The former implies a planned military/paramilitary/terrorist-type action (e.g. 2001 Indian Parliament attack, 2017 Westminster attack), whereas the latter implies a protest-turned-riot (e.g. 2017 storming of Macedonian Parliament, Storming of the Legislative Council Complex). WilliamTravis (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Love of Corey argument. While the page move here is not partisan, we need it to disambiguate the January 6 attack from another attack occured in April, which was mistakenly called "April 2021 U.S. Capitol attack", however, no pro-Trump supporters here. The current name of the article can be used as DAB page. 114.125.231.83 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support as people are generally referring to the event as "January 6" and if there is a WP:COMMONNAME at all, it involves "January 6" at this point. BirdValiant (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support January 6 is an obvious WP:COMMONNAME for this event, and it is used in a vast collection of sources. The article title should reflect this. I haven't yet seen any convincing arguments to contravene this point. Many of the above opposes are simply false, or they are a blunt reiteration of previous consensus with no explanation of why that consensus should not change based on the increased use of this particular terminology in sources. There is one argument that holds some small weight, which is that the name is not absolutely ubiquitous internationally. However, this is a red herring. First, we have multiple international sources, such as the NZ Herald and BBC referring to the event as such. Second, this is English Wikipedia. We don't really need to care what the event is called in Ubekibekibekistanstan. I hope the closer weighs arguments for/against appropriately, rather than looking at raw !vote totals. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is clear, correct and concise. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose loss of "2021" from the title. This is more important than inclusion of "January 6" which I support. eg United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, or similar, would be OK. 2021 can be first, or last, "no" to January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a exceptionally tricky case, but I believe that "2021 United States Capitol attack" best meets the WP:CRITERIA. The proposed title is highly unwieldy and unnatural by our usual titling protocols, and offers very little in terms of added recognizability (there are still a myraid of ways of referring to this event a year on, as has been discussed ad naueseum on this talk page). I am unconvinvced by the disambiguation argument, as the April attack is well-suited for a hatnote. The unmodified "January 6" has not became so notorious where it justifies the loss of "2021". — Goszei (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This request was apparently prompted by a tricky google search. While the current one is well matched with the criteria mentioned in WP:TITLE. Among other things, the current title is concise and recognizable. Moving this well-known title requires a strong justification. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not to pick on you specifically, but this comment perfectly illustrates my above point that most of the "Oppose" rationale is just wrong. WP:TITLE states rather clearly that [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. I would posit that one would need pretty strong justification to veer away from what's written in WP:RS and toward a more or less invented article title. Instead, it looks like we have editors arguing the opposite. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: No, that's not right at all. You're quoting from WP:UCRN, a section of WP:TITLE that focuses on recognizability, one of the five criteria discussed in WP:TITLE. That section goes on to emphasize this because your error is not uncommon: Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. But it's even worse than that. The proposed move target is an amalgam of a shorthand name (January 6) akin to 9/11 and a descriptive title. The shorthand name arguments are weak to begin with, and then the proposal to smash on descriptors makes it further removed even from the blindered, hyper-focused, WP:GHITS-esque misreading of the section that you provide.

To recap proposed move target's suitability under the five criteria that informed my !vote:

• Recognizability: meh. January 6th is a date; it's going to appear in articles on the topic. That doesn't make it exceptionally recognizable, and arguments that the full string proposed as the move target is more common than all other strings describing this subject combined are unconvincing. In my mind, no definitive common name for this event exists at this time. Still the strongest selling point for this proposal as we'll see.
• Naturalness: clear failure. The proposed title is a camel.
• Precision: mild failure. It's not clear that anyone will recognize this as a 2021 event without it in the title 10 years from now, but maybe they will.
• Concision: mild failure. Proposed title is slightly longer, in my mind unnecessarily.
• Consistency: clear failure. Not how we typically name events.

If you disagree fine, but how about you drop the insinuation that an oppose !vote here is somehow untenable. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I appreciate the well-reasoned response. It's more than I've seen in any of the oppose !votes. There is room for reasonable disagreement on whether or not the proposed title meets all five criteria. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear that any failure on the part of the proposed title is true – if not doubly true – for the existing title. You can't have it both ways. At the very least, the proposed title is an improvement over what we have now and that makes it worth considering, if only on that basis alone. If you think there's an even better article title, I think you should propose that instead of tearing down a positive change to keep a clearly bad status quo.

• Recognizability This is the strongest argument against the current page name. How did you land on "meh" for this? Whatever the common name is, if such a common name exists, it must contain "January 6", for the variety of reasons described by myself and others above. What we can be sure of, though, is that "2021 United States Capitol Attack" is a distant cousin of any commonly used term for this event. It would not even occur to a typical reader to begin searching for this event by typing "2021". There are many hundreds of pages that begin with "2021", because there are many thousands of events that occurred in 2021. 2021 is not a distinguishing feature of this Capitol attack. "January 6" is. The fact that it's referred to as such in the vast majority of RS that choose to give it a name is clear evidence of that.
• Naturalness "January 6 United States Capitol Attack" is exactly as natural as "2021 United States Capitol attack". You're just swapping a year for a date. I don't see how that negatively affects the naturalness.
• Precision It's much less likely for a reader to recognize or search for "2021 United States Capitol attack" than the proposed title. That's evidenced by the prevalence of this terminology in sources. Saying that the proposed title is imprecise is misguided at best. How many US Capitol attacks occurred on January 6 of any year? Be reasonable.
• Concision Maybe a mild failure. But realistically, a user is extremely likely to stop typing when they've written "January 6" (or "Jan 6") and click/tap on the article name. With Wikimedia's page rank algorithm for search results, this article will appear near or at the top after the page is moved to the proposed title, in the same way that it currently appears near the top when one types "2021". In case of mis-click, the user sees a hatnote at January 6. That hurts any argument about concision for a high profile page.
• Consistency We typically name events as they are referred to in RS, paying particular regard to their common name. You'll note the name of September 11 attacks, and I don't think I need to belabor that point any further.

You should reconsider your !vote. In any case, I maintain my advice that a reasonable closer should lend appropriately low weight to arguments that don't suitably address the salient points of this proposal. That's not an insinuation. I am directly saying that I think most of the existing oppose !votes are untenable. My mind will change when I see more well-reasoned arguments like yours that discuss PAG-based reasoning for why the title shouldn't be changed. As I said before, there is some room for disagreement, but I don't think a clear minded review of your points would yield the conclusion that the existing title is better than the proposed one. AlexEng^(TALK) 04:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, AlexEng sums things up accurately: Many of the above opposes are simply false, or they are a blunt reiteration of previous consensus with no explanation of why that consensus should not change based on the increased use of this particular terminology in sources. Oppose rationales have been weak, non-existent, or simply false. For example, it's been repeatedly claimed only one half of the US political spectrum uses the common name, but that's demonstrably false: All parties use the common Jan 6 name. Rationales not based in reality should be afforded appropriate weight. Feoffer (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment to say I strongly agree it's disappointing that this is apparently becoming a partisan issue for some strange reason, but I've seen many comments referencing that politicization from the Support votes than Oppose as justification as well, suggesting that whether or not the article is "January 6" or not is becoming a litmus test for which of the two U.S. political parties you support, rather than a debate on the merits of which title is superior, at this point. As a non-U.S. resident, I think this may have become an issue of too many U.S.-centric perspectives. January 6th seems to be the common name within the United States, perhaps, but my first instinct is to search for "Capitol attack" to find news about this subject, personally. Either way, I think there's a danger in justifying "Support" or "Oppose" based on U.S. partisanship. WilliamTravis (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

it's disappointing that this is apparently becoming a partisan issue Absolutely. It's not as if factions are using different calendar systems!January 6th seems to be the common name within the United States Yep, and it's a US event. Feoffer (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But its not A US enclopedia, its global.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Multiple rationales argue that only democrats or US leftishs use Jan 6 -- that's demonstrably false and those rationales should given little or no weight. Feoffer (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Strikes me as quickly becoming the common name, though it is always difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support - It's been a year, and the test of time shows quite clearly that "January 6" is the common identifier used by news media, politicians and the general public for this incident, and therefore should be part of the article's title. The date is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - However, I think that the name January 6 2021 United States Capitol attack is much stronger Righanred (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support - It's clear that "January 6" is the COMMONNAME and used by nearly all sources Corinal (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - When I want to find this article, I now search on "January 6 attack". I generally think of the event and hear it referred to in the media as "January 6th" (similar to September 11th) or the "January 6th insurrection" or attack or riot. -- Beland (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support - per WP:COMMMONNAME. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - seems likely that this will be how it is remembered for a while; maybe we're wrong though! But we can always re-move it later. Red Slash 23:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: It is repeatedly mentioned in this discussion that January 6 should be a certain part of this title. But, believe me or not, I, a non-resident of U.S. who did this edit, even did not know the capitol attack happened on January 6 (actually I had forgot it unless I came across this request). I believe same thing goes for many others as well. Almost everyone knows it happened in 2021 though. So I believe many people just know it as the Capitol attack. Comparing this page with September 11 attacks is not accurate, in my opinion. Why? simply because September 11 attacks involved attacks to multiple places in U.S. So people rarely call it, for instance, 'twin Towers of the World Trade Center' attack. In other words, the common thing for the incidents happening on September 11, was that they all happened on September 11. Same is not true for this page. The attack target was the capitol building, hence simply 'capitol attack'. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Does not matter. This is a classic case of Andrew's Principle. There are already dozens of redirects to this page that have significant numbers of incoming links and there will IMO be more in time. As others have said, the confidence some show that their various pet names are each the one Wikipedia should use reflects the diversity of Wikipedia editors, and that is good. But we need to move on. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not another September 11 attacks and it is probably insulting to compare/elevate the two to equal levels of impact and, therefore, nomenclature. I see no convincing reason to suddenly swap the year for a day in the title either. Since mainstream media outlets and talking heads supposedly have begun settling on the "January 6" moniker, why not have it be an also known as in the lead and keep the article name itself unchanged for familiarity and historical reasons, and to future proof it against recency bias. The article already has a bunch of redirects anyway. Time to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RopeTricks (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Several !voters start from the premise that we don't want to risk reminding readers of Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and then work backwards to oppose using Jan 6 in the title. Such rationales are not based in policy and should be afforded little weight -- we follow the lead of mainstream media RSes, which use Jan 6. Feoffer (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Who starts from that premise? I start from the premise that January 6th has not achieved ANYTHING LIKE the international recognisability of 9/11. Not in the same league at all. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Objections based on Pearl harbor and 9/11 comparisons are not rooted in policy. Per AlexEng, WP:TITLE states rather clearly that [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. One would need pretty strong justification to veer away from what's written in WP:RS and toward a more or less invented article title. Instead, it looks like we have editors arguing the opposite. Plus, the proposed titled isn't "January 6 attack". Feoffer (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose War of 1812, anyone? Maybe I'm just a big 'ol history nerd, but I think its useful to distinguish the 2021 Capitol Attack from the 1814 Capitol Attack, wherein the British burned it, the White House, and much of Washington. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No one refers to the Burning of Washington as the 1814 Capitol Attack. Feoffer (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Feoffer I wouldn't say no one, a good number of news sources compared the two events to each other and referred to the events in 1814 as an attack [19] [20][21] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources include the phrase 1814 Capitol Attack, you just made that name up. Feoffer (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support because "January 6 attack" is the common name used by media per the many sources above. I would support just calling it "January 6 attack" but the proposed title is better than the current one. Levivich 22:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The date is a common story element, but the proposed title is rare, even novel. So is the current one. But it follows the WP standard for inventing dated titles, yearly. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It must be very rare because I can't find a novel titled January 6 on Google Books or Amazon. Levivich 22:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    • While the mighty Kamala was sighing, F. Sionil José was dying. Sorry you didn't get to read him. But I'm glad we talked! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. In Malaysia, we prefer the attack as "13 May incident". In China, they named the Tiananmen Square massacre as the "June Fourth incident". The U.S. Capitol one should be named similar as Malaysian or Chinese one, or at least named as January 6 Capitol attack is better. 114.125.245.6 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose move to January 6 United States Capitol attack, Support move to January 6 attack. January 6 is not suitable as a disambiguator because it does not provide enough info to determine the time of the incident. There are no or few other Wikipedia articles that use a date disambiguator without a year disambiguator. The WP:COMMONNAME uses "January 6" as a name for the incident, not as a disambiguator. Thus, the article should be moved to a title that uses January 6 as a name. 122.60.192.7 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed title is clumsy, recent, and nativist (in Europe almost no one refers to it as January 6 ([22][23][24][25][26]). My personal opinion would simply be United States Capitol attack (the car attack has already vanished from the news cycle and is appropriately hat-noted, so making an argument pertaining to "confusing the 2 incidents" is a mute point). Many Americans are familiar with the date December 7, 1941, but the corresponding article is aptly titled Attack on Pearl Harbor. To be fair, the January 6 attack has a nice ring to it, but as an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, this push towards January 6 is premature and lacking foresight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, January 6 is indeed premature. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Per AlexEng, some of these knee-jerk oppose rationales should be afforded no weight. in Europe almost no one refers to it as January 6 ([27][28][29][30][31]) You can't cite various titles of wikipedia articles as evidence that "no one in Europe uses Jan 6"! Since when is the Swedish Wikipedia a RS??? As discussed above 'Jan 6' is widely-used in RSes globally. Feoffer (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please take note that all of the "no one in Europe says this" links above are linking to... Wikipedia articles. By the same token, you could make the very erroneous statement that "No one in the USA calls it January 6th" by linking to the very English-language article we're discussing. It's circular and illogical. (Also: [32].) Moncrief (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

These are 5 random examples backing up my argument. No one said Wikipedia is an RS; if you're stuck on that then you clearly aren't following my argument pertaining to the current zeitgeist or trend of how others refer to the event at the Capitol. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Also echoing arguments by others that the article could be shortened further to January 6 attack, but the suggested name is still better than the current one. AlexKitfox (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is the most generic and agreed upon name for the event, and there is no reason to change it. BlueShirtz (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely zero evidence has been presented to suggest "2021" is the COMMONNAME. Mountains of evidence through this thread conclusively demonstrates "Jan 6" is. 00:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is better than "January 6 United States Capitol attack" Aca1291 (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support "January 6" is the commonly used name for this event. As others have said, clear evidence is provided simply by searching Google for "January 6" - the top results are all about this event. Various news sources have taken to referring to the event solely by the name "Jan. 6".[33][34][35] Dotdh15 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's not a single instance among those where that isn't the name of the day. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

(Moved from beneath Feoffer's 1:44 comment) Well, the NYT, Newsweek and CNN articles Dotdh15 chose to use to prove your conclusion all used it as the date. None called the event that alone. How do we know the ones you're thinking of aren't also misreadings? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

the NYT, Newsweek and CNN articles Dotdh15 chose to use to prove your conclusion all used it as the date. You make Dotdh15's case for him -- you acknowledge RSes use Jan 6. Somehow have convinced yourself that citing this fact strengthens your opposition to Jan 6. It doesn't. Feoffer (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as the date. Not as the name of this event, commonly or at all. They just overlap, as they do with the place RS commonly call Washington, or D.C., or the Capitol. Name any one-day event and I can probably find RS using its date in conjunction with its name. Very different things, though, time and action. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

CNN: "Grisham says Trump held secret meetings prior to January 6", NYT: "Does Jan. 6 Disqualify Some Republicans From Re-election?". Note the complete absence of 2021 in both headlines and bodies. Jan 6 is the date used in RSes, and we follow their example. Feoffer (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This idea that a day of the year needs a year to be a date, if that's what you mean, is beyond arguable. Note the last four CNN words. "January 6th Capitol attack" is its chosen event name. Guest essayist Harry Litman chose "the events of Jan. 6" and "Jan. 6 attack". Even if he were NYT staff, totally different descriptors. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Plus most readers are outside the US and have no access to CNN, Newsweek, NY Times etc. Pincrete (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Per AlexEng, we're seeing oppose rationals that have no place on Wikipedia and must be given absolutely zero weight. NYTs and CNN are reliable sources, period. RSes use Jan 6 as COMMONNAME. Feoffer (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Plus most readers are outside the US and have no access to CNN, Newsweek, NY Times etc. Any reader outside of the US who is able to access Wikipedia can access the online versions of all of the media you mention (barring censorship practices in certain non-English-speaking countries, I suppose). Any argument that someone outside the US can't receive, say, CNN in its original TV version strikes me as arbitrary, as that's also true in the US itself, depending on one's access to various cable TV plans. (Not to mention that the vast majority of Americans don't have print subscriptions to either the NYT or Newsweek, and would also read both online.) If there were some consistent, specific non-Jan. 6th name that non-US, English-speaking media were using for the event, I would give weight to the idea that there were competing names in use. But there's no consistent name in competition with the established use of January 6th as a common name in the US. This isn't a bonnet-vs.-hood-type situation. There's a common name for the event in the country where it occurred, which I don't think is nativist to acknowledge and give weight to. Arguments against that fact seem either to be rooted in a general belief that Wikipedia is already too US-centric with a desire not to give in further to that alleged impulse, or else they're rooted in an equally amorphous idea that we ought not to change the current name of the article because change is hard. Moncrief (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Plus most readers are outside the US and have no access to CNN, Newsweek, NY Times etc. My point was not that such readers can't access US sources and therefore cannot verify info or verify that the name is 'correct'. The point was that whilst interest in the event is global - use of the date as a key identifier (as opposed to simply one fact about the event, like the city and specific location and objectives of the mob) appears to be confined to the US and patchy even there. As a European, I have no idea what Jan 6th refers to - is it a key event in the War of Independence? The Civil War? What? However I immediately recognise the combination of location and year and would still do so in 5 years time when the specific date may even have been forgotten by Americans. Perhaps Jan 6th WILL acquire the status of COMMONNAME among Americans, on the evidence presented it hasn't done so yet AFAI can see. Three sources using a term sometimes is hardly most sources using a term most of the time. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Three sources using a term sometimes is hardly most sources using a term most of the time. You know there are far more than three sources cited here, just like you understand NYT is a RS. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Feoffer (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning and misrepresenting everyone who disagrees with you. Yes, I know there are many more sources than NYT, but three were presented as 'proof' by a voter here, all were US. One at least did not even identify the event by using the date, it was simply part of the background info about the event, much as "Trump supporters" is commonly referred to background info, but not the name of the event. Whether NYT is a RS or not is obviously completely irrelevant as to whether Jan 6th is the most useful identifier to a global readership. I am not even fully persuaded that January 6th is sufficiently established to be the key identifier to a US readership - especially beyond 2021. Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The idea that January 6th isn't the common name in US media and discourse is so untenable in my experience that I honestly hadn't considered it as a point you or anyone else was still making. I thought we'd moved on from that to consider whether its lack of usage globally was a reason not to change the title. Go to the New York Times website (or that of any other US media you prefer to check) and search the neutral term "Capitol." View the search by descending date order. Looking only at the articles relevant to this event, they all use "Jan. 6" as a name for the event. You'll see "Top Jan. 6 Investigator Fired From Post at the University of Virginia," "For Many Who Marched, Jan. 6 Was Only the Beginning," "Jan. 6 Panel and State Officials Seek Answers on Fake Trump Electors," and it goes on from there. If other people still want to argue whether January 6th is the common name in the US, have at it. But I think anyone arguing that point in the negative is either being disingenuous or is misinformed. Moncrief (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just did what you suggested at PBS - an arbitary choice on my part. About the 10th entry was the first to use Jan 6th in the title and some later ones also did. Admittedly not all are about the Washington Capitol or this riot, but your confidence is obviously misplaced. I am, and already was, persuaded that US sources SOMETIMES use the date alone to describe the event and OFTEN use it as part of the description, but not that it has anything like the near-universal recognition that would justify the change. What is the supposed advantage of using a less inherently descriptive title if its recognisability is not near-universal? Pincrete (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to go round and round on this, other than to note that if all my instructions had been followed -- sorting by date, looking only at articles relevant to this event -- the results of this search on pbs.org are as follows: "News Wrap: Jan. 6 panel seeks Ivanka Trump testimony," "Oath Keepers face sedition charges for Capitol attack / The most serious federal charges yet in the Jan. 6 insurrection were unsealed Thursday," "1/11/22 - January 6th & Covid impact / Topics - The anniversary of the January 6 Insurrection & Covid-19's impact on Schools," three clips from an affiliate show in Detroit calling it the "Capitol insurrection," then "Jan. 6 and the Future of Democracy," "Osterholm on Omicron, Klobuchar talks about January 6," "Brooks and Capehart on Jan. 6 anniversary, voting rights," and "January 6th is an Open Wound." Since "Capitol" is an extremely common word in US news reporting and since there's a daily PBS-affiliate show in Alabama called Capitol Journal, many of the PBS search results are irrelevant to the events of January 6th because they don't discuss the events of that day at all. Still, the first use of January 6th (and the first article relevant to the events of January 6th) was third in the results, not tenth. No, my confidence is not "obviously misplaced," but I'm hoping we've made our points and can let others give their thoughts. I'll have nothing to say further if the topic is whether or not "January 6th" is the common name in the US, but I will respond to misrepresentations of data. Moncrief (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Go to the New York Times website (or that of any other US media you prefer to check) and search the neutral term "Capitol! I did exactly what you asked! Four entries in my list refer to this event before one using the date - which is hardly near-universal usage IMO. Since using the date excludes the rest of the world, or those who don't recognise the date, what's the point? Are Americans going to be offended by, or not recognise the year as a clarifier? I agree we are probably not going to persuade each other and I only initially responded here because of - a different editor - misrepresenting the point I was making. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Because you ignored the part of my challenge where I said View the search by descending date order., the results in your link to pbs.org that you're citing as evidence were from stories broadcast in July, April, and January 2021, respectively. If this were any of those months, I'd agree that a common name in the US had not yet been established. Wikipedia !votes on proposed titles in early and mid-2021 reflected this reality. But this is January 2022, and there is now a common name in US media. Moncrief (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I genuinely didn't see that part of your post. My actual 'vote' was decided by searches much higher up this discussion and my (continuing) inability to seeing any advantage, If I thought US readers would be less likely to understand, or would be offended by the present title, I would have come to a different decision. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support The article should be renamed "January 6 United States Capitol Riot". It is clear from a simple internet search that "January 6" has become the WP:COMMONNAME for the event. The word "riot" instead of "attack" provides clarity since the former is clearly an event of violent civil disorder while the latter is a much broader concept and is commonly associated with combat. --Curiocity1 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – current title is more recognisable globally, to American and non-American users alike. It better serves Wikipedia's global audience. Everyone would understand the current title, whereas the proposed title would lead me to believe that there were multiple recent attacks on the Capitol. Citobun (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - it has became the common name. This is how its referred to in media and scholarship about the event. I don't even understand the arguments against changing it TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a simply matter of making this title as WP:RECOGNIZEable as possible to our global readership, as per one of the criteria for Wikipedia titling policy. It is fairly easy to verify that sources outside the US do not generally refer to or identify this event by its date, for example BBC News, which doesn't mention the date of the event until the middle of the third paragraph, and Sydney Morning Herald, which only mentions the date in connection with the fact that the anniversary was happening, not as a title in itself. The bottom line is that, (1) unlike September 11, this isn't primarily known by its date, (2) whether or not they call it by the "January 6" moniker, there is no evidence that anyone does not recognize the present title, something which can't be said for the alternative, and (3) the present title is WP:CONSISTENT with other titles for events such as this, which typically follow the <year> <country> <event> format.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotta push back: readers of BBC and SMH have absolutely no difficulty recognizing Jan 6. SMH: "Social media giants subpoenaed over role in January 6 attack on US Capitol" [36], BBC: "Capitol riot: Democrats set up committee to probe 6 January attack". [37] Feoffer (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but both those headlines also clarify that it was the "attack on US Capitol" and the "Capitol riot" respectively. If it just said "January 6 attack", or even "the events of January 6, 2021", I think a lot of British and Australian readers might not instantly know what was meant. Which contrasts with the equivalent phrases for "September 11 attack", which is universally known.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but compare/contrasts to Sept 11 Attacks are a total red herring. Both current and proposed titles include the phrase "US Capitol" in the title -- it's not like the proposed title is "Jan 6 attack", after all. Feoffer (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Then the title will become unnecessarily long while it's recognizeable currently. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. January 6 seems to have become the WP:COMMONNAME. Not too dissimilar from September 11 attacks. Not opposed to having 2021 in the title, though. Pilaz (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. My ideal title would have the date and the year, similar to the article in Spanish for es:Atentados_del_11_de_marzo_de_2004. While the English-language article for that terrorist attack only has the year (2004 Madrid train bombings), having the date and year in the Spanish article satisfies both the common-name criteria for the event in the country where it occurred and also the general desire to have a year in a Wikipedia title about an event. Moncrief (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

RfC: Should the following categories be kept?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Some additional source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is irrelevant and inflammatory.

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

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

It should be written in a more neutral way like:

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

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

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

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

This whole article has a left leaning bias

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article needs to be redone to remove all the political bias involved. The vast majority of people never entered the Capitol. Of those that did, a few broke windows or doors to get in, and most just walked in through open doors with the police right there not stopping them. The vast majority just walked around within the Capitol not destroying anything or injuring anyone. The way this is written you would think it was a mob that destroyed everything within the capitol and carried away all the stuff inside. Very, very few things were removed from the capitol. Very few things were vandalized, maybe a sign or two, and a few windows/doors. To say that people broke into the Capitol, vandalized and looted it is inflammatory and just feeding on the hype of the media. Also to make it sound like the rioters/protesters were there to overthrow the government is also inflammatory. Yes, maybe some thought they could stop/disrupt the electoral counting, but clearly it would just delay something that was going to happen, and by disrupting/delaying it, they would show their displeasure with it. This is not so different than people that attended Trump's 2017 inauguration and tried to disrupt it. Were they also trying to overthrow the government by preventing Trump from taking the oath of office? Most just wanted to show their displeasure with the election. A very small may have thought they could hold the Congress, but probably smaller than I can count on one hand. It is really simple. Trump was upset about losing. He made claims about the election being rigged. Some people really believed that. Trump said they need to fight for their country (something politicians on both sides of the isle have done many times before and after this event). Trump suggested that they let congress know that they do not like it, but clearly said to do it peacefully. Many people were at the capitol before his speech, and during the early parts of it. Those that started the breach either did not attend his speech or left during the early parts of it and went to the Capitol. By the time most people that attended the entire speech arrived, there were no police barricades, the doors to the Capitol were open, with police just standing there watching people go by. Some rioters attacked police and they should go to jail. Those that broke windows and doors should go to jail. So please rewrite this article with a neutral basis and not all the hype of the media/left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.125.38 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) With all due respect, it might be worth taking a peek at WP:NOTFORUM. It's generally a good idea to propose concrete changes to an article rather than more abstract critiques. If you'd like to draft a replacement article, I am sure people would be willing to give it a look, though no guarantees on inclusion or acceptance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding changing the name of the Ashli Babbitt article

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

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

Oldsmar man had explosive device near Jan. 6 anniversary rally in Pinellas, sheriff says

This may be useful for the article:

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

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

Article title evidentiary standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benjamin Philips

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

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

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

Found a video of CNN coverage of attack, wondering if it's in public domain (or if it should be included in the first place)

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

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

1) It is mentioned in List of attacks on legislatures

2) It did not cause any casualties.

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

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

Jeffrey L Smith's death ruled result of riot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray Epps - NYT Source for Citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump's hanging comments

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

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

Remove trivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Protection

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

"Insurrection"

In the Analysis and terminology section I added

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy in Capitol riot"

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

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