View source for Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 8

{{aan}}

== [[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: {{diff2|999175134}}. 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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Herbfur}}, 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]]. -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] &#124; [[User talk:Fuzheado|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). [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|My very best wishes}}, it doesn't matter if RS identified them, the policy still provides that that information cannot be included. {{ping|Neutrality}}, 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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:::*All people mentioned by name in this section are actually ''public figures''. Please see [[Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual]]. For example, [[Jake Angeli]] and [[Baked Alaska (activist)]] are public figures as people seeking public attention. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. [[User:RexSueciae|RexSueciae]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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). [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::: The text you deleted included this excerpt: 

{{quote|Conspiracy theorist [[Alex Jones]] was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/pro-trump-crowds-build-in-washington-before-final-election-rite|title=Pro-Trump Mob Driven From Capitol After Breach, Fatal Shooting|last1=Wingrove|first1=Josh|last2=Natter|first2=Ari|last3=House|first3=Billy|work=[[Bloomberg News]]|date=January 6, 2020|accessdate=January 7, 2020}}</ref>}}
{{reflist-talk}}

:::I'm assuming you're not contending that this can't be included on BLP or some other ground? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. --<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT">[[User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao|Ser Amantio di Nicolao]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao|''Che dicono a Signa?'']]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contribs/Ser Amantio di Nicolao|Lo dicono a Signa.]]</sub> 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::I fully support the inclusion of the legislators, per [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]]. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. [[User:Mt.FijiBoiz|Mt.FijiBoiz]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mt.FijiBoiz|Mt.FijiBoiz]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. {{ping|Fuzheado}}, {{ping|Neutrality}}, {{ping|My very best wishes}}, {{ping|RL0919}}, {{ping|RexSueciae}}, {{ping|Mt.FijiBoiz}}, {{ping|Ser Amantio di Nicolao}}, thoughts?  [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. [[User:Mt.FijiBoiz|Mt.FijiBoiz]] ([[User talk: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. --<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT">[[User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao|Ser Amantio di Nicolao]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao|''Che dicono a Signa?'']]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contribs/Ser Amantio di Nicolao|Lo dicono a Signa.]]</sub> 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. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 23:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Herbfur}}, 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. -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] &#124; [[User talk:Fuzheado|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. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 23:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
{{cot}}
====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.<ref>{{cite news|last=Kashino|first=Marisa M.|title=The FBI Wants Your Help Identifying Capitol Rioters|url=https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/07/the-fbi-wants-your-help-identifying-capitol-rioters/|newspaper=Washingtonian|date=January 7, 2021|access-date=January 7, 2021|archive-date=January 8, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108021155/https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/07/the-fbi-wants-your-help-identifying-capitol-rioters/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Paul P. Murphy, [https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/fbi-tips-insurrection-riot-capitol-hill-trnd/index.html The FBI and DC police want the public to help identify Capitol rioters] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020720/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/fbi-tips-insurrection-riot-capitol-hill-trnd/index.html |date=January 8, 2021 }}, CNN (January 7, 2021).</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Persons of Interest in Unrest-Related Offenses {{!}} mpdc|url=https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/POIs%20of%20Interest_1.7.21.pdf|access-date=January 8, 2021|publisher=[[Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia]]|quote=Anyone who can identify these individuals or who has knowledge of this incident should take no action but call police at (202) 727-9099 or text your tip to the Department's TEXT TIP LINE at 50411. The Metropolitan Police Department currently offers a reward of up of $1,000 to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest and indictment of the person or persons responsible for a crime committed in District of Columbia.}}</ref>" <br>
{{done|Content re-added to the criminal investigation section.}} <br>

{{reflist-talk}}

"Journalists from CNN separately identified a few of the participants, including [[Jake Angeli]], a QAnon conspiracy theorist; [[Baked Alaska (activist)|Tim "Baked Alaska" Gionet]], a [[neo-Nazi]] social media personality; and Nick Ochs, founder of the Proud Boys [[Hawaii]] chapter.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Tolan|first1=Casey|last2=Kuznia|first2=Rob|last3=Ortega|first3=Bob|title=Insurrection fueled by conspiracy groups, extremists and fringe movements|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/insurrection-capitol-extremist-groups-invs/index.html|access-date=January 8, 2021|work=[[CNN]]|publisher=Cable News Network|date=January 7, 2021|archive-date=January 8, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020717/https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/insurrection-capitol-extremist-groups-invs/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref>" <br>
{{not done|Content removed, contested on grounds of [[WP:BLPCRIME]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]}} <br>

"[[Bloomberg News]] journalists stated that [[Far-right politics|far-right]] [[radio host|radio show host]] and conspiracy theorist [[Alex Jones]] was a leader of the march to the Capitol that preceded the riots;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/pro-trump-crowds-build-in-washington-before-final-election-rite|title=Pro-Trump Mob Driven From Capitol After Breach, Fatal Shooting|last1=Wingrove|first1=Josh|last2=Natter|first2=Ari|last3=House|first3=Billy|work=[[Bloomberg News]]|date=January 6, 2020|accessdate=January 7, 2020}}</ref>" <br>
{{done|Content added to the beginning of the rioting in the Capitol section}}
"a [[Vice (magazine)|Vice]] journalist reported that members of the Nationalist Social Club, a neo-Nazi street gang, were also present at the Capitol.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/93wnja/neo-nazis-boast-about-participation-in-capitol-hill-invasion|title=Neo-Nazis Boast About Participation In Capitol Hill Invasion|first=Ben|last=Makuch|work=[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]|date=January 8, 2021|access-date=January 8, 2021|archive-date=January 8, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020725/https://www.vice.com/en/article/93wnja/neo-nazis-boast-about-participation-in-capitol-hill-invasion|url-status=live}}</ref> [[KBOI-TV|CBS 2 Boise]] identified Josiah Colt, the man who hung from the Senate floor balcony ledge.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Pulver|first1=Dinah Voyles|last2=Salman|first2=Josh|title=Capitol mob drew Trump supporters of all stripes, from a fireman to a 'QAnon shaman'|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/01/07/capitol-mob-drew-trump-fans-qanon-shaman-fireman-jake-angeli-arrest/6585339002/|access-date=January 9, 2021|work=[[USA Today]]|publisher=[[Gannett|Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC.]]|date=January 7, 2021|quote=CBS2 News, the affiliate in Boise, identified Colt and said he sent them a statement, saying: 'I got caught up in the moment and when I saw the door to the Chamber open, I walked in, hopped down and sat on the chair.'}}</ref> Jenny Cudd, a former mayoral candidate of [[Midland, Texas|Midland]], Texas, bragged on [[Facebook]] about her participation, with current Midland mayor Patrick Payton expressing disappointment in her actions.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Midland Reporter-Telegram|title=Mayor Payton saddened by Cudd’s participation in Capitol riot|url=https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Mayor-Payton-saddened-by-Cudd-s-participation-15853510.php|access-date=January 9, 2021|work=[[Midland Reporter-Telegram]]|publisher=Hearst Newspapers, LLC|date=January 8, 2021}}</ref>" <br>
{{not done|Content removed, contested on grounds of [[WP:BLPCRIME]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]}} <br>

"A picture of Richard "Bigo" Barnett of [[Gravette, Arkansas|Gravette]], Arkansas, a Trump-supporting self-identified [[white nationalist]], at Pelosi's desk later went viral.<ref>Jon Swaine, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/man-who-posed-at-pelosi-desk-said-in-facebook-post-that-he-is-prepared-for-violent-death/2021/01/07/cf5b0714-509a-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html Man who posed at Pelosi desk said in Facebook post that he is prepared for violent death] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020638/https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/man-who-posed-at-pelosi-desk-said-in-facebook-post-that-he-is-prepared-for-violent-death/2021/01/07/cf5b0714-509a-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html |date=January 8, 2021 }}, ''Washington Post'' (January 7, 2021).</ref> Barnett was arrested on January 8, 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-foot-desk-pelosi-s-office-capitol-arrested-n1253490|title=Man pictured with foot on desk in Pelosi's office is arrested|website=NBC News}}</ref> Josiah Colt, a native of [[Boise, Idaho|Boise]], Idaho, reportedly echoed themes associated with the [[boogaloo movement]] and managed to mount the vice president's seat in the Senate chamber.<ref name="ColtIdaho">{{cite news |last1=Read |first1=Richard |last2=Hennessy-Fisk |first2=Molly |last3=Chabria |first3=Anita |title=Far-right extremists want to attack more capitols, but are divided after D.C. riot |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/far-right-extremists-want-to-attack-more-capitols-but-are-divided-after-dc-riot/ar-BB1cA4Q9 |access-date=January 8, 2021 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |publisher=[[MSN]] |date=January 8, 2020}}</ref>" <br>
{{not done|Content removed, contested on grounds of [[WP:BLPCRIME]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]}} <br>

"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-Nazism|Neo-Nazi]] apparel was also worn by some participants during the riots, including a shirt emblazoned with references to the [[Auschwitz concentration camp|Auschwitz–Birkenau concentration camp]] and its motto, ''[[Arbeit macht frei]]'' ([[German language|German]] for "work makes you free").<ref name="JTA-1">{{cite news |last1=Adkins |first1=Laura E. |last2=Burack |first2=Emily |title=Hate on display: A guide to the symbols and signs on display at the Capitol insurrection |url=https://www.jweekly.com/2021/01/07/hate-on-display-a-guide-to-the-symbols-and-signs-on-display-at-the-capitol-insurrection/ |access-date=January 8, 2021 |work=[[J. The Jewish News of Northern California]] |agency=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]] |date=January 7, 2020}}</ref><ref name="OathKeepers-1">{{Cite web|title='Second revolution begins': Armed right-wing groups celebrate Capitol attack|url=https://news.yahoo.com/second-revolution-begins-armed-wing-053014168.html|access-date=January 7, 2021|website=news.yahoo.com|language=en-US}}</ref> [[Jon Schaffer]] of American metal band [[Iced Earth]] was identified as having participated in the riot.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Iced Earth Guitarist Jon Schaffer Reportedly Among Pro-Trump Mob at U.S. Capitol Attack|work=Billboard|url=https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9508607/iced-earth-jon-schaffer-among-crowd-capitol|date=January 8, 2020}}</ref>" <br>
{{done|Content included in Participating groups section}} <br>
 
"At least thirteen Republican [[State legislature (United States)|state legislators]]—including Nevada State Assemblywoman [[Annie Black]], Virginia State Senator [[Amanda Chase]], Alaska State Representative [[David Eastman (politician)|David Eastman]], West Virginia Delegate [[Derrick Evans (politician)|Derrick Evans]], Missouri State Representative [[Justin Hill (politician)|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.<ref name=RepStateLawmakers>{{cite news |last=Dil |first=Cuneyt |agency=Associated Press |date=January 7, 2021 |title=Local lawmakers from several states joined, observed riot at US Capitol |url=https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/nation-world/west-virginia-lawmaker-among-rioters/507-081d6ef7-3bea-4c1a-97e1-73ff88ae350d |work=[[WWL-TV]] |location=Charleston, W.Va. |access-date=January 8, 2021}}</ref><ref name=RepStateLawmakers2>{{cite news |last=Haas |first=Greg |date=January 8, 2021 |title=Democrats call for Nevada Republican Annie Black to resign Assembly seat |url=https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/democrats-call-for-nevada-republican-annie-black-to-resign-assembly-seat/ |work=[[KLAS-TV|8 News Now]] ||access-date=January 8, 2021}}</ref> Evans was later charged by federal authorities with entering a restricted area.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.wdtv.com/2021/01/08/wva-delegate-derrick-evans-has-been-federally-charged/|title=W.Va. Delegate Derrick Evans has been federally charged|first=Joe|last=Buchanan|work=[[WDTV]]|accessdate=January 8, 2021}}</ref>" <br>
{{done|Content included at the bottom of the Rioting in the Capitol section}}
{{ref talk}}
{{cob}}

== Proposed enriched, new Infobox ==
{{ctop}}
{{Infobox civil conflict
| title            = 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
| subtitle         =
| partof           = [[2020–2021 United States election protests]] and [[attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election]]
| image            = {{multiple image
| border                   = infobox
| total_width              = 400
| image_style              = border:1;
| perrow                   = 2/2
| image1                   = Jan 6 2021 Pres Trump Rally Live DC Crowd.jpg
|alt1=
| image2                   = 2021 storming of the United States Capitol 09 (cropped).jpg
|alt2=
| image3                   = 2021 United States Capitol VOA 1.jpg
|alt3=
| image4                   = J6 2021 1851.jpg
|alt4=
}}
| caption          = ''Top to bottom, left to right'': The crowd of far-right supporters of [[Donald Trump]] at the [[Washington D.C.|US capital city]], Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President [[Donald Trump]] speaking to a crowd at the "Save America" rally, Protesters gathered at [[Black Lives Matter Plaza]]
| date             = {{Start date|2021|1|6}}
| time             = about 2{{nbsp}}p.m. – 5:40{{nbsp}}p.m.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/the-storming-of-the-us-capitol-timeline-of-key-events|title=Timeline: How a Trump mob stormed the US Capitol, forcing Washington into lockdown|date=January 6, 2020|access-date=January 7, 2021|website=USA Today|editor-last=Petras|editor-first=George|editor-last2=Leohrke|editor2-first=Janet|editor3-last=Zarracina|editor3-first=Javier|editor4-last=Borresen|editor4-first=Jennifer}}</ref>
| timezone         = [[Eastern Standard Time|EST]]
| place            = [[United States Capitol]], [[Washington, D.C.]]
| coordinates      = {{coord|38|53|23.3|N|77|00|32.6|W|display=inline,title}}
| causes           = Opposition to the [[2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count|Electoral College vote count]] of the [[2020 United States presidential election]]
| methods          = [[Rioting]],<ref name="Stunning" /> [[vandalism]],<ref name="LootVandal"/> [[looting]],<ref name="LootVandal"/> attempted [[bombing]]<ref name=ABC.Hazardous/>
| goals            = <!--{{blist|Disrupt the [[2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count|Electoral College vote count]]|Pressure Congress to overturn the [[2020 United States presidential election|election]]|Maintain presidency of [[Donald Trump]] through force}}-->
| result           = {{blist|Damage to the [[United States Capitol]] property, including vandalism and looting of offices and chambers.<ref name="NYTtimeline">{{Cite web|date=2021-01-07|title=What happened in Washington DC yesterday? A timeline of insurrection|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/capitol-riots-what-happened-washington-dc-timeline-b1783562.html|access-date=2021-01-08|website=The Independent|language=en}}</ref>|The [[Electoral Count Act#Counting procedures|counting]] of the Electoral College votes temporarily delayed by several hours.<ref name="NYTtimeline"/>|{{collapsible list|title=Resignations|titlestyle=font-weight:normal;|bullets=on|1=[[Elaine Chao]]|2=[[Betsy DeVos]]|3=[[Matthew Pottinger]]|4=[[Stephanie Grisham]]|5=[[Anna Cristina Niceta Lloyd]]|6=[[Steven Sund]]|7=[[Michael C. Stenger]]|8=[[Paul D. Irving]]}}|Installation of new security fencing around Capitol<ref name="NPRfence"/>}}
| side1            = 
{{flagicon image|Trump_2016.svg}}'''"Save America" Rally''' <br>
{{flagicon image|GOP logo.svg}} [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] (partially)
| side2            = {{flagicon|United States}} '''[[Federal government of the United States|US Goverment]]'''<br />
*{{flag|District of Columbia}}
*{{flag|Virginia}}<ref name="Northam1"/>
*{{flag|Maryland}}<ref name="Hogan1"/>
{{flagicon image|US Democratic Party Logo.svg}} [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]
{{flagicon image|GOP logo.svg}} [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] (partially)
| units1           =
Pro-[[Donald Trump|Trump]] protesters <br />
* {{flagicon image|Gadsden_flag.svg}}[[Alt-right]] militias
* {{flagicon image|}} [[Proud Boys]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/06/dc-protests-live-updates-trump-supporters-electoral-college-proud-boys/4126018001/|title=Pro-Trump rioters breach Capitol, forcing lockdown; one person shot; Pence evacuated, Senate chamber cleared out|first1=N'dea|last1=Yancey-Bragg|first2=John|last2=Bacon|first3=Will|last3=Carless|first4=Ryan W.|last4=Miller|website=USA TODAY|accessdate=January 6, 2021}}</ref>
* {{flagicon image|}}[[Groypers|America First (Groypers)]]<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/fears-as-trump-supporters-including-anti-semitic-groups-rally-in-washington/|title=Fears as Trump supporters, including anti-Semitic groups, rally in Washington|first=Ben|last=Sales|website=www.timesofisrael.com}}</ref>
* {{flagicon image|Battle flag of the Confederate States of America (1-1).svg}} [[Neo-confederate|Neo-confederates]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/confederate-flag-capitol-dc/|title=Was the Confederate Flag Raised at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.?|website=Snopes.com}}</ref>
* {{flagicon image|QAnon.svg}}[[QAnon]] adherents
* [[White supremacy|White supremacists]]
* [[Neo-Nazism|Neo-Nazis]]
| units2           =
{{flagicon image|Flag of the United States Capitol Police.png}} [[US Capitol Police]]<br />
* {{flagicon image|Flag of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg}} [[FBI]]<br />
* {{flagicon image|Seal of the United States Department of Homeland Security.svg}} [[Department of Homeland Security]]<br />
* {{flagicon image|Seal_of_the_United_States_Marshals_Service.png}} [[United States Marshals Service]]<ref>{{Cite tweet|number=1346930681176346625|user=USMarshalsHQ|title=The U.S. Marshals Service is joining with other law enforcement agencies in supporting the U.S. Capitol Police during operations in Washington, D.C.|author=[[United States Marshals Service]]|date=6 January 2021}}</ref><br />
* [[District of Columbia National Guard]]
* [[Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia]]
* [[Virginia National Guard]]
* [[Virginia State Troopers]]
| leadfigures1     = {{blist|[[Donald Trump]]|[[Rudy Giuliani]]|[[Donald Trump Jr.]]|[[Eric Trump]]|[[Mo Brooks]]|[[Madison Cawthorn]]|[[Josh Hawley]]|[[Jake Angeli]]}}
| leadfigures2     = {{blist|[[Mike Pence]]|[[Nancy Pelosi]]|[[Chuck Schumer]]|[[Mitch McConnell]]|[[Kevin McCarthy (California politician)|Kevin McCarthy]]}}
| leadfigures3     =
| leadfigures4     =
| howmany1         =
| howmany2         =
| howmany3         =
| howmany4         =
| casualties1      = {{blist|5 deaths<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/capitol-mob-deaths/index.html</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=McEvoy|first=Jemima|title=These Are The Four People Who Died Amid The Capitol Riot|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/07/these-are-the-four-people-who-died-amid-the-capitol-riot/|access-date=January 7, 2021|website=Forbes|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Terruso|first=Julia|title=He organized a bus of Trump supporters from Pa. for ‘the first day of the rest of our lives.’ He died in D.C.|url=https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/washington-protest-trump-capitol-pennsylvania-ben-philips-20210107.html|access-date=January 7, 2021|website=Philadelphia Inquirer|language=en-US}}</ref>|Unknown injured|80+ arrested<ref>{{cite news |last1=Perez |first1=Evan |last2=Herb |first2=Jeremy |last3=Polantz |first3=Katelyn |last4=Scannell |first4=Kara |last5=Carrega |first5=Christina |title=Prosecutors 'looking at all actors,' including Trump, as charges are filed against Capitol rioters |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/law-enforcement-capitol-riot/index.html |access-date=January 8, 2021 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=January 7, 2021 |archive-date=January 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108041339/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/law-enforcement-capitol-riot/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
| casualties2      = {{blist|1 death<ref name=PGDED/>|61 injured officers (56 police, 5 non-police)<ref name="Raju Barrett 2021">{{cite web |last=Raju |first=Manu |last2=Barrett |first2=Ted |title=Facing criticism, US Capitol Police details response to violent mob, 14 suspects arrested and 50 officers injured |publisher=CNN |date=January 7, 2021 |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-reaction-details/index.html |access-date=January 7, 2021 |archive-date=January 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108021145/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-reaction-details/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first1=Glenn |last1=Thrush |first2=Shaila |last2=Dewan |first3=John |last3=Eligon |first4=Neil |last4=MacFarquhar |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/07/us/electoral-vote/questions-mount-over-law-enforcements-failure-to-protect-the-capitol |title=Questions mount over law enforcement’s failure to protect the Capitol |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020718/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/questions-mount-over-law-enforcements-failure-to-protect-the-capitol.html |archive-date=January 8, 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=January 7, 2020 |quote=Mr. Sund said more than 50 Capitol Police and Washington Metro Police officers had been injured, and several Capitol Police officers were hospitalized with serious injuries.}}</ref>}}
| casualties3      =
| casualties4      =
| damage           =
| buildings        =
| detentions       =
| charged          =
| fined            =
| effect           =
| effect_label     =
| casualties_label =
| notes            =
| sidebox          =
}}
{{US 2020 presidential elections series}}
{{Reflist-talk}}
{{notelist-talk}}
{{cbot}}

=== Discussion===

* I '''Support''' this change, because it's enriched and clear.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/5.54.2.45|5.54.2.45]] ([[User talk:5.54.2.45#top|talk]]) 13:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* '''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. [[User:BlackholeWA|BlackholeWA]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Gerald Waldo Luis|<span style="background:#4C516D; color:white; padding:2px;">Gerald</span>]][[User talk:Gerald Waldo Luis|<span style="background:#B9CFF0; color:black; padding:2px;">WL</span>]]''' 13:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Looks good -- [[User:Abbasi786786|Abbasi786786]] ([[User talk: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? [[User talk:Melmann|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? [[User:Prinsgezinde|Prinsgezinde]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk:Elephanthunter|talk]]) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Pretty great. [[User:Seekallknowledge|Seekallknowledge]] ([[User talk:Seekallknowledge|talk]]) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Weak oppose''' for the same reason as {{u|Elephanthunter}} the proposals must be split. --[[User:RaphaelQS|RaphaelQS]] ([[User talk: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]]: {{U|ProcrastinatingReader}}, it is happening again. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Full of original research. Where did you source the 'lead figures' from? [[User:Domeditrix|Domeditrix]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 16:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Strongly oppose''' per [[WP:OR]] and Melanie. This infobox presents an original, [[WP:NPOV|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. [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/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. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Question''' - {{ping|Arms & Hearts}}{{ping|MelanieN}}{{ping|AleatoryPonderings}}{{ping|Neutrality}}{{ping|Domeditrix}}{{ping|drmies}} 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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|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 [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-capitol-police/failure-at-the-top-after-us-capitol-stormed-security-chiefs-out-idUSKBN29C2AP 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 [[groupuscule]]s were surely present). I agree with [[User:Drmies|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. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 18:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
**Agree with {{u|Arms & Hearts}}; 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". [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|'''!!!''']]) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
***[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]], I couldn't agree more: thank you. {{U|Herbfur}} 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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur (Eric, He/Him)]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the ping, [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur]]. I think that "participating groups" should certainly be in the article text, to the extent they are reliably confirmed. Not in the infobox. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{ReplyTo|Herbfur}} I'm in full agreement with {{u|Arms & Hearts}}. 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. [[User:Domeditrix|Domeditrix]] ([[User talk:Domeditrix|talk]]) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per MelanieN. '''[[User:Vaselineeeeeeee|<b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee|<span style="color:gold">★★★</span>]]</small></sup>''' 18:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' {{ReplyTo|CapeVerdeWave}} Care to explain why you've implemented this proposal unilaterally when the discussion is clearly ongoing and no consensus has been reached? [[User:Domeditrix|Domeditrix]] ([[User talk:Domeditrix|talk]]) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
: {{ReplyTo|Domeditrix}} The weight of the responses was tending toward '''Support''', and reliable sources, on balance, support the proposal. [[User:CapeVerdeWave|CapeVerdeWave]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ekpyros|Elle Kpyros]] ([[User talk:Ekpyros|talk]]) 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' as poorly-cited if not outright [[WP:OR|original research]]. I [[Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_2#America_First/Groypers_and_neo-confederates|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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 20:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Oppose'''  This is not a well thought out proposal. [[User:Gammapearls|Gammapearls]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 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. [[User:Q746371|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:Q746371|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. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 06:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' {{ReplyTo|Austin Jaax}} 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? [[User:Domeditrix|Domeditrix]] ([[User talk:Domeditrix|talk]]) 10:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
*:I have removed it. There appears to be consensus against doing this so far. {{tq|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.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&diff=999290967&oldid=999290663&diffmode=source] is not a very convincing argument to override consensus. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 13:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per MelanieN [[User:Hydrology|simon]] ([[User talk:Hydrology|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 15:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Oppose''' per MelanieN and Drmies. — [[User:Goszei|Goszei]] ([[User_talk:Goszei|talk]])  03:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC) 

=== Proposals ===
Please add the proposals so that we can discuss them individually --[[User:RaphaelQS|RaphaelQS]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:BlackholeWA|BlackholeWA]] ([[User talk:BlackholeWA|talk]]) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::For better. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:RaphaelQS|RaphaelQS]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' it's far too muddy for that.  See previous discussions for examples.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC).</small><br />
*'''Oppose''' per Drmies. It vastly oversimplifies the event, to the point where we would be misleading readers. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 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. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">&#128008;</span></span>]]&#xFF5F;[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]&#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. [[User:Nekomancerjade|Nekomancerjade]] ([[User talk:Nekomancerjade|talk]]) 08:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. I share the view of the commenters above: gaudy, inaccurate, and oversimplifying. — [[User:Goszei|Goszei]] ([[User_talk:Goszei|talk]])  03:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

==== Using flag icons in the infobox ==== 
* '''Weak oppose''' I don't think it would help readability. --[[User:RaphaelQS|RaphaelQS]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:BlackholeWA|BlackholeWA]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk: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, '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 17:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': {{U|Lee Vilenski}} is correct. [[User:Elephanthunter|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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/5.54.2.45|5.54.2.45]] ([[User talk:5.54.2.45#top|talk]]) 19:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*::You're missing the point: you should tell this to [[User:Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]]. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.140.52.92|91.140.52.92]] ([[User talk:91.140.52.92#top|talk]]) 20:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{tq|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. --[[User:RaphaelQS|RaphaelQS]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Couldn't agree with GorillaWarfare more.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Q746371|Q746371]] ([[User talk:Q746371#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Q746371|contribs]]) 00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*America vs America? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:RaphaelQS|RaphaelQS]] ([[User talk: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  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.140.52.92|91.140.52.92]] ([[User talk:91.140.52.92#top|talk]]) 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* '''Support''' Both leaders are rather clear-cut and lots of sourcing exists surrounding them. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">&#128008;</span></span>]]&#xFF5F;[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]&#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.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.140.52.92|91.140.52.92]] ([[User talk:91.140.52.92#top|talk]]) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Military-style parties in infobox? ==

Both sides are armed, so it may well make sense, but I think the use of the <code>side</code> params should be discussed. [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|'''!!!''']]) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:Might be something to discuss at [[Template talk:Infobox civil conflict]], since it's the standard template. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 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. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Agree with [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]]. /[[User:Julle|Julle]] ([[User talk:Julle|talk]]) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Agree with [[User:Bondegezou|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. [[User:Q746371|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:Q746371|talk]]) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I've removed that part of the infobox for now given it's 4:1. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::I'm in favor of bringing it back, it was very useful [[User:Faissaloo|FAISSALOO]]<sub>[[User talk:Faissaloo|(talk)]]</sub> 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:Conflicted. It was a violent confrontation. Adding <code>side</code> 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 [[User:A Tree In A Box|A Tree In A Box]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Q746371|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:Q746371|talk]]) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

===Involved parties in infobox===

Someone removed the sides part of the infobox '[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2021_United_States_Capitol_protests&diff=prev&oldid=998764701 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.  [[User:flalf|'''<em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf</em>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Flalf|'''<em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk</em>''']]</sup> 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:Would suggest discussing this at [[#Military-style parties in infobox?]] rather than starting a new section. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 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.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Ipatrol|Ipatrol]] ([[User talk: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.
{{infobox civil conflict
|side1 = 
{{collapsible list|title={{flagicon image|Trump 2016.svg}} [[Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign|Trump supporters]]|
| [[Proud Boys]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Capitol riots: Who broke into the building?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/55572805|newspaper=BBC|date=January 7, 2021|access-date=January 8, 2021}}</ref>
| {{flagicon image|Boogaloo flag.svg}} [[Boogaloo movement|Boogaloo Boys]]<ref>https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/capitol-riot-photos-inside-trump.html</ref>
| {{nowr|{{flagicon image|Official Three Percent Flag.svg}} [[Three Percenters]]}}<ref>{{Cite web|title=Prominent far-right groups were part of U.S. Capitol mob|author=Stewart Bell|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/7561868/prominent-far-right-groups-u-s-capitol-mob/|date=January 7, 2021|access-date=January 8, 2021}}</ref>
| {{flagicon image|Oath Keepers logo.svg}} [[Oath Keepers]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=Prominent far-right groups were part of U.S. Capitol mob|author=Stewart Bell|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/7561868/prominent-far-right-groups-u-s-capitol-mob/|date=January 7, 2021|access-date=January 8, 2021}}</ref>
| {{flagicon image|QAnon.svg}} [[QAnon]] believers<ref>{{cite web|title=Capitol riots: Who broke into the building?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/55572805|newspaper=BBC|date=January 7, 2021|access-date=January 8, 2021}}</ref>
| {{flagicon image|Trump 2016.svg}}{{flagd|USA}}{{flagicon image|Gadsden flag.svg}}{{flagicon image|Confederate Rebel Flag.svg}} Other pro-Trump and [[far-right]] rioters<ref>Participants in the events frequently used those flags{{cite web|title=Capitol riots: Who broke into the building?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/55572805|newspaper=BBC|date=January 7, 2021|access-date=January 8, 2021}}</ref>
}}
|side2 = {{flagicon image|Flag of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.png}} [[D.C. Metropolitan Police|Metropolitan Police]]{{-}}{{flagicon image|Flag of the United States Capitol Police.png}} [[United States Capitol Police|Capitol Police]]{{-}}{{flagicon image|Flag of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg}} [[FBI]]{{-}}{{flagicon image|Flag of the United States Department of Homeland Security.svg}} [[Department of Homeland Security|DHS]]<hr>{{flagicon image|Flag of the United States Senate.svg}} [[U.S. Senate]]{{-}}{{flagicon image|Flag of the United States House of Representatives.svg}} [[U.S. House of Representatives]]
}}
[[User:ImperatorPublius|ImperatorPublius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Q746371|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:Q746371|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? [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/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: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC).</small><br />

=== Removed ===
I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&type=revision&diff=999162005&oldid=999161704&diffmode=source 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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:Noting there is some additional discussion below at . [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 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 [[Special:Contributions/50.75.4.146|50.75.4.146]] ([[User talk:50.75.4.146|talk]]) 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::See [[#Proposed enriched, new Infobox]]. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 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: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC).</small><br />
::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  [[User:Bruhmoney77|Bruhmoney77]] ([[User talk:Bruhmoney77|talk]]) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I support having the infobox belligerents added as well. It was used for the[[2020 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.  [[User:Football3434|Football3434]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Q746371|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:Q746371|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.  [[User:Bruhmoney77|Bruhmoney77]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DenverCoder19|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:DenverCoder19|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. [[User:Football3434|Football3434]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Bruhmoney77|Bruhmoney77]] ([[User talk: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.   [[User:Warlightyahoo|Warlightyahoo]] ([[User talk: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" {{ndash}} 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. — [[User:Goszei|Goszei]] ([[User_talk: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. [[User:Bruhmoney77|Bruhmoney77]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DenverCoder19|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:DenverCoder19|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. [[User:DenverCoder19|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:DenverCoder19|talk]]) 04:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== 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."'' [[User:FrunkSpace|FrunkSpace]] ([[User talk:FrunkSpace|talk]]) 14:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:Someone has fixed this, thanks. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC).</small><br />

{{Clear}}
== 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:
*[https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/live/capitol-news-insurrection-trump-biden-updates-white-house-congress-20210107.html "pro-Trump insurrection"] - [[Inquirer]]
*[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/06/donald-trump-politicians-insurrection-capitol-hill "politicians blame Trump for insurrection"] - [[The Guardian]] (news not opinion)
*[https://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour/watch/a-surreal-bizarre-day-congress-returns-after-pro-trump-insurrection-99015237771 "pro-Trump insurrection"] - [[MSNBC]]
*[https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-social-media-made-the-trump-insurrection-a-reality "the Trump insurrection"] - [[New Yorker (magazine)|New Yorker]]
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/08/1871-provides-roadmap-addressing-wednesdays-pro-trump-insurrection/ "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. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Q746371|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:Q746371|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. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Q746371|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:Q746371|talk]]) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::News reports about murders do belong here. We can't call it murder per [[Wikipedia:BLPCRIME]], just like how at no point in this article is it called an insurrection. [[User:Builder018|Builder018]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:DenverCoder19|DenverCoder9]] ([[User talk:DenverCoder19|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. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 15:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

*[[Niskanen Center]] also using [https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-trump-insurrection/ "The Trump Insurrection"] as name. Their article is also under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 23:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)