Talk:Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol

Requested move 4 July 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus that removing "dangerous" adds better precision and clarity to the scope of this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of violent and dangerous incidents at the United States Capitol → Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol – Dangerous is far too ambiguous and includes every mopped floor, broken light switch, falling bookcase, trip on the stairs, and even the 2011 Virginia earthquake. But the point, I think, might relate to Keven McCarthy's stated reasons for rejecting the January 6 commission..... political violence. I'm happy to have an article that captures any violence, so we don't have the problem of deciding what is or is not political in nature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC) UTC)
 * Oppose. This list includes serious dangers such as the hijacked airplane that was headed toward the Capitol in 2001. Therefore, I do not support the proposed move, but might be open to a new article title.  Let’s discuss.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? If you don't think 9/11 was political violence, what kind of violence do you think it was? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, it was violent. But the violence was not “at the Capitol.”  The closest the violence got to the Capitol was Shanksville, Pennsylvania.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking most who read this will agree that these sorts of evacuation stampedes when there is an incoming threat will be OK to include. I'd even be ok including evacuations for things like hoax bomb threats NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Timeline of violence and related incidents at the United States Capitol” is another better option that I’m offering you. I’ve already offered “Timeline of attempted and actual violence at the United States Capitol”.  Pick one and everyone’s happy.  These are both broader than your proposed “Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol” which is narrower than the current title, and which does not include thwarted attacks, threats, et cetera.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Timeline of attempted and actual violence at the United States Capitol” would be okay if you prefer that to the current title. The incident in 1861 was thwarted by Winfield Scott, just like the incident in 2001 was thwarted by Todd Beamer.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That even was political, violent, and at the capitol. Thankfully the violence was (so our article says) contained and subdued. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the 1861 incident was just some harmless pushing and shoving, thanks to the security provided by the U.S. Army. The NYT has more details about that incident.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So if man "pushes" and "shoves" his wife around, that's not a violent assault? It's just "harmless"?  Sheesh. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take that back. The NYT report doesn’t say anything about pushing and shoving.  The mob was apparently peaceful, and the only reported threat of violence was spoken by the excellent General Scott: “Scott warned that any such intruder would ‘be lashed to the muzzle of a twelve-pounder and fired out the window of the Capitol.’ He added, ‘I would manure the hills of Arlington with the fragments of his body.’”  This would be well-covered by either the current title, or “Timeline of violence and related incidents at the United States Capitol” or “Timeline of attempted and actual violence at the United States Capitol”.  Please pick one of these three options, or explain why your proposal is better, thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1861 mob wasn't peaceful. The sources describe the event very much like 9/11 when an actual threat was en route. The threat disrupted the usual operations of business, with an unprecedented display of force including artillery right on capitol hill. A "Palpable threat", Gen Scott's fortification with regular troops was a deterrent to send the mob home. And of course you read the NYT piece saying "In the days before the count, rumors had been spreading across the capital that armed militias might sweep in from Virginia and take over the Capitol or the entire District of Columbia.  Virginia’s former governor Henry Wise was openly calling for an invasion, and many diary accounts and newspaper articles of the time expressed fear that some kind of takeover was imminent."  Our article entry for this event seems to need tuning up.  The mob never reached the doors, apparently.  And I'd be OK tacking on a mention of the Baltimore Plot that Lincoln deftly avoided a few days later. So to answer you boxing-in attempt "which of the three do I like" the answer is... "there is no box".... they're all suffering from the same ambiguity problem, which is easily solved by using the concept of [[WP:LISTCRIT|

List criteria]] and just explaining that events listed are physical violence and threats of physical violence sufficient to substantially and noticeably disrupt normal procedures. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Was anyone physically harmed in that 1861 event? Was any person or thing hurt, damaged, or killed?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:LISTNAME: What is a timeline but a chronologically ordered list? We should be clear that the inclusion criteria involves violence, attempted violence, and threats, but the title doesn't need to be the place for that explanation. "violent incidents" covers the majority of the list items and improves the titles concision. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A longer quote of WP:LISTNAME is this: “The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself.” Thus, the list criteria can be narrower than the list title.  That is the opposite of saying that the list criteria can be broader than the list title.  Generally, the title should unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.  That would not be accomplished by the proposed title, which unambiguously requires (1) violence (2) at the Capitol.  But it would be accomplished by (A) the current title, or (B) “Timeline of violence and related incidents at the United States Capitol” or (C) “Timeline of attempted and actual violence at the United States Capitol”.  The main objection to the current title is that it’s vague, but WP:LISTNAME says, “List of people from the Isle of Wight” would be sufficient instead of “List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article”.  The list criteria can include those added details.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading guidance into LISTNAME that isn't there. I'd have brought up the Isle of Wight example as evidence that a list's criteria can be broader than its title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems obvious to me that “List of people from the Isle of Wight” is broader than “List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and I'm using "broader" imprecisely. I'll say instead that the Wight example shows that it's ok for some parts of the list criteria to be outside of a strict reading of the title's domain. Some people might be "strongly associated with the Isle of Wight" without strictly being "from" there. Some events might be germane to a full accounting of violent incidents at the Capitol without strictly being "at" the area or "violent". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider the contents of List of people from the Isle of Wight. Everyone listed is either born there, raised there, lived there, or currently resides there. They all easily fall within the title’s description of being “from” there.  In contrast, suppose this title is moved as proposed.  Incidents that involve no violence, or that involve violence that occurred elsewhere than at the Capitol would not easily fall within that proposed title.  We should leave the title broad, as it is now, and if there is consensus to narrow the lead with lots of further details then I’m open to that.  I’m also open to moving to one of the other titles that I suggested above.  But I must oppose trying to shoe-horn incidents into this list that are not reasonably covered by a new narrower title.  Perhaps this is all related to the 1/6 issue, but I hope people will just consider how we would title this article regardless of 1/6.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think most people you ask would say that John Keats, for example, is not "from the Isle of Wight", having moved there when he was about 18. That said, I'm unlikely to press the point further. I'm interested to see how other editors feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's be kind to our future uninvolved closing editor day and I understand they tend to be allergic to walls of text.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This certainly covers both 9/11 and 1861 as instances of "violence" directed at Capitol Hill.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per Firefangledfeathers and others. "Dangerous" is vague, awkward, and unnecessary. Feoffer (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * supplemental comment the lead of our article violence says the World Health Organization defines violence as ""the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.""
 * Support: The current title is awkward, somewhat redundant, and verbose, and in a way that does not really help clarify the scope. Read the wrong way, it could be interpreted as editorializing to express an opinion about listed incidents. Also, lots of things are "dangerous" in one way or another. Criteria for inclusion can be described in the lead section and discussed on the Talk page, and it seems generally agreed that assault is considered violence even if it is not accompanied by battery. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Supplemental I found the guideline for categories, which supports the move. At WP:Category names it says, "As with lists, avoid descriptive adjectives such as famous, important, or notable in category titles."  "Dangerous" is such a "descriptive adjective" and should not be used. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits by eld3
Looks to me like the recent edits by e1d3 are okay.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)