Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021 (2)
ADD:

Historical comparison:
 * 1917: Winter Palace§The Seat of the Provisional Government (1917) (Storming of the Winter Palace) 73.241.147.83 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Asinine to have White supremacist, Nazis, and confederates in infobox
Wikipedia clarifies that articles should be from a Neutral point of view. As of right now the article is very far-left, many due to there being more democrats on Wikipedia than Republicans. Not saying there wasnt neo-nazisandracists there, but having it in the infobox makes it look like wikipedians are trying to disparage Trump or ex-Trump supporters--Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's neutrality is only as neutral among mainstream views published by reliable sources. Reliable sources have consistently reported that these groups attended, and as such they're included. This is basic Wikipedia policy, it's not an ideological bias any more than Wikipedia's fundamental "bias" towards factual reporting over conspiracy. In short, Reliable Sources consistently report it, so it's included. Builder018 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why you think this article is "very far-left"? Examples, sources, etc. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neonazis attended. White supremacists attended. People who supported killing Jewish people attended. That's reflected in reliable sources and I saw those people there with my very own two eyes as I watched the riot live on PBS. Wikipedia doesn't censor information because it offends people or makes people look bad. See WP:CENSOR. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those sources are based on your own political views. So of course you would use them. Sources need to come from both right wing and left wing news site otherwise there is a clear bias.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy you linked, as well as WP:RS/Perennial. Builder018 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with . Reliable sources are reliable sources, regardless of leaning. My political leanings are also irrelevant, WP:PA. You should also look at WP:DUE. Wikipedia isn't obligated to give all views equal credence if it's clear that some views are fringe views or incorrect. That would be a false balance. Even then, I'm sure Fox News and Forbes are reporting this very same information, it's not just left-leaning sources. There's no escaping from the reality that far-right extremists terrorized the Capitol on the 6th of January 2021. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been on here longer than both of you. I have a better understanding of how this site works. The bias I have pointed out is 100% there. You can choose to ignore it or acknowledge it. Either way it will be removed once emotions about this have died down. Peace--Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Experience doesn't instantly make you right. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of policy, and what you propose blatantly flies in the face of one of the most important policies when it comes to political articles. Just because you have more experience on the site as a whole doesn't mean you're more familiar in a field than someone who's newer overall to the site, but has more experience in the field; same way as someone who studied 4 years of English in college isn't better at the Arts than someone who studied a year in the Arts. Builder018 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur again. You've just used the genetic fallacy to try to back your claims. But your experience doesn't make you correct. On Wikipedia, all editors are equal, regardless of experience, and we're all bound to the same standards and policies. Your proposal is blatantly in violation of Wikipedia's policies and goes against reliable sources. I assure you, as long as I'm watching this article, I will not permit the removal of the far-right extremists without the consensus of other editors (which you lack right now). Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if the sources claiming that there were Nazis and white supremacists there aren't reliable, then that's one thing. You could also challenge on WP:UNDUE which seems to be what your opinion is, so I somewhat doubt your claim of being a long-time editor if you're unaware of that policy. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fruitloop11 is indeed a long-time editor, being active semi-consistently since 2014, but that's irrelevant to the fact that their proposal violates Wikipedia policy. Builder018 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, should've checked. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... but you have already removed it ? The joy of all things (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that most English-speaking people are not Americans, and most of non-American English speakers are from cultures where the Overton window is not skewed so far right. Therefore, what is far left to you is neutral and balanced to most English-speakers. Melmann 15:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021
Replace (Reactions -> Congress):

"Cruz himself was urged to resign by Democratic politicians, who criticized him for helping to instigate the riots in the first place."

With:

"Cruz himself, as well as Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) were urged to resign by Democratic politicians, who criticized them for helping to instigate the riots in the first place. Some even calling for their expulsion if they did not resign."

Sources: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-cruz-hawley-resign-b1784106.html https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/coons-cruz-hawley-resign-456196 Henninng (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ -sort of. "Some even calling for their expulsion if they did not resign" was difficult to fit in as encyclopedic. It's also reflected in the source. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (2)
Please improve the refs for this sentence: Trump encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and to march towards the Capitol, while his lawyer Giuliani called for "trial by combat".


 * The "trial by combat" quote is not mentioned in the current sources, please add an additional ref such as.
 * I suggest also moving the two existing refs to after the comma, so it's clear which refs go with which part of the sentence.

Thanks, AnonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * References are routinely removed from the lead by some editors due to alleged "excessive citations." The appropriate reference was included at some point, and quite frankly it's the responsibility of the editors removing references to make sure this doesn't happen. --Tataral (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First proposal done. --Tataral (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And the second as well. --Tataral (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (3)

 * My request is not in means of editing, but to translate into danish.--Ramloser (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Ramloser (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 17:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You might have better luck making this request on the Danish Wikipedia. I know the English Wikipedia has a page where you can request translations, maybe da.wiki has something similar? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To be precise, the apparent Danish project's page should be da:Stormen på United States Capitol 2021. I see it is rather sparse, but unfortunately I don't understand danish enough to contribute. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 20:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Storming of Capitol was textbook potential COVID-19 superspreader, experts say"
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/storming-of-capitol-was-textbook-potential-covid-19-superspreader-experts-say/

Belligerents
I think we should consider putting a belligerents section in the infobox. For example, on one side we could have QAnon and Trump supporters and on the other side, we could have DC National Guard, Capitol Police, and the United States Congress.
 * Already proposed, decided against, long discussion above.
 * Please read the talk page before commenting.

Everyone else, please don't post here. Post in the original discussion to keep it all in one place. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New opinion poll.
I don't have the necessary permissions to insert it in the entry, can someone insert it?

Majority of Americans want Trump removed immediately after U.S. Capitol violence - Reuters/Ipsos poll--BlackJack92 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't seem to be protected anymore, do you want to try to see if you can add it in now? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok--BlackJack92 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The Article Should Remain Neutral ...
I personally believe that the beginning of the article should not include Trump “falsely claiming” about election fraud, and should just be changed to “claims” for the following reasons:

1.) “Falsely claiming” is a heavily “based” and far left claim.

2.) Because both parties use Wikipedia as a resource, it wouldn’t be fair to use this accusation against the right. Instead, the page should rather remain neutral.

3.) Believe it or not, election fraud happens all the time, and in every election that occurs. Maybe it didn’t happen to a certain degree that many people could agree that would be enough for the election to be unfair for the president, but election fraud is an ongoing issue that does actually happen time to time, and is impossible to stop in every election. Every election has a certain amount of fraud to it, you can’t say it didn’t have any at all. It only just goes to a certain degree to actually be capable of effecting the elections overall. So whether you agree or disagree, I’m sure many people can agree regardless that election fraud was bound to happen, and isn’t exactly an easy thing to stop. Like I said, you can agree that it didn’t have an impact to make a difference, but you shouldn’t say exactly that this years’ election didn’t have any at all. Election fraud happens every election, and both parties can be affected by it.

4.) Other pages on Wikipedia I have seen have refrained from inciting “false claims” and have instead rather simply used “claims” to remain neutral and share a common usage for these claims that the president has made. Bombastic Brody (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this is what neutrality means. Familiarize yourself with DUE and Fringe theories please; Wikipedia is only as fair as reliable source coverage of events is, and almost all reliable sources characterize Trump's claims as false for example, so Wikipedia calls them false. Builder018 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The false claims are false, and WP:NPOV requires us to call false things false. Otherwise, a WP:FALSEBALANCE makes the article less neutral. There was no widespread fraud in this election. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Using “false claims” instead of just “claims” has been put instead on other articles about the issue. This contrasts from the other pages and stands out differently in comparison, and isn’t re-occurring or fitting with what other pages have used. Also, I didn’t state that I thought that there was widespread election fraud. Please don’t twist things I say for future reference. I just pointed that out some users may be sensitive to this due to their political views, and this will be a problem as Wikipedia should remain neutral, regardless of political position. Bombastic Brody (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ”Falsely claiming” or along the lines of “baseless allegations”, is frequently used in respectable news outlets with no particular bias such as ABC, CBS, etc. Meanwhile, you’re doing the same by claiming election fraud happens all the time when verifiable reports say the opposite. 31 in a billion circumstances is about right. Trillfendi (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. It's really not our concern if somebody is sensitive to the objective truth. There is also little precedent for just using "claims" when reliable sources describe them as false; on articles such as 2020 United States Presidential Election, false is regularly used. Builder018 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Trump has repeatedly made blatantly unsupported claims of massive fraud (on the order of millions of votes). The fact that there may be a few dozen voter-fraud cases isn't relevant.  Trump's claims are, beyond a reasonable doubt, false, and should be described as such. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed infobox
What about this proposed infobox distinguishes it from the current one? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This infobox appears to add the participating parties. I support it's addition Bravetheif (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is only one problem at the infobox: Democratic Party, Republican Party and pro-Trump protesters (Keep america great again), have no flagicons. If somebody finaly add this, maybe could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I made an edit to your proposed infobox as three of the Template:flagicon image uses had File: appended to the beginning of them, preventing them from showing up properly. I believe that the addition of File: was a mistake and removed them.  Is this ok with you?  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, I like it RoadSmasher420 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not my infobox, the IP proposed it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Against for reasons of the inclusion of political parties (fairly big-tent organizations with only nominal involvement in the actual events) and the non-WP:NPOV term "protestors." "Demonstrators," "elements" or similar in my opinion would be better. Would be in support of adding the parties involved to the infobox, but against this specific proposition. U-dble (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Against, As cool as this looks, I agree with U-dble that including political parties in this is dicey. I like the idea of including sides in the infobox, but it has to be done differently. Colin dm (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Against. As U-dble said, including political parties is shakey at best, especially with how large and generally big-tent it is. I'm in support of an infobox, but we need to wait for the situation to evolve and see these political stances for the parties' leadership. We used to have an infobox of this variety on this page, in fact, but if I recall correctly it was recalled for being too convoluted and shakey, and I fear this would be as well. Nekomancerjade (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Against Elsewhere people are maintaining that the Capitol Police assisted the storming (though I think they are wrong). Not all protesters were stormers, one that died was probably not even at the protest.  "Sides" is misleading here, as I have discussed above.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC).


 * Against This was already discussed and decided against, for many good reasons. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
I would like to add a better infobox that had suggested at previous section. It hadn't received the attention it need. The users that noticed it supported the change.


 * I agree with changing this to include the parties involved in the incident, however, one change would be the fact that the picture shouldn't be of the protest before the storming of the Capitol, considering that's not what this article is about, but that the picture should show the insurrectionists storming the Capitol inside or outside the building. There are plenty photos there, and I think it'll help make the article more about the incident rather then the prior protests. Foxterria (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a new edit, corresponding at the new infobox at the topic. Also there are an image added and the sides. I think it would be better than the infobox at the topic.

I also agree wit this edit, though I think that you should include the leading figures such as Trump, Pence, Giuliani, Pelosi, etc. in the infobox. SpaceSandwich (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any additions could be useful, if they are confirmed.

possible reference/external link
How A Violent Mob Breached The Capitol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=benfKdg3U2A — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNiceEyes (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's Perennsial Source List. Builder018 (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Details about some people
Is it relevant to state the gender of the person who "attempt[ed] to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door" or to say that Babbitt is a "35-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran" or that Sicknick is a Trump supporter? Apokrif (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Sicknick case, yes, it makes grammatical sense within the sentence it is located. I presume the line about "One woman attempting to enter the House chamber through a barricaded door was shot by law enforcement and later died." was written pre-identification and has not yet been updated. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (4)
The terms "mob of rioters" and "far-right activists and white supremacists" reveals a non-neutral point of view, and should be edited. Pftaylor61 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ — That is the primary way overwhelming reliable sources characterize them. Additionally, far-right activists and white supremacists were specific groups that were there, as reliable sources indicate. It is not NPOV to literally say what is reliably-sourced to have been there.  ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 19:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In what manner does this description violate NPOV? Additionally, what edits would you make to make this more neutral? DCai169 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's nothing un-neutral about it. We have overwhelming reliable source saying these ideological groups were there. That's a fact. Facts are inherently neutral. However the way they are presented can be less-than-neutral. However that is not the case here. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional Sections?
What with the increased coverage about individuals claiming that the individuals who stormed the building were ANTIFA protesters pretending to be MAGA followers and multiple conspiracy theories arriving or being pushed by conservative news sources should there be a "Conspiracy theory/Controversy section" for this article? Further what could be added is the dichotomy between the BLM protests police response and the police response here, as I believe there are articles already out about it? Also should there be an "Investigation section" or "Planning of protest section"? The investigation section since the FBI has already reached out to the public asking for help and arrests have been made Along with the use of social media to help plan and incite violence. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
It should probably be mentioned somewhere in the "Reactions" section or elsewhere that quite a few pro-Trump Republicans (like Matt Gaetz) are trying to spread a baseless conspiracy theory that it was actually Antifa masquerading as Trump supporters. It's already gaining ground. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Related: A man who stormed the U.S. Capitol in a horned fur cap is an “Antifa thug.” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Persons of interest in unrest-related offenses - Photos
DC Police released this pdf - I know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but was wondering if this link can be placed in the external links section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with pictures in infobox
None of the photos featured in the infobox actually show the storming or occupation of the US Capitol building despite the title of the article being "2021 storming of the United States Capitol". The photos seem like they would be more appropriate to be featured on an article for the "Save America" rally" or the 2020–2021 United States election protests. Should this be rectified? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it should be! But are there any such usable photos? The best place to look would be commons:Category:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol but there's nothing like that currently there. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New first lead sentence

 * Discussion of the lead section

It seems to me that the first paragraph has gotten too long. The "storming" of the Capital is only introduced after two, very complex sentences. I'd add a new, one-sentence first paragraph to the top, something like:
 * On January 6, 2021, pro-Trump demonstrators outside the US Capital stormed the Capital building and invaded both the House and Senate chambers.
 * On January 5 and 6, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gathered in Washington, D.C., to protest...

-RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a new lead sentence that explicitly summarizes the storming first, before going in to the background. Does this work for you? -- Jayron 32 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - It seems as though the lead section is still too long, per the addition of Template:Lead too long to this article. Should I add a "" section to this talk page?  -- RobLa (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

differentiate between violent deaths and accidental/natural deaths during the storming in the Campaign box.
three out of the four deaths were due to accidents or natural causes. I think we should differentiate between the deaths in the campaign box. say like "1 due to gunshot, 3 accidental".--Garmin21 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , we don't know yet whether they were accidents. "Medical emergency" could potentially be anything, up to and including suffering deliberate violence. GPinkerton (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with GPinkerton. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about that.--Garmin21 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not substantiated that all of the reported medical emergencies happened in the storming of the Capitol. Greeson suffered a hearth attack outside the Capitol, "as he stood among a sea of Trump supporters on the west side of the U.S. Capitol." Phillips had a stroke plausibly before or at the start of the rally, after arriving around 10:30am; "There’s no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol." . Boyland collapsed around 5pm. .Terjen (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it suggest somewhere that they did? This article is about the entire day's events, and from what I can see the article only refers to the three people dying that day "during the protest", not inside the Capitol building. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A previous version mislabeled the three dead as "intruders". Terjen (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that. I agree that that's inaccurate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Police death: ERROR
The police man who died was not injured. He died of a stroke. Google "capitol police stroke" and many news articles. Wikipedia should not knowingly have errors or people will mistrust or laugh at WP. Vanny089 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * God forbid people mistrusting Wikipedia. You can make an edit request using the template and providing sources. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article currently reads: While the wording here may be confusing, the article does not allege that the officer's death was a result of injury, only that it was related to the events of the day (as reported in reliable sources). Some local news outlets reported that "According to the force's union Chairman Gus Papathanasiou" the officer had a stroke during the confrontation and died the next day. If there's a reliable source for this then it should be added. RoxySaunders (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NPR is saying that the officer died after being "assaulted in Wednesday's riot by violent protesters loyal to President Trump" and was attacked "with metal pipes, discharged chemical irritants, and [...] other weapons" per https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/07/954333542/four-dead-police-injured-dozens-arrested-after-siege-at-the-u-s-capitol?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social Please avoid spreading misinformation. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It would appear, by this tweet, that the officer is brain dead and is on life support until the family can arrive. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

NPR is saying that the report of the officer's death are inaccurate: "U.S. Capitol Police say the report that one of its officers had died after being assaulted by violent protesters loyal to President Trump is not accurate. NPR incorrectly reported the death based on information from a well-placed source." This is from the article the line cites [4], https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/07/954333542/four-dead-police-injured-dozens-arrested-after-siege-at-the-u-s-capitol?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.216.101 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He's officially confirmed dead. The officer name is Brian D. Sicknick. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/capitol-police-officer-has-died-after-clashing-pro-trump-mob-n1253396 XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New Photo
As a note, almost all photos of the storming (see ) have been nominated for deletion. Might need to find a new photo, or worst case, have none. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 08:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Side note, I believe the new header image should probably show the actual occupation of the capitol building itself. It's strange to me that the existing one doesn't. Nekomancerjade Talk 08:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * i would like to second what Nekomancer said. The first picture shown on the page should be a photo of the actual occupation of the building, rather than protesters hanging around outside Neonpixii (talk)

We need photos that many people have already saw, like the man in the buffalo costume Edskiash (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick passes away
USCP Statement: January 7, 2021 Press Release At approximately 9:30 p.m. this evening (January 7, 2021), United States Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty.

Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters. He returned to his division office and collapsed. He was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The death of Officer Sicknick will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch, the USCP, and our federal partners.

Officer Sicknick joined the USCP in July 2008, and most recently served in the Department’s First Responder’s Unit.

The entire USCP Department expresses its deepest sympathies to Officer Sicknick’s family and friends on their loss, and mourns the loss of a friend and colleague.

We ask that Officer Sicknick’s family, and other USCP officers’ and their families’ privacy be respected during this time.



https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick Coasterghost (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * . WWGB (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Could further edits be made to:

1.Fix this sentence in the first section: "One woman attempting to enter the House chamber was shot by law enforcement officers and later died,[27][28][29] three other protestors and a police officer died as a result of medical emergencies during the protest." This should be rewritten to something like "…three other protestors died as a result of medical emergencies during the protest. A police officer suffered injuries while engaging with protestors, later collapsed, and died a day later." Mfessler (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Escape hoods
Is anyone familiar with what exactly escape hoods are? That term keeps coming up related to this story and we don't seem to have an article on that - Escape Hood, Escape Hoods, Escape hood. KConWiki (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As seen in this New York Times photo, an "escape hood" is a plastic hood equipped with an air purifyer, which are typically used during fire/chemical spills evacuations to avoid inhaling toxic fumes. Congresspeople wore these during evacuations, presumably as a countermeasure for COVID-19, since they would be unable to maintain adequate social distancing. RoxySaunders (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Smoke hood. Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - I have redirected the above linked terms to Smoke hood; If anyone has any concerns, please let me know. KConWiki (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

More photos
We need more photos, such as the man in the buffalo costume, person taking podium, person sitting at Congress table, etc. Edskiash (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , many of the photos you see online or on news articles are subject to copyright and non-free. Wikipedia does not allow non-free images except in very specific circumstances. I'm sure as images come out which are public domain or freely-licensed, they will be added. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename as 2021 United States coup d'état attempt?
Many reputable media are labeling this as a coup attempt by Trump and his supporters, both within the police and general public. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I support it. I think that we indeed are talking about a coup d etat and many sources confirm that
 * Not COMMONNAME.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree to the renaming, unless there are any valid arguments against it. DreamsDreams (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)DreamsDreams
 * The current name was chosen after a move request with more than 200 participants. It is the name of the article for now and at least for the next few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Please refer to recent renaming discussions. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A criminal investigation might tie up Capitol police or Congressional video for a long time, so we should use what we have at this time, and then replace it - as was done with the Nashville bombing (see article page history). Charles Juvon (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I really agree that this was a coupd'etat attempt, but a criminal investigation is running so we have to wait. But I propose to change the term storming to invasion (2021 Invasion on the United States Capitol) because: 1) People all over the world use the word invasion, while the word storming is not so much common. 2) I think that the term storming is very soft than that really happened.

Copyedit needed in lede
I'm not eligible to direct edit but wanted to point out a couple of copyedits needed in the lede.

"One woman was shot by law enforcement officers as she attempted to enter the House chamber through a window broken moments earlier by a co-conspirator, she later died of her injuries; and three other rioters died as a result of medical emergencies during the protest."

Should be: "One woman was shot by law enforcement officers as she attempted to enter the House chamber through a window broken moments earlier by a co-conspirator. She later died of her injuries, and three other rioters died as a result of medical emergencis during the protest."

"A Capitol Police officer was reported to have died died the following day, but the report was soon retracted."

The word "died" is repeated here; one instance needs to be deleted. 108.210.5.163 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Co-conspirator is a bad word to use. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

External Links / FBI
Please add FBI Seeking Information Related to Violent Activity at the U.S Capitol Building. -- Iape (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! -- Iape (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is PD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8YVqgFsrdM Victor Grigas (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it? Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The "performance" is by an employee of the federal government. Whether the creative content of a cut between cameras rises to the level of copyright protection is very doubtful - if that is a CSPAN employee making the cut.  I would have no problem with this being linked to, or indeed used in an appropriate article.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Burning of Washington
Why is the 1814 Burning of Washington listed as a similar incident? That was done during a war with a foreign power, and by foreign nationals. Are we really trying to refight the War of 1812 on an encyclopedia? Both the USA and UK have moved on. Remove this baseless link. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's similar as in being an attack on the US Capitol. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that it was a First Amendment protected protest by U.S. nationals. The 1814 burning was an act of war by foreign nationals - or do you want to refight the American Revolutionary War: 1776-1783 on Wikipedia? 47.137.184.131 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Or we could just go ahead and say that impressment, a major cause of the War of 1812, was just fine and dandy. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The First Amendment doesn't permit you to breach and ransack a federal building (including stealing laptops that contains classified information), which is why both events are similar despite having a few major differences. The First Amendment only protects protests, not riots or insurrection. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't heard yet about of classified information being stolen, and will look into that. I do wonder if you thinkthat the First Amendment allows the destruction of classified emails by Hillary Clinton which were under federal subpoena.. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, this is getting old so I will be blunt: stop trolling. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

""""Before you try to silence me with the charge of "trolling", why don't you cite the Wikipedia definition of trolling, and give an example of any of my posts that are "trolling". While you are at it, I will peruse your posts and find ones to flag as trolling posts. I am trying to build an encyclopedia. What are you trying to do? 47.137.184.131 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this troll for 48 hours. Compare Meta: What is a troll?. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

No Trump - bashing please
What is so special about storming a parliament? Capital has already burned once, the Reichstag has burned, was stormed several times, and even demonstrators were shot. Numerous US presidents were shot. And the Wahö 2000 was not successfully contested. So: No Trump bashing, please!--2003:CB:2F05:6A71:B4E7:D835:5BFC:D112 2003:CB:2F05:6A71:B4E7:D835:5BFC:D112 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Becasue RS think it is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump does deserve a lot of criticism for the way he acted before the event and how he handled things during and after. A lot of the reliable sources used in the article dish out such criticism; if there are any statements you believe are not supported by the sources you are welcome to raise them here and they can be discussed, but "no Trump bashing" without any examples is a bit ridiculous given the context here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The article has been created with as much of a neutral point of view as possible, with implementations from sources. Articles are supposed to have accuracy (and cite information from trusted sources), and your political views should not determine which articles are allowed and which are not. "Things have happened before", to me, does not seem like a strong reason as to why an article sould be removed EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If someone broke into your home, stole your property, killed or injured members of your family, and tried to burn your house down, how would you react? The Capitol is the people's house, and not only was there an attempt to destroy the structure and loot it of its contents, but people were injured or died. The United States is a nation of laws.  Those who break the laws must be held accountable, regardless of who they are.  — Maile  (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you arguing that the armed storming of a national capitol by thousands of politically agitated rioters is not a notable event? if so, then that's simply complete bogus - there's more than enough coverage to write not just an article, but a featured article about it. If you're arguing that the page has an anti-trump bias, I'll refer you to Fringe theories and DUE - Wikipedia is only as fair as Reliable Sources are. They consistently call his claims false and say he incited the violence, so Wikipedia says that. Builder018 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good idea of taking this eventually to FAC. Other than the War of 1812, I don't recall that anything like this happened at, or to, the structure. And with all these good editors working on this, it would almost surely easily be Featured Article.  Maybe even have it on the main page at the one-year anniversary of the incident. — Maile  (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, obviously not currently since there's far too much ongoing discussion and it's far too reliant on breaking news sources rather than more permanent, encyclopedic citations, but this is definitely the sort of event that has the possibility to become a featured article in 3, or 6, or 12 months. Builder018 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? We are arguing about i it was a coup d'etat or an invasion and you tell us that BREAKING THE CAPITOL IS NOT SO SPECIAL? We are talking about neonazis that tried to destroy democracy against people's vote. And the responsible for that is Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites
Could we explain why members participated in this or why they are Pro-Trump? The word "Trump" does not appear in their article. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is beyond the scope of the article. Some black hate groups sometimes work with white hate groups. If readers are interested in the details of the various groups mentioned, they can follow the links to articles about them. TFD (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then, can someone include something in their article? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article are Black Hebrew Israelites referred to as a "pro-Trump" group, it merely mentions their participation in the riots which is backed by a credible source. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

New Twitter?
Is perhaps https://twitter.com/45_POTUS_Trump a new sockpuppet account of Trumps? GavinTroyJohnTom (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fake/hoax account. — Czello 18:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
Not all the rioters were supporting the US President. Some were in support of president elect Joe Biden. While Trump supporters were present, it was not entirely them. TheGreatPlebe1 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide reliable sources to back up your claim and establish conesnsus first. Mgasparin (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Indian Flag
Why no mention of bringing and waving India's flag in the event? This has been on news. Links -

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/vincent-xavier-who-waved-indian-flag-at-us-capitol-hill-says-no-disrespect-2349833 https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/meet-the-indian-american-who-waved-indian-flag-amid-violence-at-us-capitol-6319621.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddiamondbrick (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's not notable. That's why. Mgasparin (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jamiroquai Protester
I was going to add a brief mention of the protestor with the hat and horns (whose actual name is Jake Angeli), as I've found four articles that mention him specifically, including some just discussing him. However, clearly he shouldn't have his own page, nor should he go on the Jamiroquai. Does that sound ok? Any objections? He has featured very prominently in the media, almost the face of the protesters. If anyone doing the major editing here has any objections?Chetsford, WMrapids, Majavah,  let me know - Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What kind of mention and where in the article were you thinking? Majavah (talk!) 12:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Jake Angeli currently exists and its deletion is being discussed, so this article should probably err on the side of caution and later follow that decision. At this point I'd suggest yes to the specific photo I assume you're referencing, no to the text. If the discussion yields a 'delete' that should block mention of this individual in the text or the photo's caption. If there is a usable image of someone engaged in illegal activity related to a symbol of the legislature, I believe that'd certainly be appropriate to include. It's not the Tienanmen Square tank photo, but it is illustrative of this article's subject. We should make sure to focus on the event and the political symbol, and avoid lending weight to an individual strictly because of how their outfit might look (which itself raises a subjectivity issue). That is perhaps unless verifiability is established with regards to this sort of assertion that the outfit itself has symbolic relevance. MJKazin (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok - didn't realise he had his own article - thanks. Yes, a pic for him on this page is probably appropriate, if he has his own article, details can go there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's the 'QAnon Shaman', a fixture at recent right-wing rallies, Nazi-tattooed, 32, real name Jake Angeli. Angeli was at the front of a group of agitators who broke into the Capitol and faced off with DC police. He made his way into the Senate chamber where he was seen shouting and posing for photos. He was seen screaming in the Senate chamber and clutching a megaphone. Angeli flexed his left arm as he stood behind the dais in the Senate chamber where just moments earlier Pence and Nancy Pelosi had stood.


 * https://twitter.com/stevennelson10/status/1346909795564060674,


 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9120221/Horned-Arizona-QAnon-supporter-leads-Trump-supporters-looted-Congress.html - Quote: "In one photo posted on his Facebook account in November, where he calls himself Yellowstone Wolf, Angeli is seen shaking hands with Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump's personal attorney who hours before the violence kicked off encouraged supporters to pursue a 'trial by combat' ... Foto: Angeli at a rally in Phoenix in November 2020"


 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9122495/The-violent-pro-Trump-mob-stormed-Capitol.html - Quote: "One of his tattoos is said to show the symbol of Wotanism, an acronym for 'Will of the Aryan Nation.' Dr Adam Rutherford (Autor of "How to Argue with a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality (2020)") tweeted: 'I know this jamiroquoi wannabe muthaf***a is kinda funny but his tattoo is the symbol of Wotanism, which is a Nazi/Odin occult that believes Jews control the government, the Holocaust is exaggerated and champions the 14/88 slogan. He's a real card-carrying Nazi.'"


 * In a video posted on Twitter, Jamiroquai singer Jay Kay, assumed an American accent and said: “Good morning world. Now some of you may be thinking you saw me in Washington last night but I’m afraid I wasn’t with all those freaks.” He wrote: “Good Morning Washington, loving the headgear, but not sure that’s my crowd. Stay safe everyone.” --87.170.200.180 (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)