Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 8

WP:BLPCRIME and the Identification of Rioters Section
I just removed the section on identification of rioters. In case the edit isn't reverted, the original text is here:. I find that maintaining this information is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME because most of the people listed there are not public officials and have not yet been convicted of a crime. For now, this information should not be included, due to the risk of harm and legal liability. However, there were bits about public officials who attended, so I wouldn't be opposed to re-adding that per WP:BLPPUBLIC. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Agree that for now we should err on the side of caution and not disclose names. Earlier today, I reverted a number of additions to disambiguation pages that referred to the accused by their exact name and were clearly WP:BLPCRIME. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Some of the people have publicly identified themselves, so as for those people, I don't see a BLP issue with inclusion (maybe a due weight question). Neutralitytalk 21:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a BLP violation because the content was sourced to WaPo, Usatoday and other legitimate sources. Also, the person of interest is not someone who has been officially accused of any crime. I would restore this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't matter if RS identified them, the policy still provides that that information cannot be included., I'm still not convinced that that information can be included because of innocent until proven guilty. I'd say we can include that information if they identified themselves, but only after they've been convicted of a crime. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, WP:BLPCRIME advises extra caution, beyond just requiring a reliable source, before including material that accuses someone of a crime. I would also question the WP:WEIGHT that should be given to naming individuals when hundreds of people were involved, except for those whose involvement was particularly prominent. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely correct. I'd say we would need coverage from numerous reliable sources, particularly those covering national and not local events, to justify adding any self-identified people back to the article. I'm unequivocally opposed to adding individuals who didn't identify themselves, at least until a conviction is secured and the conviction is covered notably. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of names and Wikipedia isn't a trial court or investigatory service, and we can't risk that legal risk of inclusion. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All people mentioned by name in this section are actually public figures. Please see Who is a low-profile individual. For example, Jake Angeli and Baked Alaska (activist) are public figures as people seeking public attention. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE might provide that these figures, even if they're notable, might not be worth including. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest restoring most of the section -- particularly the info on alt-right celebrities and current or former state legislators. Possibly keep those who identified themselves to journalists and effectively made themselves public figures. All else, cite but don't necessarily name them in the article. RexSueciae (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, the content on legislators has been restored to the bottom of the section on rioting in the Capitol. I don't find self-identification to be sufficient for restoration, however. The policy simply states that it's best not to mention any specific names. If there are multiple sources that indicate that these people are notable, attended, and identified themself, then yes, I would consider readding. Perhaps we can go through the old text to determine this. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Herbfur: The policy does not provides that any information about a crime "cannot be included." The policy actually says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."  It's a directive to use caution and good judgment, not a total bar on anything touching on a pending criminal matter. If we use the best sources, word things accurately and carefully (i.e., avoiding any implication that any specific individual is actually guilty of a criminal act), and avoid unduly focusing on obscure individuals, that is consistent with BLP. (And we routinely do this: see Elizabeth Holmes for an example). Neutralitytalk 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's enough national coverage in reliable sources of people who identified themselves and attended the riot, I would not oppose inclusion of that content, even without a conviction, relating to your point and WP:undue. However, I still oppose inclusion of other individuals. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The text you deleted included this excerpt:

"Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots;"


 * I'm assuming you're not contending that this can't be included on BLP or some other ground? Neutralitytalk 22:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that I deleted that excerpt of text. That should definitely be added back. There's a similar portion of text about Jones' involvement in the planning section. Jones is enough of a public figure to be included. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was the one who restored the content about state legislators - I feel that, at least, should remain. They're public figures by virtue of their legislative positions, for one thing. And their actions are beginning to have repercussions in their respective state capitols.


 * Also, I agree that those who outed themselves can't really claim any expectation of privacy after this. On those who didn't, my feelings are somewhat more mixed-to-neutral. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully support the inclusion of the legislators, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore entire section and include the legislators, as some have started to receive charges. Wikipedia is not censored. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The removal of the section is due to a misunderstanding of WP:BLPCRIME, which lends credence to the section's restoration and (potential) expansion. Information from credible sources about Alex Jones and the Nationalist Social Club's involvements should be re-added to the article even if the the removed section isn't restored. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The legislators are already in the article. I also find my perceived comprehension of the policy irrelevant, I'd prefer that you explain your position based on your actual understanding of the policy. Alex Jones is already in the article. I can re-add the NSC to the article because they're an organization and not individuals. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean Wikipedia can include everything, also. We're still subject to the bounds of WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and other policies. Wikipedia should be very, very careful with including information on people who are accused of crimes, per WP:BLPCRIME. BLPCRIME specifies CONVICTION as the standard for including ordinary people, not charges. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed compromise - I propose that the content be readded to the article, but the people's names in objected sections be removed and replaced with generic language, like "a man was arrested for looting Nancy Pelosi's office". This way, important content remains and people can still find more pertinent information in the citations. ,, , , , , , thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems (somewhat) fair. A complete removal of the information would do great harm to the article and the acts, since they occured during the riots, belong on this page. Not including the names of random participants seems to follow Wikipedia policy, however, the names of prominent people arrested or wanted for "domestic terrorism" (term used by the FBI) must be included. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can support this: the only names I would include would be those of people who outed themselves. But it's no skin off my nose if those don't make it in. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This works for me also. I would limit names to people who admitted their participation and have particular prominence (such as politicians and organizational leaders). Generic descriptions for everyone else. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think this is reasonable and the detailed list of considerations below was done in a logical way. Thanks to everyone for collaborating on a good solution. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we must mentione all people who were prominently described in multiple RS and arguably qualify as public figures, especially if we have pages about these people. Should we mention them as proven perpetrators of crime? No, that could be against the policy. But to mention them as people who just took part in the events would be fine. Hiding facts which were published everywhere would be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The rationale I had in making this compromise is that, while I cannot in good conscience agree to add the names, the compromise would still make the actions known and readers can click the citations to find the actual names of the people who participated in the riot. If and when a conviction comes, the names absolutely should be included. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone notable (and especially a public figure) being present during an event X is just a fact and not a crime. Hence the BLPCRIME is irrelevant. No need to hide their names that appear everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Public figures should be included but quite a few of the people mentioned in the contested text aren't notable. Many of these pages were nominated for deletion or already deleted. The whole point of the compromise is balancing my BLPCRIME concern with the majority's wish to restore the information. The names are still available if people click the citations. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Identification of rioters
"The day after the storming of the Capitol, the FBI and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department requested the public for assistance to identify any of the rioters.  " ✅

"Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including Jake Angeli, a QAnon conspiracy theorist; Tim "Baked Alaska" Gionet, a neo-Nazi social media personality; and Nick Ochs, founder of the Proud Boys Hawaii chapter. " ❌

"Bloomberg News journalists stated that far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots; " ✅ "a Vice journalist reported that members of the Nationalist Social Club, a neo-Nazi street gang, were also present at the Capitol. CBS 2 Boise identified Josiah Colt, the man who hung from the Senate floor balcony ledge. Jenny Cudd, a former mayoral candidate of Midland, Texas, bragged on Facebook about her participation, with current Midland mayor Patrick Payton expressing disappointment in her actions. " ❌

"A picture of Richard "Bigo" Barnett of Gravette, Arkansas, a Trump-supporting self-identified white nationalist, at Pelosi's desk later went viral. Barnett was arrested on January 8, 2021. Josiah Colt, a native of Boise, Idaho, reportedly echoed themes associated with the boogaloo movement and managed to mount the vice president's seat in the Senate chamber. " ❌

"Supporters of the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers were also reportedly present or wore emblematic gear or symbols during the riots; Neo-Nazi apparel was also worn by some participants during the riots, including a shirt emblazoned with references to the Auschwitz–Birkenau concentration camp and its motto, Arbeit macht frei (German for "work makes you free"). Jon Schaffer of American metal band Iced Earth was identified as having participated in the riot. " ✅ "At least thirteen Republican state legislators—including Nevada State Assemblywoman Annie Black, Virginia State Senator Amanda Chase, Alaska State Representative David Eastman, West Virginia Delegate Derrick Evans, Missouri State Representative Justin Hill, Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem, Michigan State Representative Matt Maddock, Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, and Tennessee Representative Terri Lynn Weaver, as well as outgoing Arizona State Representative Anthony Kern, outgoing Georgia State Representative Vernon Jones, and former Pennsylvania State Representative Rick Saccone—were present at the event. Representative Weaver claimed to have been "in the thick of it," while Delegate Evans filmed himself entering the Capitol Building alongside rioters. All denied participating in acts of violence. Evans was later charged by federal authorities with entering a restricted area. " ✅

Discussion

 * I Support this change, because it's enriched and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, largely for inclusion of icons for the groups involved, which I think adds a lot to readability. Only concern is that the two listings of the Republican party might be ambiguous and confusing (seems odd to have the same group listed on two parts of a conflict), but I can see why it was done as this was a Republican rally/riot that also targeted the RNC. Is there perhaps a way to disambiguate the two factions so the listings aren't identical? Other than that it all looks good to me. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I added Republican party at both sides because indeed the Republicans splited in two. This is clear at the leaders, while Trump and Pence are in opposite sides.


 * Support. Love the angle of that first shot. I would note that the "Resignations" part is too specific as those politicians don't seem to be very popular among society; would rather just put it "Resignations of several politicians". But that's just me.  Gerald WL  13:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support But can we change the wording of "Units involved" to "Parties involved" or "Groups involved"? Units implies military or law enforcement units with central organisation and clear command structure, while this seems to have been more of an ad hoc effort. Also, I think it is problematic to place US Government on one side when the President of the very same government is on the other side. Perhaps place Presidency of Donald Trump on protester's side and Vice Presidency and US Government on the other side? Melmann 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose because of the pictures. They don't really feature the main event: the storming, entering and raiding of the capitol building. Are there better pictures? Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Too broad. Please be specific in what changes you propose, and consider splitting your proposals out. I see there are changes to the parties involved, an addition of flag icons, changes to the images, changes to the number of deaths... that's a lot, and it gets a lot more complex once you start considering the number of edits in the main article (trying to diff this will quickly become impossible). Honestly I don't even know what we are discussing here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty great. Seekallknowledge (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for the same reason as the proposals must be split. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: those "parties", with the little flaggies, and the list of players, that should go, all of it. Having the Republican Party on both sides is already indicative of the uselessness of this, and I'm sure you can come up with more gradations than two--clearly Hawley's position isn't Loeffler's (most recent) position which isn't McConnell's position which isn't Sasse's position. What "sides" are we talking about anyway? And the list of main characters--at what point in time? Why is bison head guy not in there, and why is Eric Trump, whose role (as usual) is neglible? This is, essentially, the same discussion we had yesterday over at 2020–2021 United States election protests:, it is happening again. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Full of original research. Where did you source the 'lead figures' from? Domeditrix (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. There are definitely two sides to this and it's important to note them. However, the infobox will need to have citations from reliable sources to support the placement of people/organizations on either side. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: this is a complex event and can't be adequately summed up in this way without significant risk of confusion, misunderstanding, decontextualisation and simple falsehood. I'm not just talking about the "parties" section either: the infobox should only cover the small number of facts about the event that can reasonably be covered in such a primitive way. Everything below "methods" needs to go. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose This "civil conflict" addition to the infobox totally distorts what the event was. It was not a battle between two sides, Trump supporters on the one hand and Nancy Pelosi on the other hand. It was totally one-sided, a criminal riot, and that is how it is described by Reliable Sources. Treating this a civil war between warring sides is entirely Original Research, not supported by the facts or the reporting. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose per WP:OR and Melanie. This infobox presents an original, POV-laden version of the events that we should not be stating anywhere in wikivoice, especially not in the most highly trafficked area of the page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. MelanieN and Drmies have it exactly right. This was a criminal act, not a "civil conflict" between "parties" and "units." Keep the infobox simple. Neutralitytalk 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question - Sorry for the ping. You all have expressed opposition to including the involved opposing parties of the riot because it wouldn't be clear or an accurate representation of what happened. I was wondering, would you be opposed to including a list of only the groups that reliable sources have confirmed were part of the rioters? For instance, many reliable sources confirmed that the Proud Boys attended. I was considering that instead of portraying it as a conflict between two sides like a civil war, we could just list the groups that were part of perpetrating the attack. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd still be opposed for several reasons. Using your example, let's say we list the Proud Boys in the infobox. This tells us that at least one person with at least a loose association with that group was in attendance. It doesn't tell us how many were there, what role they played, what their goals or intentions were and whether they were successful. (In the case of the Proud Boys this might be reasonably straightforward. In the case of the Capitol Police, members of which are now faced with criminal investigations for their complicity with the rioters, is obviously much more complex. Likewise the entire Republican Party, and indeed the entire federal government.) These matters are just as important, if not more, than the bare fact that a group played some role, and can only be covered in prose. Thankfully, this is an encyclopaedia written in prose, so there's no problem – the problem only arises if we try to cram extensive information about a complex event into the infobox, a format patently not designed for that purpose or capable of fulfilling that role. There's an additional problem of the impossibility of providing context. When writing prose we can say "the far-right group XYZ," "the neo-nazi organisation ABC" etc. Infoboxes don't allow (or at least certainly don't encourage) providing that sort of clarity. To some extent this is mitigated by providing a link when the organisation is notable, but notability is not necessarily a requirement for playing a major role in an event like this (the article mentions, for example, something called the Nationalist Social Club, but representatives of thousands more far-right groupuscules were surely present). I agree with Drmies' comment above, but I also see this as a deeper issue with infoboxes in articles like these per se; even if there were two clearly-defined sides, it would still be a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with ; still opposed. Would just add that once these matters are fully investigated by journalists, law enforcement, and scholars, it may well turn out that, e.g., Proud Boys were the masterminds behind (some of) the events. But making that assertion would require extensive, careful sourcing and expansion to the article's prose, not just a news report saying "there were Proud Boys there". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arms & Hearts, I couldn't agree more: thank you. you may have a point in that it seems obvious to list for instance the Proud Boys in an infobox list of perpetrators, but the complexities are just too much for an infobox. They may not be as "loosely" organized as BLM or Antifa, but there are important questions of representation here. We're not really dealing with official organizations with memberships and legal status and party platforms and official declarations of insurrection. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, those are good points. I looked through the article's prose and I found that the attending organizations were mentioned at the beginning of the section on the events of the riot, with not much detail. What do you think would be the best way to expand on this information? I think a subsection on the groups attending in the background section, with full information on the numbers and planning and investigations, would be appropriate. Thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Herbfur. I think that "participating groups" should certainly be in the article text, to the extent they are reliably confirmed. Not in the infobox. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with . I'd also add that there's no need to potentially jump the gun on this. Let's wait to see what reliable sources bring up regarding the role of certain groups before we even consider adding such fields to an infobox. To do otherwise would be to conduct original research. Domeditrix (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per MelanieN. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Care to explain why you've implemented this proposal unilaterally when the discussion is clearly ongoing and no consensus has been reached? Domeditrix (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The weight of the responses was tending toward Support, and reliable sources, on balance, support the proposal. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No they weren't, and no they don't. I have yet to see anyone produce a reference where a Reliable Source describes this as a civil conflict or lists the "sides". This is pure Original Research. And it should NOT be in the article until it has consensus, which it is a long way from right now. Thank you, User:GorillaWarfare, for removing it and adding an invisible comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a joke, yes? Vandalism by a "Unit" of the "America First (Groypers)", perhaps? What genius listed the "Republican Party" as, essentially, a belligerent in this pseudo-"battle" because some of its members were involved? Why not just toss "Men" and "White race" in there, too? What a shambolic disgrace. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose as poorly-cited if not outright original research. I previously raised concerns about the completely unsupported assertion that Groypers/America First and Neo-Confederates were "parties" to this, and that's only one concern of mine with this new proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose This is not a well thought out proposal. Gammapearls (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose these battle infoboxes are often bad on actual battles, and are offensively horrific here. The leaders are arbitrary (why Madison Cawthorn and not Ted Cruz?  how is Kevin McCarthy an opposition leader), the "Units involved" and "Casualties" sections are mockeries, and overall it's just painful to read. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose echoing sentiment from a lot of editors, this is deeply offensive. I wouldn't normally take issue with the tone of a suggestion, but to compare this to a battle requires a moment to note that this unacceptable. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose including all sub proposals below. Multiple editors above, including Drmies and Arms & Hearts sum up my views so I’ll be short. I am sure the change is in good faith, but it doesn’t consider the implications clearly and is factually and logically erroneous. We do not have multiple parties up against each other: Republicans vs Democrats is factually incorrect and ridiculous (Republicans distanced themselves from these events), and is perpetuating the same rhetoric that led to this stuff in the first place, and “Trump verses Pence + Pelosi” is equally silly. Further, these were a disparate group of criminals, nothing more, and there was only one “key figure” involved in the events. That alone doesn’t call for a sided presentation in the infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Care to explain why you've implemented this proposal unilaterally when the discussion is clearly ongoing and there is no consensus in favour of such changes? Domeditrix (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. There appears to be consensus against doing this so far. Added sides - no one has provided a valid reason as to why this shouldn't be included. Only arguments provided have been fogged by emotion and denial. is not a very convincing argument to override consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MelanieN simon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MelanieN and Drmies. — Goszei (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposals
Please add the proposals so that we can discuss them individually --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be noted that at the time of the submission of this proposal, the extant infobox in the article included parties in the "sides" sections. Those have since been removed, for better or worse, from the live page. So it should be understood that this proposal wasn't suggesting to *add* those, but merely to update them. I personally still think they have merit. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For better. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Using the "side1" and "side2" parameters of the infobox civil conflict

 * Support It seems clear to me that there is a consensus among the reliable sources that this was an insurrection by Trump's supporters against U.S. government. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NO. It is not that simple. And if you have "Trump supporters" on one side and "US government" on another you are simplifying things greatly, and your representation is a representation of nothing. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's far too muddy for that. See previous discussions for examples.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC).


 * Oppose per Drmies. It vastly oversimplifies the event, to the point where we would be misleading readers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly Oppose — I would like to support this, as the person who led the effort last night to boldly begin utilizing the infobox parameters to include more detail. However the proposal currently is not appropriate. It lacks proper citations and introduces gaudy flags which aren't appropriate. I might try to retool this and propose a different version. However, it currently doesn't help. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Like Gwennie, though I would like to support this, this proposal is not appropriate and should be tweaked. Nekomancerjade (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I share the view of the commenters above: gaudy, inaccurate, and oversimplifying. — Goszei (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Using flag icons in the infobox

 * Weak oppose I don't think it would help readability. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fairly strong support I think it helps avoid wall of unornamented text syndrome, adds visual interest and a graphical hook. Also makes parties recognizable at a glance. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - There were flags at the event. Reliable sources prominently feature people holding those flags. We should use their flags. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I can't see a reason to put flags here, we should try and minimise flag usage (especially in infobox) per MOS:ICON/WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: is correct. Elephanthunter, no. There was also a bison head at the event; we wouldn't want that in an infobox. If you want to go by what flags they wore, the "Trump" side would numerically be represented by an American flag, which takes the crazy to a whole nother level. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the fac that Trump supporters want to believe that they are represented by the American flag. In reality they attacked at the building that represent democracy. The fact that they believed they are saving their country doesn't mean they could be right. They attacked their goverment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.2.45 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point: you should tell this to Elephanthunter. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. It's clear and enriched. Flags represent each group and raised at the Capitol. So, I cannot find any reason not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the discussion above, we are not going to have any listing of "sides" in the infobox, so we would certainly not be using "flags". Most of the suggested "combatants" don't have a flag anyhow. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, we are not going to have any listing of "sides" in the infobox There is no consensus on one side or the other at the moment so the question remains open. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A tiny flag does not help readers identify flags in pictures, despite the argument above. They're visually disruptive, and we don't need to be doing these groups' branding for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Couldn't agree with GorillaWarfare more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * America vs America? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It's neonazis Americans against America.

Using the "leadfigures1" and "leadfigures2" parameters of the infobox civil conflict

 * Weak oppose Trump can arguably be designated a lead figure on the "side" of Trump's supporters, but who can be considered a lead figure on the "side" of the US Congress? Does the question even make sense? --RaphaelQS (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Among with the US Congress it is the Democratic Party and part of Republicans. And generally they are the key peoples of each side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Both leaders are rather clear-cut and lots of sourcing exists surrounding them. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal
As I can see most of the people that oppose are about the flags. I personally support the flag use but I think we could find a solution that satisfy most of us. So I suggest to remove the flags from the units but keep them at the sides.
 * Support. Let's change it and replace the poor infobox of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.52.92 (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Military-style parties in infobox?
Both sides are armed, so it may well make sense, but I think the use of the  params should be discussed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be something to discuss at Template talk:Infobox civil conflict, since it's the standard template. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that that is the right infobox to be using. It is not clear why certain names are included and others aren't. This is breaking news, obviously, and we should not be rushing to fit it into a template. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bondegezou. /Julle (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bondegezou for two other reasons: (a) it's very unclear how the unrest was coordinated (or whether it was) (b) parties should characterize all parties. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed that part of the infobox for now given it's 4:1. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of bringing it back, it was very useful FAISSALOO(talk) 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Conflicted. It was a violent confrontation. Adding  complies with standard in other American riot articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Washington,_D.C.,_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement. But generally US violent riot conflict do not use the tag. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Strongly opposed adding it. It doesn't make sense and it was a source of vandalism. Puts the deaths on the same level as soldiers in war rather than an unfortunate loss of life. Suggests protestors and capitol police all went into it expecting casualties like a war. As a first-order logical problem, few people in the capitol were associated with an "organization" and of those who were, many were associated with multiple. This is not like the Allied forces and the Axis. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties in infobox
Someone removed the sides part of the infobox 'as per weight of support' with only 4 or 5 users even weighing in their opinion. I believe it's necessary to know the involved parties, and that the only problem was overcomplication. I think that it should be re-added, but kept simplified. Such as Pro-Trump protesters, and then just DC, VA, MD, NJ and the national guard or something? I'm not sure but I feel putting the involved parties in the infobox will help give a better overview. Flalf Talk 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would suggest discussing this at rather than starting a new section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, this suggestion doesn't really cover the reason given by Bondegezou and DenverCoder9 for why they opposed it. Maybe you should make a sandbox version of this proposed change with citations so that it is a bit clearer and to try to resolve the issues.  So far, I am in agreement with their responses.  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest it should eventually be added back, but only after the dust has settled a bit and we can get a good sense of what happened from the sources. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If/when the participants are added back at some point, here's what I propose based on preliminary knowledge of whom the participants were. All with stringent citations.

ImperatorPublius (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When you include sides in a conflict, you should include the number, or if not possible, approximate number of "soldiers" in each "country". Scare quotes because this obvious isn't a traditional conflict box. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead parties in infobox
I don't see how this isn't pure WP:OR. I initially removed it but then noticed that fatalities and injuries were organized by side, so self-reverted. But seriously, who decided that (e.g.) Madison Cawthorn was a lead figure on the Trump side? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes this seems fraught with difficulty. Dividing the fatalities by "side", especially when at least one was unrelated to the storming, seems inhumane. These deaths (and even the injuries) did not seem to be the goal of either side. If you watch the video of the breach of the barrier you will see protesters helping a police officer to their feet. You may also have seen pictures of an officer treating a protestor's eye with an eyebath. The officer who shot Ashli Babbitt will be investigated, not sent back with a clap on the back, and a medal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

Removed
I've removed both the "sides" and "leadparties" values from the infobox after they were once again re-added, since I haven't seen any consensus to reintroduce them, and there are major sourcing issues with them. I've left an inline note asking people not to reintroduce them without achieving consensus first; I assume people just haven't realized there was already discussion about not including them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting there is some additional discussion below at . GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Can there be a vote on this of some sort? I support the mentioned infobox due to ease of determining who the parties involved were. At the current moment we can omit and debate as to whether political parties should be involved but the actual actors like Capitol police and Q should not be delayed in posting 50.75.4.146 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See . GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. Elsewhere people are maintaining that the Capitol Police assisted the protesters (though I think they are wrong), and no-one knows what "Q"'s objective is, it's quite likely that they are laughing at their followers. Not much is as clear cut as in a military conflict. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC).


 * Agreed. Inhumane to try to describe it as a war and many of the people caught up in it as soldierrs. Capitol police assisted protestors.


 * I support having the infobox belligerents added, as seen in 2020 United States racial unrest for example Bruhmoney77 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I support having the infobox belligerents added as well. It was used for the2020 United States racial unrest as stated above. One may argue that this event was even more severe considering a group of people entered into the building that represents the United States government. Football3434 (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll re-voice here the sentiment from many editors that this kind of comparison is horrifically offensive. I assume editors who don't oppose haven't thought through the implications of equating this to a battle. I'm in favor of deleting this section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn’t call it offensive to have belligerents for a civil conflict. 2020 United States racial unrest, 2019-20 Hong Kong protests, 2019-2020 Chilean protests all have them for example. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. If you have a concrete suggestion, please think it through and post. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We use this in many instances that are similar to this one. This was a conflict to say the least. Many conflicts have had a belligerents infobox. Football3434 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So I guess I’ll just put a support toward adding belligerents to this article’s infobox. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Riots generally have military style info boxes. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol should have a military style info box because it is a civil conflict with obvious sides, moreso than other similar events as it is widely considered a coup attempt, sedition, insurrection, ...etc by Congress, other members of US government, mainstream news organizations, ...etc; all consider it to be a literal armed conflict. There were clearly two sides with opposing goals. The attackers include various organized groups unlike most other riots, and they had a clear goal that was not unifying. Of course there are some good acts by rioters and police, but there are good acts even in war between enemies. Warlightyahoo (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Support removal. Several users above have deferred to consistency with other articles that use this infobox. Personally, I think the "side" parameter in Infobox civil conflict is questionable, and creates an undue parallelism with military conflicts. For example, it doesn't really add anything to list on a side "Metropolitan Police", "Capitol Police", "FBI", and "DHS" – the takeaway of this event was "the stormers" vs. "law enforcement". I would support removal of the sides for the infoboxes of several of the examples cited above, as well. — Goszei (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * with all due respect, that makes zero sense. To remove the belligerents from the infobox would take forever due to the sheer amount of articles that have belligerents for civil conflicts. Not to mention, this was a civil conflict that had obvious sides and their own casualties. To not add it would make no sense and serve as an inconsistency. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Bruhmoney77, please stop trying to post about adding a box without thinking it through. For every article with a box like this, there are many that don't. Consider 2012 Benghazi attack. Any box should have the following characteristics. It's a good exercise to demonstrate why it's not appropriate here. (1) can all "belligerents" be identified as belonging to a country or organization? few can be identified with a specific organization and those that can sometimes belonged to multiple (1) were "belligerents" on clearly defined sides, always "fighting" and never helping one another -- Capitol Police worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of everyone, of course prioritizing the safety of some but with the safety of all in mind. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe there's been consensus on this (multiple times), so if you're considering posting here, please read the whole discussion through first. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI: "The Pelosi' empty was looted and vandalized."
I'm simply reporting this nonsensical sentence in the lead section: "The Pelosi' empty was looted and vandalized." FrunkSpace (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone has fixed this, thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

Emerging COMMONNAME
I know there's a discussion here about whether to include coup/insurrection based on building our own title, but before we do come to another RM, I think it's worthy to note that at least CNN, per their news special, has settled on their name for it: The Trump Insurrection.

A variant on this phrasing, if not used as a name, is apparent in other sources:
 * "pro-Trump insurrection" - Inquirer
 * "politicians blame Trump for insurrection" - The Guardian (news not opinion)
 * "pro-Trump insurrection" - MSNBC
 * "the Trump insurrection" - New Yorker
 * "pro-Trump attempted insurrection" - The Washington Post

It seems like that's the emerging COMMONNAME and something to keep an eye on to see if it sticks before we move the article again. We don't to cycle through lots of article moves for such a prominent topic. If it's still sticking by next week, it would be the best title, but let's watch it for now. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

These sources have all expressed anti-Trump sentiment before the event. It would be great to get sources from those who support him (however wrong they may be) to verify that the word is used by both. Common requires broad usage. This is coming from someone personally anti-Trump. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral media reporting on Trump doing sketchy things is just going to happen with neutral media. You do know that neutral media exists, right? These are WP-consensus agreed some of the most neutral sources. They have independent journalists, so if they've ever said something "anti-Trump" it's because, like with this event, Trump did something objectionable. I can see where you're coming from, but you're aiming for False balance. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If appropriate for Wikipedia, the term "Insurrection" will be used by official bodies in course proceedings whose job is to investigate actions with specific legal meanings like "Insurrection". Then we should add it to this article. Otherwise, it's like a news report about a murder. Maybe true, but it doesn't belong here. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * News reports about murders do belong here. We can't call it murder per BLPCRIME, just like how at no point in this article is it called an insurrection. Builder018 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We're agreeing. I meant the word "murder" doesn't belong here. And exactly--the word "insurrection" doesn't belong in this article (yet). DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I think you might be misunderstanding something else - if we changed the title to "The Trump Insurrection", we're not subjectively saying Wikipedia thinks it's an insurrection, we're (correctly) reporting that "The Trump Insurrection" is what this event is being called by people. Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Niskanen Center also using "The Trump Insurrection" as name. Their article is also under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)