Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 9

Excerpted words from Trump speech in lead missing context...
Currently, the few cherry-picked words from Trump's address are arranged in such a way that they push a POV and give the false impression that he explicitly advocated for a violent attack on the Capitol. Happily for us, fact-checkers have since used more nuance in describing his words in context—and as Snopes points out here, Trump told them to "peacefully and patriotically" march to the Capitol to "cheer on" legislators to "take back the country". Snopes links to a transcript of the full remarks. Accordingly, I suggest keeping the current phrases, but editing the sentence to read:
 * It's falsely stated (or at least implied) that he exhorted his followers to "take back the country" (he wanted them to "cheer on" legislators to do so).
 * The "fight like hell" was in the context of "election security", not referring to any walk to the Capitol.
 * And the cited sources are far from ideal—both are from the minutes and hours after the riot, one from a UK "live blog" that is no longer at the link, the other from a tiny Globe article that offers no real context and was published during the rioting and before law enforcement had even reestablished control of the buildings.
 * "After saying "we need to fight like hell" to protect the country from alleged voter fraud, Trump encouraged his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" to the Capitol and to support "weak" Republicans with "the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." 

That seems to me a far more neutral and accurate encapsulation of what he said in the context of encouraging his supporters going to the Capitol. And I understand there are concerns about length; if that's the case, a briefer but still more-accurate sentence is possible. But it's essential that the lead in this encyclopedia article not give a distorted or biased view of the President's words. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUE, “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Whilst Trump didn’t, as you say, explicitly advocate the storming if your suggested emphasis was adopted it wouldn’t reflect the balance of reliable sources. These clearly emphasise that the overall impact of what he said was to incite the mob to storm the Capitol. NPOV requires that that should be the emphasis therefore. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia Elle! I would read her/his comment carefully: the sources are evaluating what he said, not reading into the intention behind it. As written, the article implies the words he said were an explicit call to storm the capitol. News outlets have tried to say his intention was to do something, but that's different. Elle is making the (excellent) point that we should pay attention to the fact checkers for basic facts. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support reword as per Ele. The article as it stands is biased. --49.195.111.81 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump said “fight” 23 times in his January 6th 2021 speech. In every every other use of “fight” Trump was referring to an intellectual and political “fight” with words and ideas rather than physical violence. Why would the article assume that Trump’s “fight like hell” statement encouraged unlawful violence? Trump instead encouraged his audience “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Here’s 3 quotes from Trump’s 1-6-2021 speech that tells his audience to peacefully cheer on the elected officials “to take back our County”.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (18:16)

“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women” (16:25)

“So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” (01:12:43)

Before we state a POV that Trump incited an insurrection, let’s at least read Trump’s actual speech.

Trump 1-6-2021 speech full transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6 Harpervi (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Trump administration gutted ...
The Trump administration gutted a key federal agency responsible for funneling intelligence and threat assessments to law enforcement partners across the country Could this information be included in the introduction to the Background section?


 * https://abcnews.go.com/US/months-ahead-capitol-riot-dhs-threat-assessment-group/story?id=75155673

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The article says that Trump gutted the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis which could have provided information to DC police about the threats to the Capitol. I think that's fine so long as we explain the relevance and that it is an opinion. TFD (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Did Trump care about Pence's safety?
The following (properly sourced) lines are in the entry:

A source close to the vice president subsequently told CNN that Trump and his top aides did little to check on Pence's safety during the crisis and appeared unconcerned at the possibility that "an angry mob that he commanded to march on the Capitol might injure the vice president or his family."

The line reports on something an anonymous source noticed that did not happen - it's not actually part of the narrative of what DID happen. Further, it reads like an attack on Trump's character - unnecessary, and out of place. I don't write this in defense of Trump - who I totally oppose - but it disrupts the narrative of the day's events - which say more about Trump, and more effectively, than this anonymous statement about something that purportedly did not happen. I'm deleting the line, and referencing this comment. Jd2718 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s well sourced (as you concede) and obviously significant to the subject of this article based on encyclopedia policy. I can conceive of no valid reason to exclude it. Both acts and omissions can be significant to understanding an event. The fact that it may reflect poorly on Trump is not a reason for deletion. Neutralitytalk 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is does not tell what happened. There is no event. An anonymous source says that something - and not even anything specific - did not happen. Imputing meaning to a non-event should not be up to editors. Jd2718 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that the rioters explicitly called to harm Pence makes it notable information. Kingsif (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Trump knew that at the time. That was reporting that came out later. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jd2718 removing it. This is speculation at best; it is attributed to a single anonymous source; and it is about something that did not happen. We could write another whole article about things that did not happen - or about things that people could or should have done but didn't. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , as for "single anonymous source," there are multiple sources that independently report this:


 * Since these has been considered noteworthy by least four independent sources (the AP, CNN, NBC, and USA Today), I don't see how we can omit this material, which is about an extraordinary rupture between a president and VP. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since these has been considered noteworthy by least four independent sources (the AP, CNN, NBC, and USA Today), I don't see how we can omit this material, which is about an extraordinary rupture between a president and VP. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since these has been considered noteworthy by least four independent sources (the AP, CNN, NBC, and USA Today), I don't see how we can omit this material, which is about an extraordinary rupture between a president and VP. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since these has been considered noteworthy by least four independent sources (the AP, CNN, NBC, and USA Today), I don't see how we can omit this material, which is about an extraordinary rupture between a president and VP. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since these has been considered noteworthy by least four independent sources (the AP, CNN, NBC, and USA Today), I don't see how we can omit this material, which is about an extraordinary rupture between a president and VP. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since these has been considered noteworthy by least four independent sources (the AP, CNN, NBC, and USA Today), I don't see how we can omit this material, which is about an extraordinary rupture between a president and VP. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There’s too much evidence proving that this did actually happen so I agree that we should keep it SRD625 (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see that consensus is leaning toward saying something, so let’s talk about wording. I object to the "appeared unconcerned" part of the original material, which is mind reading; let's talk about actions. Reviewing the sources suggested by Neutrality (giving less credence to the AP article since it does not say where it is getting its information), how about something like this: Sources close to the vice president said that Trump never reached out to Pence during the siege or inquired about his safety. (NBC News) Aides believed that Pence was being set up as a scapegoat for Trump’s failure to overturn the results of the election. (CNN 1) Pence was described as very angry with Trump, and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incident. (CNN 2) Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't confirm the lack of concern for Pence, but I can say that I saw footage over and over on CNN and MSNBC where the mob was inside the Capitol asking, "Where's Pence? Where's Pence?  Where's Pence?" However it arrived at that point, at least part of the invading crowd was looking for Pence personally. — Maile  (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : I'm OK with something like that. Neutralitytalk 17:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and the two reportedly have not spoken since the incident will get outdated at some point, but otherwise that sounds good. Majavah (talk!) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we've been a bit too quick to declare a consensus here. The arguments for not including this sort of thing are obvious to me. We have plenty to say about what did concretely occur, based on sources that are unequivocal and fact-based; we don't need to rely on on-background sources about what didn't happen and how it made people feel. It's possible, as Jd2718 says below, that at a later date there'll be lots of coverage of this – that's a good reason to wait until that happens. We don't need to try to get ahead of the story. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to Maile's concern: Should we add something to the first sentence like even as protesters inside the Capitol were seeking him out and chanting “Where is Pence?” (NYT) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's relevant context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I think consensus is shaping up in a positive way. Thank you all around. The rupture between Trump and Pence is a very big deal. I could imagine, a year from now, that it might be a central part of the telling (we are too close to it as a news item to know how it will eventually be viewed). Jd2718 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Neutralitytalk 22:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll add it. I agree that a split between Trump and Pence could prove to be one of the most important results of this thing. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I added it to the "Reactions/Mike Pence" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Do we have something in the article already, about the protesters looking for Pence and threatening to lynch or execute him? Plenty of sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Answering my own question: yes, we do. It's in the "Senate evacuated" section, I think, although that may not be the best place for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Essentially Domestic Terrorists"
In the opening line, it refers to the rioters as domestic terrorists. In the citations used in the opening line (21 and 22), nothing implies that these people were terrorists. The words "Domestic Terrorist", "Terrorist", or even "Domestic" were never used. And as a matter of fact, using a random sampling of 30 or so citations in this article, the words domestic terrorist or their constituent words, words that have alternative meanings similar to that of domestic terrorist or terrorist, wording that would imply these rioters were terrorists or domestic terrorists, or a quotation stating or implying that these rioters were domestic terrorists is nowhere to be found. Calling someone a terrorist is a severe accusation, and if there is no evidence to back it up, it has no place in this article. In the meantime, I am placing a "Citation not found" inline on that line. JazzClam (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So far as I know none has been charged as a terrorist. Mentioning what offenses have been charged if/when there is information would improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, this is a BLP. We canot say people have commited crimes if tehy have not yet been prosecuted.17:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the term is best avoided unless there is consensus for its use. I notice that Jake Tapper on CNN is calling it a terrorist attack, like it was America's version of the Gunpowder Plot or the Reichstag Fire. TFD (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that the term should be avoided outside of quotes, though the reasons presented above are not convincing – there would be no (or minimal) BLP implications in calling it a terrorist attack if no culprit was named, and we shouldn't choose vocabulary based on what police or prosecutors charge people with, because legal categories are at a remove from everyday speech and prosecution is not the same as conviction. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

C-SPAN broadcast of the chambers
Here are some events from the C-SPAN broadcast of the Joint Session for Counting of Electoral College Ballots on January 6.

1. The House goes into recess after protestors breach the chamber at 14:16 to 14:18

2. The House goes into recess again at 14:29

3. Protestors inside Statuary Hall at 14:30 to 14:34

4. The Senate goes into recess broadcast at 17:14 to 17:20

The third one would be nice to have but I don't think it's in the public domain since it's not from in the House or the Senate. The last one is public domain though so I uploaded it here. Can it be added to the article? Neckstells (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC) in this version 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (this version) appears to be incorrect upon viewing the C-SPAN2 clips. Would the following better reflect events, as Senator Sinema had finished, and Senator Lankford was in the midst of remarks?
 * , anything taken inside the House and Senate chambers is fair game and public domain according to WP:CSPAN, however if it involves anything outside of it, that's copyrighted and you'd need NFCC. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 11:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This text "After Pence left, Arizona's senior senator, Kyrsten Sinema, finished her defense before the Senate was recessed at 2:20 p.m., and the chamber was then locked down"
 * Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) was speaking on the challenge to the Arizona Electoral College vote when the Senate when into recess. Vice President Pence, then presiding over the Senate, was rushed out by the Secret Service. The Senate chamber and press gallery were put into lock-down.
 * Notes: VP Pence's evacuation is not shown on C-SPAN2. The C-SPAN2 clips show the lock-down of the Senate chamber along with replay of earlier remarks by Majority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky). These two CSPAN2 user clips show this:
 * Lent (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was considering making a Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, where PRIMARY sources would be acceptable to give a timeline of events; what do the clips show: Sinema finishes, Lankford starts, Pence leaves, Lankford doesn't finish before Senate recessed? Given Trump was tweeting during these 10 minutes to incite, it seems relevant we know who was speaking. (OR:) Pence and Sinema (D-AZ) seem like obvious "targets" that people would want to disrupt during the debate at that point, so if it was Lankford that's something to note. Kingsif (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lent (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was considering making a Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, where PRIMARY sources would be acceptable to give a timeline of events; what do the clips show: Sinema finishes, Lankford starts, Pence leaves, Lankford doesn't finish before Senate recessed? Given Trump was tweeting during these 10 minutes to incite, it seems relevant we know who was speaking. (OR:) Pence and Sinema (D-AZ) seem like obvious "targets" that people would want to disrupt during the debate at that point, so if it was Lankford that's something to note. Kingsif (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (this version) now has this, which seems reasonable. While debate over the Arizona electoral college votes continued, an armed police officer entered the Senate chamber, positioned facing the back entrance of the chamber. Pence handed the floor from Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema to Senator James Lankford. Moments later, Pence was escorted out by members of the Secret Service, and banging could be heard from outside as people attempted to breach the doors. As Lankford was speaking, the Senate was gaveled into recess at 2:13 p.m.
 * A detailed timeline might also note after Senator Sinema's remarks were concluded, Majority Leader McConnell yielded five minutes to Senator Lankford
 * A further detail: (presumably after Vice President Pence was removed to safety) president pro tempore Chuck Grassley gavelled the session into recess. (At clip 44 min 15 seconds, four gavel bangs are heard followed by Mr Grassley saying) The Senate will stand in recess until the call of the chair.
 * Finally, the C-SPAN2 audio picks up someone (probably the person who had approached from Langford's left) saying at 44 min 2 seconds "It wasn't anything you said."
 * apparently to Langford.
 * Lent (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great, but we can't just have a video referencing the actions that happen, so it might need to be written more simply or re-introduce the written sources that at least reference some of the facts. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So would a moment-by-by moment like 22 July 2011 here Timeline of the 2011 Norway attacks  be a model? Or something else found via List of timelines? Many use much larger time periods like years or centuries. Perhaps a starting point for a timeline page might be to start with an existing page where an event was the central topic, with later edits covering preceding contributing events and derivative following events? Perhaps this horrific event: November 22: Fort Worth breakfast speech. Not really sure what style would be best. Lent (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the time code version would be better: easier to follow and there's suitable prose here. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split on event timeline section
Due to size considerations, the section on the timeline of the events of the Capitol storming likely needs to be spun out into a standalone article. If approved, I suggest placing the link at the beginning of the main section on the D.C. events using Template:For. TVTonightOKC (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion on a timeline article is above... somewhere Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just do it Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi TVTonightOKC! I agree with Kingsif that splitting out the timeline of events into a separate article will be helpful. This proposed split was only mentioned in passing elsewhere on the talk page. It would be brilliant if you could go ahead with this. I would be happy to do some clean up edits to support you with this! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We need a new RfC on the title
I scanned the talk page and didn't see one happening. I've been reading a lot of coverage about the protesters this weekend, ones who were live streaming and posting on Instagram & Facebook and ones who have since been arrested. And, to a man, they describe what they did as "storming the Capitol." Then I saw a Yale history professor on a news program who was talking about the language we use for this event and she said that "storming" implies heroism (like revolutionaries storming the Bastille and other like incidents). I don't think the article reflects a sympathetic view of the rioters so I think we should consider a title that implies more of a riot or insurrection than a "revolution" or a heroic storming of the bastions of political power. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't agree that storming implies heroism at all, only that a defended position was overrun. It was historic, unfortunate as that is for the overwhelming majority of non-stormers. "Assault" could be better, but mostly because "storming" suggests a complete and final victory rather than a temporarily successful attack that was ultimately repelled. Still, if it's thought problematic because of the militaristic tone of "storming" and its cognates in Germanic languages favoured by the participants, consider that if the current title is kept, the implication is that rather than the "storm" "coming", or being "here", as the fantasists allege, it fixes the event firmly in the past. The storm has blown over, blown itself out, it was a washout ... GPinkerton (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * it's more like a "one size fits all term". A military term, used for both sides.  During WWII, it's almost always used when the Allies "storm" one front of another. On the other hand, at the Battle of the Alamo, it's used to describe how the Mexican troops "stormed" the Alamo and massacred everyone inside. And like those battles themselves, determining the hero is very subjective to POV. — Maile  (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There was an RfC with more than 200 participants. The current title was the result. We should wait at least a week, probably more, before reopening that question. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, probably much longer than a week. As long as the media cycle focuses on the transition, we aren't going to get proper retrospective terminology. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a size estimate?
Even with all the details and specifics about this crowd listed I was still unable to ascertain if the size was 500 people or 500,000. Did I miss something? Fieldlab (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump would say it is the biggest protest in US history! I have seen estimates ranging from several thousand up to ten thousand. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article mentions estimates that were expected, and i came here wondering why there's no number at all, it's a glaring omission. Normally you see numbers as if official, but not here, not yet. This forum is a first of its kind, so as i learn more about what it's (WP) learned, I will be able to put this in better words, but i'll try: let's let it (this community) take its time, but without looking away from the fact that either all the estimates are bull, or this event needs one too. We are also seeing poll numbers, so this does belong in the article, just "how soon" i guess.... -i'll make an account soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.224.248 (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

All I've seen in Reliable Source reporting is that there were "thousands" at the rally and "hundreds" in the invasion force. I believe that is still what we say in the article. If we get better/more official numbers we should use them. Ironically, helicopters had been grounded for fear of seeming too "military", so we don't have our usual means of estimating crowd size. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

🇳🇵 I'm glad others are talking about! I was curious about other users' thoughts about adding attendance, even though it hasn't been a much discussed item by news sources. I think we should try and add it in the main infobox. Jccali1214 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Praise of certain individuals
I think this addition by probably should be discussed. It might make sense to incorporate such information into the article, but perhaps not as its own stand-alone section. The way it was added also seems to be problematic because basically it was inserted as a level-3 section into the level-2 "Aftermath" section after the level-3 "Criticism of the Capitol Police"; the latter, however, had two level-4 subsections added to it which now are completely out of place in the "Praise of certain individuals". (see before and after for a comparison). I get WP:BOLD and that people want to contribute. but it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS and slow down a bit when expanding like this, just to (1) see whether there's a consensus and (2) try and avoid mucking up (even unintentionally) the overall layout of the article. This article is under WP:ACDS and WP:1RR which means everyone needs to be as careful as possible when editing it. This content might actually fit better in the "Other domestic reactions" section for the praise aspects of it and in the "Rioting in the Capitol building" where the actual actions taken by these individuals might be OK to add. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed it pending discussion. I agree it is out of place and probably TMI. I will find a place to add the information about the parliamentarian staffers saving the papers. I don't see any need to mention one Capitol police officer who took one action. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the bit about safeguarding the documents to the section about evacuating the Senate chambers. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * — ✅ a section for notable individual actions/confrontations is merited. Eugene Goodman, whom this addition mentioned, has become notable for his actions, as have others. These notable actions should be included in an appropriately-placed, NPOV-worded location. However this attempt at this was poorly-placed. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of differential treatment
Since this section seems mostly based on one's opinion. Should we not add a counter-claim such as this article? 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That source is mostly op-eds per WP:RSP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a little confused. Is that a problem? Most of the other sources there are also opinion pieces or Op-ed. Not really sure what the problem is? 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we want to minimize use of op-eds. Currently in that section, in order: I think we should try to get more non-op-ed pieces in that section. I'll try to make some edits.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've WP:BOLDly made edits to focus more on RS and less on op-eds. I tried to highlight prominent figures (e.g., Biden) over pundits/commentators. The statements about differential treatment are now sourced to RS without the bevy of "claims" and "Smith said..." I started with the overall issue, then federal/Trump/White House as highlighted by nearly all sources, then social media coverage, and finally political response. I wavered on the Trump/federal paragraph a bit, but given that Trump and the White House (secretaries of various offices) organize law enforcement responses in DC including on January 6, I thought it appropriate in that section.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand what you are saying. Would you prefer just a quote from Stephen Miller, no relation to the other Stephen Miller? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We should mention rioters' call to murder VP Pence in the lead paragraphs
The call of many of the Trump rioters to murder VP Pence by hanging is documented by Reliable Sources (as defined by Wikipedia), as well as video. This extraordinary fact should go in the Lead, as it speaks to the intentions of the rioters. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in the article. I don't think it should be in the lead (which is already way too long, but we won't be able to trim it back until the situation cools down and we stop getting hundreds of edits a day). -- MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Fox News opinion articles on DC storming
I would like to get consensus on the issue of whether or not it is okay to site Fox News in politics for attributed opinion (talk shows) for this article. I had previously made edits adding them as a source for opinion on media bias because I thought they were fine to use for opinion. But user Soibangla argues that they shouldn't be used because they are "arguably (and I would argue strongly) "agents" of the larger Trump political operation, and as such should be excluded in this case." The issue is that RSP language in this case isn't very nuanced, as it says Fox News talk shows can only "sometimes" be sourced for opinion. Which is why I came here to get consensus. I would also like to clarify that I am not a fan of Fox News at all, so I don't really care to much if the decision goes either way. X-Editor (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

AP article
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace reports details about several people who took part in the riots. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an insurrection in the first sentence lede
To settle the edit warring re: use of "insurrection" in a lede let's do a vote on whether to call it an insurrection, as most US and worldwide reliable sources call it an insurrectionYeungkahchun (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeungkahchun you are topic banned.Please stop. 02:13, 18 August 2020 Mz7 talk contribs unblocked Yeungkahchun talk contribs (Conditional unblock following successful appeal. User agrees to a topic ban from post-1932 American politics.) Galesburg777 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, i was merely proposing a discussion of a vote on the talk page whether or not to use the word. I highly oppose unilaterally adding the word "insurrection" to the page before a group consensus. To be clear, I did not revert anyone's edit once the word "insurrection" was removed. My stance is that I strogly oppose adding the word "insurrection" unless there is a group consensus. Also, I was topic unbanned.Yeungkahchun (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All the edits you made to this page are a violation of your topic banGalesburg777 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I did indeed decide to lift the topic ban yesterday, so these edits are not violations. Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My topic ban has been lifted according to user Mz7. 05:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger video
Former Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger drew parallels between the storming of the Capitol and the Reichskristallnacht in a video he posted via Twitter and urged his fellow Americans to support President-elect Biden to bring us all together. Should this be added to the "reactions" section? --Nomentz (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. riffic (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And here is what he said: ABC news, in which he compares the Wednesday rioting to his WWII life in Austria . — Maile (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * He didn't, he wasn't alive during the war. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He said post-WWII, natch Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Indictments and Arrests
A good bit of the story are the people who performed the storming of the US capital. Why is there not a section showing all those charged??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverGoneWild (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems in "Casualties" section
Okay, I'm putting in a ""complete and specific desription" as required, additional details and a request for discussion follow.

My request: Change the opening sentence from "Five people died during or shortly after the event: four were among those who stormed the Capitol and one was a police officer" to "Five people died during or shortly after the event: One person was shot to death by police inside the Capitol building, three people who were present on the Capitol grounds but may not have been inside the building died of natural causes, and one police officer died of head injuries received from rioters."

Section 2.8, "casualties" leads with the sentence: "Five people died during or shortly after the event: four were among those who stormed the Capitol and one was a police officer".

Firstly, the source says that ONE person was shot while attempting to enter the capital building, and that "the three who died from apparent medical emergencies were on the grounds of the Capitol at the time but said it wasn’t clear whether they participated in Wednesday’s events". Shouldn't the opening statement should be changed to reflect this? Those three people may not have been involved in storming the Capitol building, and also, I think people would likely interpret the opening statement to mean that all five people died of violent causes, which isn't the case.

Secondly, the source in question (a Wall Street Journal article) requires a paid subscription to read in its entirety. I just checked the Wikipedia "Verifiability" policy page, "Accessibility" section and it says that reliable sources (for which it seems to me the Wall Street Journal almost certainly qualifies) may be included even if they are difficult for readers to access (indeed, it specifically mentions paid online articles as an example). However, if possible, could someone please add a source or sources which readers can read for themselves in full (if they so desire) without having to pay for the privilege? Surely that would be preferable!

I'd appreciate hearing what other people think about this. KIP13 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed wording of lede sentence -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction for Arnold Schwarzenegger quote from video
I think you will find the following correction is necessary: "they shattered the ideas we took for granted" &rarr; "they shattered the ideals we took for granted". The subtitling is also wrong and possibly where this mistake arose. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed typo. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021
On April 11th, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf resigned. Veracityforever (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it happened in April, then it would not be related to the 2021 event. If that is a typo and you meant January, please provide a reliable source.  RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️ see . Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ground footage
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJzTFZxhpp7/?igshid=131rzfksaw20z

Is some ground footage with audible dialog. Not sure about how notable it is, but can this find a place somewhere? 119.82.84.240 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is almost certainly copyrighted, so I don't think we can use it. — Czello 11:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe mention some of the things said/done in the article, instead of using the video itself? 119.82.84.240 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The video is a primary source, Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources – see WP:PSTS. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I have thought about asking protestors to donate footage or photos (form inside the capitol). But they would be incriminating themselves if they did. Journalists are unlikely to want to release their bread and butter under a our license. The best we can hope for is govt. footage, but that may be delayed because of criminal investigations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

Non Neutral Language in Casualties section
The section refers to Ashli Babbitt as a "a 35-year-old rioter" the next paragraph states "Three other protesters also died." Are they rioters or are they protesters? also the entire article is one sided and does not represent a neutral point of view in any section, the article authors are all too polorised and should not be working on this article 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I do dispute the validity of left wing media as reliable sources for such an article as they have a heavy bias, but either way you cannot conflate "Rioters" as "Protesters" 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you can, as a protest can also turn into a riot. As to the rest, we go by policy, if its an RS we use it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course I agree and the protest did turn into a riot, but the article says a "Rioter" died then says "Other Protesters" died which by the use of the word "Other" is saying the Rioters and Protestors are one and the same and is not neutral. We do not know if the protesters who died were involved in the riot or were law abiding hence the lack of neutrality when conflating the two. "Three protesters also died" would be a more neutral choice of words than "Three other protesters also died". Also an RS is not an RS in every situation especially situations which they have a heavy bias in. 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well one could have been a rioter and the others peacefully protestors, hence why we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what I have been saying but that is not how the article reads, It currently reads that those protesters who died were also rioters. 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with "rioter" (or the earlier "invader"). I had changed it to the neutral "35-year-old woman". I can't change it again, but that is what I recommend. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. The Washington Post says “woman”. So does the New York Times. So does NPR. Those were the first three stories that came up when I googled her name. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NPR also call here a rioter "She was among the rioters who stormed the Capitol building.". Arguably twice "Babbitt is seen on the footage inside the Capitol wearing a backpack and Trump flag among a large group of rioters"Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

rioters"Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And "rioter" is also directly supported by the Washington Post (Investigations: Video shows fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol):

""Two previously unreported video clips obtained by The Washington Post shed new light on the fatal shooting by police of Trump supporter and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt as she and other rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Babbitt and others were attempting to breach a barricaded door inside the Capitol building on Wednesday afternoon, angrily demanding that three U.S. Capitol Police officers who were guarding the door step aside, one of the clips shows. The officers moved away as colleagues in tactical gear arrived behind the rioters, according to the clip and other video posted online. Roughly 35 seconds after the officers moved away, as she climbed up toward a broken section of the unguarded door, Babbitt was shot by an officer on the other side."


 * I'm fine with "rioter" and in fact think it's far more precise than "woman." --Neutralitytalk 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the problem @Neutrality, we agree Ashli Babbitt was a rioter however the three others that died we do not as yet know anything about, linking them with the rioters is not neutral. They could have been outside peacefully and legally protesting 80.5.174.91 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just called them all rioters; That’s what I am seeing at least in the news articles I’m looking at SRD625 (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say we change it to "1 rioter, 3 protestors and a cop".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In this case, Recently dead or probably dead applies. Regardless of how someone is described in reliable sources, we cannot accuse her of a criminal offense, such as rioting, per People accused of crime. While she cannot be charged with an offense, her culpability will no doubt be determined by proceedings against the police officer who killed her, lawsuits and public enquiries. TFD (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point, BLP applies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment on the best adjective for anyone or any other issues but rioter and protestor are arguably not mutually exclusive. In other words, Babbitt could have been both a rioter and a protestor. If she was, this means 'a rioter and other protestors' is a valid even if a bit weirdly phrased construct. One person who was both a protestor and a rioter died, while three other people who were protestors but potentially not rioters, also died. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with this and The Four Deuces above. There's really no justification for calling specific people rioters, even if the sources do so, and no advantage to doing so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe there was already a discussion on this, and the consensus was that: if they were outside, they were "protestors", but once they entered the building they became "rioters"... I have chanced the beginning of the last paragraph to "participants", as it seems some were inside and some were not... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That was not a consensus, but merely one person's idea liked by another person. There was rioting outside as well as on the inside. Alalch Emis (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find that discussion, so I'm not sure if it's relevant, but I'm not opposed to using "rioters" to refer to groups of people, but only to using it to refer to specific named living or recently-deceased people. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There have been so many posts an discussions on this page, I admit I can not keep up with them all... Which is why I said "I believe..." previously... either way, I still believe the same is true myself, ALL of the participants in the event were "protestors", but once someone starts breaking windows, vandalizing property, overtaking security forces, forcing their way through a barricaded door (with armed police on the other side), intends to harm the people inside the building, etc., that person can clearly be labeled a "rioter"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem a stretch to say that all the people involved are protestors, and some of them are rioters. Unless things have changed, none of the three medical emergencies have been identified as rioters, though it is possible one or two might have been.

Therefore it is correct to say "4 protesters died", it is also (almost certainly) correct to say "1 rioter and 3 protesters" - but this may be considered misleading if it transpires that more than one of the dead can be classified as rioters.

Whether we should describe Babbitt as a woman or a rioter in text seems a fine point. It's clear that one or more riots occurred, but not what the temporal or spatial limit of a riot is. I don't know what the benefit of calling her a rioter, as well as saying that she was climbing through a just broken window in a barricaded door which was being held by armed guards, which conveys far more information. It's also obvious from her name that she is a woman.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC).


 * This is why I had changed the opening of that last paragraph to read "3 other participants died...", we were not sure if they all were simply "protestors" or if they had taken part in the rioting... the one individual possibly died inside the building, which would make them part of the riot, but one of the three names has no information at all as to where or how... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm uploading more of my on-scene photos of the storming to Wikimedia Commons under CC
If anyone for whatever article needs more photos, check out my page under this username at Wikimedia Commons and feel free to apply them wherever. I'm prioritizing getting the direct storming ones up first, then later will upload photos from Trump's speech on the Ellipse, some of which include people who later stormed the Capitol.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapTheForwardAssist

TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * wow, thank you for taking these and sharing! Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You were there, TapTheForwardAssist? That raises some questions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * eh, does it really? I would've gone if I was in the area to get some photos. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess this is how we got photos of lynchings in the 20th century. Just point your camera at the crime scene and click. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic stuff. I think we should consider using File:DC Capitol Storming IMG 7965.jpg as the article main infobox image.  Spurrious Correlation  04:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Small note to reverse the image. You can see "Trump" is printed backward. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just the flags that are backwards. The woman's phone screen in the lower left shows the recording screen not mirrored, as well as the man's "LL Bean" jacket in the lower right. DanRosenfeld (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note I'm working on the last batch of specifically storming photos now, so more batches have been added since this post. Tomorrow or I have an extensive number of photos from earlier in the day at Trump's speech, events the prior day, armed protests in Georgia, etc. So just check my Contributions later tonight or the next few days as I start moving uploading all my photos. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These are great! Thanks for sharing them Bravetheif (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It would improve the article if the photos were grouped as a Category and then linked from the article.Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I prioritized just getting the images up for now, but anyone feel free to tag or label or whatnot. All the actual storming photos I have now are up (I skipped some shots that were overall similar to the posted shots). Next I'm going to upload shots I took at the Trump speech prior to that, and maybe of the rallies from the prior day. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking This could be a good image to use: less distracting features, can see the Capitol rotunda, and no personality rights issues Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and I would support if proposed or done. Qexigator (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm refraining from voting since that photo is mine (flattered!), but I would submit that with all due respect to the folks who uploaded the images initially used in the infobox, I and others have uploaded more photos in the following days and we arguably have even more suitable images to put in the infobox now that our selection is broader. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TapTheForwardAssist, very useful. /Julle (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Include a sentence in the background about ...
Include a sentence in the background about the other times the capitol building has been attacked? It might be useful for readers (especially non American readers who don't have as much of a background in American history) to include one sentence in the Background section mentioning the other times the capitol building has been attacked, perhaps something like:

The capitol building has been attacked on several occasions; during the 1814 Burning of Washington, a dynamite attack in 1915, in 1954 by Puerto Rican nationalists and the 1983 Resistance Conspiracy' bomb.


 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55572825
 * https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/history-violent-attacks-capitol-180976704/

Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree but not using that wording SRD625 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the best wording, I think:


 * "While there have been other attacks and bombings of the Capitol in the 19th and 20th centuries, the 2021 riot was the first time that the Capitol had been breached or occupied since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British Army during the War of 1812, and the first time that a president had incited an attack against the Capitol."

--Neutralitytalk 22:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , good job! Your proposed wording is concise, informative, well-sourced, and encyclopaedic. I would be happy to see it used, Zazpot (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

State capitol buildings have also been occupied. For example Wisconsin in 2011. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC).


 * Sine there seems to be agreement I've added it to the background section. John Cummings (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Stories about reporters
There are several stories about reporters in this article. All are sourced. Several (all?) of them do not contribute to the topic. Which should be kept? Perhaps the Schaff story is part of the narrative of events? I don't see the Fandos and Schaff stories as anything more than human interest. Jd2718 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After the evacuation, reporter Nicholas Fandos spent four hours in a secure location within the Capitol that police asked him not to share.
 * Reporter Emily Cochrane pulled out one of the aluminum bags that were stored under the chairs for emergencies and removed the emergency hood, "a sort of hybrid gas mask with a tarp, which made a loud whirring noise and had a flashing red light."
 * Photographer Erin Schaff said that, from the Capitol Rotunda, she ran upstairs, where rioters grabbed her press badge and "threw me to the floor." She screamed for help as "they ripped one of my cameras away from me, broke a lens on the other and ran away." She ran to Pelosi's balcony to hide her camera. After police deployed tear gas, she had to run into a hallway. There police found her, and, as her press pass had been stolen, they drew their guns and pointed.
 * The Shaff one only. And shortened. Maybe:
 * Photographer Erin Schaff said that she ran upstairs from the Rotunda, where her press badge was grabbed and she was thrown to the floor. One camera was taken, another damaged.  When police encountered her they held her at gunpoint, as she had no pass.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC).


 * I've made more or less this change. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Threats against the lives of government officials
I don't have a strong view whether we have a Threats against the lives of government officials section or not, but at this point it looks like threats against Pence were covered earlier. Perhaps threats against Pelosi could also be handled with Pence. Or migrate all the specific threats into the new section. One or the other. Mcfnord (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe put it in the general overview of events, if you can fit it in? Or put it in the section of notable charges. I edited the template that another of the rioters' aims was killing Pelosi along with Pence, but it seems that when I insert it into the template with multiple reliable sources cited, it gets undone, and I'm not interested in getting into an edit conflict. Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A man who had an assault rifle was charged with threatening Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, after he traveled to Washington for the pro-Trump rally on Wednesday and sent a text message saying he would put “a bullet in her noggin on Live TV,” the federal authorities said. - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/pelosi-cleveland-grover-meredith.html Mcfnord (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's speech in the lead, again
This edit changed the established consensus wording by adding a lengthy and UNDUE intepretation of Trump's speech to the lead to try to "get him off the hook" and that portrays him as just calling for "protection of elections." The shorter version without the original analysis and POV should be reinstated. --Tataral (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Include death causation
Deaths and/or causalities need to include causation to prevent false notions. 2 of the 5 deaths were due to natural causes from a heart attack and a stroke. Joustice (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources state those as the causes of death. Jim Michael (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, the article already gives those exact causes of death. It actually states the cause of death for all 5 casualties.  What do you want us to change?  -- Jayron 32 16:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reaction from Howie Hawkins
Green Party former presidential candidate Howie Hawkins has spoken about the Capitol insurrection on the "All Exits Closed" podcast. I'm not all too experienced with sourcing, so would a podcast as a source be appropriate? Nekomancerjade (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The podcast could be an appropriate source, but what makes Hawkins' comments worthy of note? He's clearly much lower-profile than the individuals currently covered in the Other domestic reactions section. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hawkins is the founder of the Green Party, which is now the second-largest third party in the US and is on ballots for the majority of states, and was also a contender in a major elections. I feel as if he's relevant enough. Nekomancerjade (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not appropriate to include, because it has not been reported on by secondary sources. At present, this is just a WP:SPS. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hawkins has now released a press release condemning the riots:  .  Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask who? I am not sure he is all that relevant, when RS give a damn so might we.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hawkins is definitely notable enough to be included on this page - he is the founder of the Green Party of the United States and was a 2020 presidential candidate. If secondary, reliable sources cover Hawkins' condemnation it should be added. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Should not be included. First, it's primary sources (press releases and podcast statements). Second, even if this picked up minor press coverage, I would not include as a due-weight matter. Plenty of people have commented (including a few dozen celebrities, e.g., here, here); we have length limitations, and Hawkins is simply not a figure of particular influence or prominence. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel as if Hawkins is important enough as a figure, he's the founder of the second-largest third party in America, so his commentary would be relevant, but I do agree in hindsight that a secondary source should emerge first. Nekomancerjade (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't include per WP:DUE. The remarks have not been picked up by secondary sources and compared to other domestic commentators, Hawkins is not of a similar stature having never held office. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)