*'''Support''' Individuals stormed the Capitol and occupied it, and this is the most notable part of the event. "Storming" is the most accurate description of what the individuals involved did. --[[User:Aabicus|Aabicus]] ([[User talk:Aabicus|talk]]) 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Individuals stormed the Capitol and occupied it, and this is the most notable part of the event. "Storming" is the most accurate description of what the individuals involved did. --[[User:Aabicus|Aabicus]] ([[User talk:Aabicus|talk]]) 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' We seem to have dueling requests to move this page. [https://twitter.com/lourdesgnavarro/status/1346938002153598978 NPR guidance] is to call this an "insurrection". We should follow that. They stormed the Capitol. This is not a "protest". – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' We seem to have dueling requests to move this page. [https://twitter.com/lourdesgnavarro/status/1346938002153598978 NPR guidance] is to call this an "insurrection". We should follow that. They stormed the Capitol. This is not a "protest". – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''', as others have said, storming is an accurate description and the most significant aspect of the event. "Protest" doesn't accurately communicate the scope of what happened. [[User:Sectori|Sectori]] ([[User talk:Sectori|talk]]) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
A news item involving January 6 United States Capitol attack was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2021.
Wikipedia
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Is this really a "rally" as the article title suggests? A rally usually refers to a lawful gathering of citizens and is largely peaceful. This is an unlawful protest and there are already reports of gunshots. We should consider moving the article to a "protest" or perhaps a "riot." AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Coup attempt" exaggerates or overstates the power of the actions to the protesters' benefit. Protest can be violent. It is slightly more accurate than "riot" in that the main purpose of this gathering is political. That you do not agree with them does not make them not protests. — Bilorv (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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 - This is obviously more than just a simple protest, it is a violent seizure of the capital in an attempt to install an unrecognized political power on the United States, that power being Trump as the next president. Drdak
Whatever what, it should not stay "2021 United States Capitol protests". There are sure to be multiple protests and demonstrations of some sort near/at the capitol in 2021. Could be renamed "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol protests", or something other than "protests", as has been suggested. SecretName101 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Suggestion: move to 2021 United States Capitol riots
These are riots, not protests. I'd like to suggest that this page be moved to 2021 United States Capitol riots. --Poklane 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I do need to find actual sources to support this, but: it seems that there is a group of peaceful protestors and a group of more destructive protestors present, who are acting separately, based on what I'm seeing, though this could be false. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team M (talk | worse talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest they are both, it seems that in these instances we go with 'protests'. I'm not really in agreement with that but it at least helps to be consistent. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with User talk:Mtaylor848. When there's ambiguity, we go with "protests" or "unrest".
Change name of article to "coup d'etat attempt"
From what i can tell from the news these are no longer protests. It is a violent storming of the Capitol where lawmakers had to be herded into secure bunkers. There are reports of tear gas and shootings as criminals illegally enter the Capitol building threatening the lives of others.
This is obviously an attempted coup d'etat, not a protest. Do you guys think we should change the name of the article to reflect this, or does this come off as too biased or unfactual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.cal.69 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that The Hill is a reliable enough source and the fact several government members are using the terminology is certainly enough to justify renaming the article. zacthebard (zacthebard)
I can see why someone in the heat of the moment would describe it as a coup d'etat attempt, but we should wait until a consensus of reliable sources agree that the intent of the people storming the Capitol was to attempt a coup d'etat. "Coup d'etat" has a rather specific meaning that may not necessarily apply to this particular situation. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a third-world country, it would have been called a coup d'État seconds after happening, but because it's the US, it's just protesters exercising their free speech. 5.186.121.181 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parliaments get stormed more often then one would think; it's typically labeled as something else than coups d'état, depending on circumstances and so on. The act of storming the building would probably not have automatically been called a coup had it happened elsewhere. /Julle (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Defeinitely not a coup; a coup is led by the military. You could perhaps call it an 'attempted revolution' without being egregiously wrong, but we would still be playing very fast and loose. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "2021 United States coup d'état attempt"
Armed insurgents are storming the capital of the country... this is a coup and most media are calling it a coup.
Suggested Move: 2021 United States Capitol insurrection
This is not a fucking "storm" (whatever that is), and whoever titled this a "protest" should win the euphemism of the year award. Riot does not begin to cover the intent of overthrowing the American government and ending our 300-year tradition of democracy and installing Trump as un-elected dictator for life. The most appropriate words would be Insurrection, Putsch, or Coup.
OpposeSupport, I would expect an insurrection to be better organized, and as it stands it seems like a needlessly inflammatory term that does not appear to be used by any reliable sources for this event.--Beneficii (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC) I'm updating my vote, now that I see multiple media outlets using the term, even Biden.--Beneficii (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As listed, this better fits described as an insurrection. We have not seen the likes of this in centuries and to simply call it a "protest" or even only a "storm" is mind-boggling to me. Nekomancerjade (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Protest is way too mild, but "Storming" doesn't seem specific enough. Multiple sources including Biden have also referred to it as an insurrection. Geekgecko (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Improper capitalization of "Insurrection." I do not think this was an insurrection, and neither do most reliable sources. As for sources provided by Ottoshade, Biden, Romney, and a CNN opinion piece calling it an insurrection does not make it factual. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe 8 people in the "storming" discussion below have spoken about this title, myself included. It's the most accurate. It's not a "storming" because most people are interested in staying outside, whether peacefully or not, and of those people, indeed, there are many who have chosen to remain peaceful. Insurrection will not force those who are not being violent to be included with those who are. My proposal: call it 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection and mention in-article the division, that there are a small group of the "protest" who have turned the effort into an insurrection, though they are just that, a small group within. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team M (talk | worse talk) 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calling it a protest in no way comes even close to describing what's happening. People, this is the United States Capitol being overrun by armed gunmen. The frickin United States! When was the last time something like that happened? And to call it a protest? Please... Matronator (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: 2021 United States Capitol incursion (or incursions)
Throwing out another idea, with no preference on singular or plural. "Incursion" focuses (accurately) on the physicality of what's happening. A quick search online defines it as "an invasion or attack, especially a brief or sudden one." One advantage of "incursion" (or a similar tactical word) is to avoid politically-freighted terms about what is happening, such as protest, riot, coup d'etat, or insurrection. It's also kind of a synonym for "storming of" -- yet more elegant, Wikipedia-like, and sort of recognizing that today's events are not likely to have the same impact as the storming of the Bastille. Dss16 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know everything about this, just the media feed as it happens. Yes, I agree Trump's tweets are to blame, but we don't know if others have worked behind the scenes for this. We may not know all the background yet. Other factors may surface. I think there is possibly more unknown than known about this. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. News media seem to be converging on "insurrection" and "riot", but the situation is still developing and we should wait rather than wasting time on page moves while facts on the ground change. --Calthinus (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Things like this, of this magnitude, do not happen because some public figure shot their mouth off on one occasion, or even whined in tweets for weeks before. Or even a handful of occasions. This just seems too successful, with everyone seeming to be caught by surprise. And if there's one thing we've learned over the last 4 years, there are sometimes contributing factors that don't surface for years. We have time to wait, a day or two perhaps, and keep building the article. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that the current title is highly misleading, but it seems that there is still uncertainty around what happened. Lood1234 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Protest" is probably inadequate, but trying to define exactly what something like this is as it's happening is probably beyond us. /Julle (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(ish) Why not rename it to "Conflict" if it's going to take time to arrive on a consensus on what to rename it? I think renaming away from "Protest" should be a relative priority, since it's gone so far beyond that. NHCLS (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an armed white supremacist insurrection by a mob intent on overthrowing the incoming democratically elected government and installing God-Emperor Trump as dictator for life, motherfuckers! Open your eyes! Why some of you want this to be titled "rally", "protest", or "peaceful gathering of friends" is beyond me.108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a paragraph break between the opening sentence and the second sentence of the opener, before the words "Congress was in session at the time". I added a paragraph break, but it was reverted. I think it would be a better structure, the events in Congress and the beginning of the unrest are separate subjects, I think the first paragraph should contain what the event is, followed by another paragraph with more detail. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, says so in the "License" in the description, but not clear on the point of the question. Was this in the article at some point? Should it be? — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I mistook this at first glance for a genuine Canadian news publication that would be recording the footage itself (and the channel's name and attributes seem designed to encourage this misreading). — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tear gas and tasers
On several streams I've seen tear gas is deployed inside the capitol building, and tasers are heard rattling. I think this should be added to the article, but I'm still under 10 edits on Wikipedia (I only really edit wiktionary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mårtensås (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Please present reliable sources which describe the information you wish to add. For convenience, it would be helpful for you to present suggestions in extremely specific detail in the form "Replace this wikitext with this wikitext". — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With rare exception, we can only use images that are freely licensed. Hopefully there are some photographers in D.C. at the moment who will later feel generous. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that that is the right infobox to be using. It is not clear why certain names are included and others aren't. This is breaking news, obviously, and we should not be rushing to fit it into a template. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Wait to see what RS call it, say, tomorrow. Atm, I'm seeing "protests", not so much "storming". History is happening in real time and we should take a breath. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this gives the conspiracy theorists involved undue credit. Nothing has been "stormed". Protests have led to some Trump supporters entering the Capitol but they are not going to "take" it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above. "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" is a very un-wiki-like title to use; a riot is a riot, and should be known as such. (I do agree broadly that "protests" is an insufficient and inaccurate description for this incident.) RexSueciae (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any change for the next 4 hours. It's certain these are protests. It's pretty clear the title will be changed once the dust settles, but nothing else seems clear now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer something like 2021 putsch at the United States Capitol which seems to more accurately describe the event but obviously that will never get consensus. Neutrality is correct that reliable, independent, secondary sources seem to no longer be referring to this event simply as a protest. — Wug·a·po·des20:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support storming, but even that doesn't describe the scale of what's going on. I know I'm a IP, but frankly this is close to a coup seeking to overturn the will of the American people. When you're recovering IED's and gunshots are being fired into the Senate chamber, this isn't a protest. This is a coup. 2603:6000:A507:C600:6428:15B7:CA4E:181C (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose premature name change until dust settles a bit. I also think "storming" is too flowery a term, and we should see what the RS decide to call it with the benefit of some hindsight. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature. The current title is more neutral — we should hold off until we know how the dust settles, as others have said. Tamwin (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Putsch or Insurrection this is not a protest or a riot or a storm, this is an attempt to reject the democratic election which Trump lost by 10 million votes, overthrow the incoming U.S. government and end the United States's 300-year tradition of democracy, encouraged and abetted by Trump's own, criminal failed attempts at a self-coup. Wikipedia editors are so mealy-mouthed it disgusts me. You have encouraged this.108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection definition of insurrection: "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence". * Oppose "storming"; this word does not represent the full scope of the event, and whether Capitol was physically stormed in full sense of that word is questionable from my perspective. Also, as I'm typing this, Biden called it an insurrection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.166.35 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNBC ("POLITICS National Guard will head to the Capitol to tamp down pro-Trump insurrection").
Business Insider ("Biden calls violent pro-Trump siege on US Capital an 'insurrection'").
Comment. What Biden called it is completely irrelevant (I say this as a Biden voter). We go by reliable sources. Biden is not a reliable source. Tamwin (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On grounds that it is currently happening. Wait for the end of the week, when media coverage is less sensationalized. When things cool off it will be easier to see what really happened. Mulstev (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the fact they stormed the Capitol is surely going to be one of the most notable things about it unless something even bigger happens. "Protests" is too vague, I'm sure there's protests near the Capitol all the time. —ajf (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems to be the best description of the situation for now, although I suspect this will need reevaluation over the coming days. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stronger language seems to be necessary for what is going on. Still think this should be described as a coup attempt, but a Storming would also be an accurate description.District9123 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Particularly now that the article has been posted in the main page. Content regarding previous protests, or those taking in other states, can be merged or split into other articles. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on clerical reasoning -- the major media outlets seem to have converged on the this phrasing, and will likely reflect the term people are looking for when searching for information. SpurriousCorrelation21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is more than a "protest", stronger language is necessary. I believe there is a better alternative than "storming", but for now, it seems practical. GyozaDumpling (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An event done by a couple of dozen people is not comparable to the thousands of protestors. It's an important part that needs to be included but should not be the main focus. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with alternative. This should be moved to 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection. As someone has already mentioned, the definition of insurrection much better fits what is taking place here. Whichever term Biden had used doesn't really have any bearing on this but that is helpful to know. I similarly oppose the term "storming", citing WP:NPOV; the word isn't supposed to be used here because not all of the protestors were also rioters. Compare the article on the Storming of the Bastille as someone stated above; everyone there was prepared for violence, while many, though not all decided to keep it peaceful at the Capitol. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team M (talk | worse talk) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support Or even call it Insurrection as the news did. By definition it wasn’t a protest because their intent was to infiltrate the building and disrupt the constitutional process. Trillfendi (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This is an attempted coup. This is an insurrection. Call it what it is. I understand waiting a few days to finalize an answer, however do not romanticize this. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for at least the next few hours) – overly headlineish and doesn't reflect the content of the article, which also covers events leading up to the people entering the Capitol. Also oppose the various other alternatives proposed, for various reasons, with the same caveat. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for now - currently ongoing, and the current title can serve well for the next few days (or hours?) until we can see what more RS's call it. Seagull123 Φ 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to add that I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it later, as it seems clear this is more than a protest, but I think it would be better to wait a bit before moving it. Seagull123 Φ 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (at the moment). Let's wait a couple of days at least for any name change. The events are still in early development and the current title covers them well anyway. We still don't know where this will go from here. Maybe protests continue and the storming is only a facet of them, maybe violence scales up, maybe... we'll see. --MarioGom (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The situation is still moving too quickly to decide what to call it. This is particularly true if it continues to include (as I think it should) the section on related events outside DC, and probably also material the attempted bombing(s), which I imagine should all be treated in one article. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The actions have gone way beyond "protest" criteria. They ran towards a building, broke windows, climbed in, and sent politicians running, all while armed. That is literally a storming.
Oppose, per GorillaWarfare. "Protest" is probably going to be inadequate, but waiting a little bit to see what terminology reliable sources end up using sounds like the best solution. (Risking, of course, that we to some degree might unwittingly end up influencing that to some small degree. But I see no way around that.) /Julle (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this has ceased to be a protest and does not deserve to be referred to as such. Keeping the title the way it currently is would be disingenuous to readers. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Comment To everyone calling it an "insurrection" or something similar: they don't seem to be well-armed, so if you do want to call it that, it's quite a poor attempt. Esszet (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-reply that's too high of a standard. There was violence, that's the bar that needs to be met, not that the group was armed, least of all well-armed. The definition of insurrection: "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence". That being said, some in the group were armed.
Support can always rename it again later if the need arises. "Protests" were people waving sings outside; clearly the main focus of this article goes way beyond that. Media is referring to it this way too. Benicio2020 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using the verb storm and it's gerund by the media does not mean that they qualify the event substantively as "storming". BBC headlines do not use the verb storming as a noun, nor do most other headlines. Noun =/= verb.
Support At this time, the storming is the most notable event. If the violence spreads beyond the capitol building, I'd want to rename it a riot or split into multiple articles. --Furbybrain (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The main focus was the storming of the Capitol building however I think protests is a more descriptive term. I would be open to one which takes into account both storming and protests. Des Vallee (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose storming as both too emotive and not conclusive enough. While storming may be used to describe a part of the events, the total of the events are better described as riot, unrest or protests. I would support "riot". Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Protests" may describe some of what happened today, but when people invade the Capitol building with weapons, that is NOT a protest. That's an invasion. (At least one person has been killed.) "Attempted coup" or "riot" would be appropriate, but definitely not "protests". Brettalan (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calling it "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" is just stupid, it sounds like something that would be on an TV Movie of the Week, I would like to see it stay 2021 United States Capitol Protests. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Individuals stormed the Capitol and occupied it, and this is the most notable part of the event. "Storming" is the most accurate description of what the individuals involved did. --Aabicus (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support We seem to have dueling requests to move this page. NPR guidance is to call this an "insurrection". We should follow that. They stormed the Capitol. This is not a "protest". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as others have said, storming is an accurate description and the most significant aspect of the event. "Protest" doesn't accurately communicate the scope of what happened. Sectori (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 6 January 2021
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.
Oppose Wikipedia is a objective fact-based encyclopedia. Subjective opinions and feelings aren't tolerated. It is objectively not a coup, if that changes then it can be changed. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
White Supremacists
It should probably be mentioned in the lead that the insurrectionists protesting against democracy and in favor of installing Trump as dictator for life are White Supremacists, no?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a deep breath. There are five separate claims in that sentence. I doubt that characterizes all protestors, especially the ones who aren't white. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr is usually where I go. You can also filter by CC-licensed images using Google Image Search. I doubt any photographers currently in DC have sat down to upload and license their photos yet, though. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we drop the "Parties to the civil conflict" part of the infobox? This is not actually a war. A long list of federal law enforcement bodies adds nothing here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced all the Twitter sources, and added a hidden comment to urge people not to add to the "Reactions" section without a secondary RS. Hopefully people bother to read it... GorillaWarfare(talk)21:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change one person shot under unclear circumstances to One women shot in the neck by Capital Police while inside the capital building. A protestor claiming to be an eye witness with blood on his hand spoke to a report outside the building in the linked video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1DsbDjbO0Webby131 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should see if this is included in more reliable sources first? Also, confirmed by police rather than a single supposed eyewitness. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me)
We already extensively cover Trump's lies. This is highly relevant, and should be included to ensure the coverage is balanced. Melmann21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a pitiful conspiracy theorist-pandering content warning like Twitter uses, but something which accurately describes Trump's claims as false (not "disputed" or "some people are saying..."). — Bilorv (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are starting to pour in. I just want to say right now that I think it will get very long, and we should limit it to heads of state, heads of major autonomous units (Scotland matters of course because of Trump's property there) and or major party leaders. For example, the mayor of London may not merit inclusion once the section begins exploding. --Calthinus (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mayor of London is a bit of a special case because he's widely cited internationally, IIRC. It may be a somewhat different case than the mayor of any other major city. Tamwin (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could just remove the section as a whole and create a new section titled 'International reactions' which summarises? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FLAG is clear here: stop adding flag icons all over the article. In particular, flags for subnational entities or supranational organisations are particularly frowned upon. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS or not, flags are usually used for international reactions in cases of civil uhh episodes. And there's a reason why. They are particularly useful to help navigation -- I find them very useful as a reader, and the section is going to grow. I'd vote to keep.--Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They just add clutter and don't help the reader. The reader can read that's why they're called a reader meaning they can read the country and don't need a flag. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncritically -- we also have WP:IAR. If there are clear arguments in favor of navigational assistance and no counterarguments, this interpretation of MOS:FLAG may be naught but a hindrance.--Calthinus (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only "clear arguments in favor of navigational assistance" is you and another editor saying you like them. The broader community have thought about the issue at length and came to a consensus, which concluded that flag icons are actually a hindrance. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Calthinus basically on everything they've said in this section. I'll add the fact that MOS:FLAG doesn't even seem to particularly disagree with us here? If you read it closely, it's saying that flags should only be used in the case of someone who officially represents a body and where that body is specifically and directly relevant. Clearly, for instance, NATO is specifically and directly relevant when the NATO Secretary General is the one speaking, though it would not be relevant if a NATO member country was speaking. By my reading, MOS:FLAG is fine with us including the flags. Can you point me to a specific portion that clearly disagrees with this reading? Tamwin (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: @Bondegezou:Tamwin (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Randam I could agree to remove subnational flags. The navigation benefit is already had if they are lodged under their national bullet points, so it's not necessary to have the Scottish flag really.--Calthinus (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump should be added in the "leadership" section on the insurrection side in the infobox given that he blatantly incited the attack on Capitol and that the entire faction looks to him as their leader. Not listing him and painting this as a movement without leadership is blatantly whitewashing Trump of his part in the affair. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He did not tell them to attack the Capitol. He in fact eventually told them to leave the Capitol. I don't think he is really leading the protesters/rioters in any meaningful sense. Tamwin (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's tepid message to the insurrectionists doesn't change the fact that he'd spent months inciting exactly this kind of action. There is also no question that the groups involved in the insurrection look to him as a leader/figurehead -- they have directly acknowledged his orders before, notably when obeying his now-infamous "stand back and stand by" comments last year. Even if one takes his backing down as genuine, he was blatantly the inciting figure and leader of the movement at the start of the attack on Capitol. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the short description from "Storming of the Capitol Building in January 2021" to "Protests inside and around the Capitol Building in January 2021" since there is no consensus to support "storming" as of yet. Putting this in the talk page since I could not add an edit description in shortdesc helper. lovkal (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of us agrees that this is not an ordinary protest, and a storming at minimum. However, there's an ongoing move discussion on this page above that is, as of yet, unresolved. The short description should match the article title, so until the discussion is resolved, "storming" is not warranted. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be easier if this was "is this a protest, yes or no?" to which I think most would say that sources seem to indicate "no, it's something else", but is that something else a ... storming? A coup? A riot? An insurrection? That will take longer time to agree on. In the meanwhile, the description should match the article. /Julle (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's agreement that this is a protest, which includes violent protest. The question is whether that's the most appropriate, balanced title for the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I think we should wait for the renaming discussions to end and then change the short description accordingly. lovkal (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
America First/Groypers and neo-confederates
@Saxones288: The only sentence in the Times of Israelsource related to Groypers/America First is "Wednesday’s event is being touted on social media by a string of far-right extremists, from the Proud Boys to right-wing militias to Nick Fuentes, head of the white supremacist Groyper Army." This does not support that America First was a "side" in the conflict. Please stop warring it back in. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of why I think we should scrap that whole section of the infobox. It's just going to be endless stuff like this until things settle down. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Snopes says that someone raised a Confederate flag and some folks were waving them around. It does not say that neo-confederates were a prominent group in the events today. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neo confederates were present, so were "QAnons" all sources describe this extensively. I am not sure if "Groypers" were present. If sources could be provided for this it would good. I think there is a difference between Groypers being present and them organizing into blocks, I mean you could most likely found an immense amount of wacky ideologies present that does not mean they were organized. Neo-Confederates and "Qs" were extensively present. Des Vallee (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on scrapping the box. This does not live up to Wikipedia's standards. I doubt we will be able to discover whether each of the protestors is associated with a group, and whether those groups coordinated it. This is not the same as "France" and "Netherlands" in American Revolutionary War where there is clear attribution.
Arms & Hearts, you are correct. However, if people are mistakenly typing it often looking for this article, then it is a good redirect. Unless it was referring to a different incident? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that President Donald Trump, while he called for peace and "law and order", seemed to very deliberately assert in the same video that he supports the protestors' cause, and I suspect that he is secretly egging them on. He says, I know your pain... I know you’re hurt... We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side... but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order... It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this, where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us! From me, from you, from our country. The fraudulent election." He seems to be doing something almost akin to dog-whistling. So perhaps some of the other comments he made along with his calls for peace should be included. Not to mention Twitter tagged this so-called "peaceable" tweet with: "This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can’t be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence." --121.99.126.230 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not actually talking about adding my speculation, I was just mentioning why I thought his comments were significant enough to be included in the article (I was interpreting it as a kind of secret encouragement). But never mind, because someone seems to have added most of his comments to the article already, either since I said this, or perhaps I just didn't notice it the first time round. Although perhaps the Twitter tag would be relevant and perhaps should be mentioned in the article, if it hasn't been already. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people consider Sky News to be a reliable source, but I think that we should wait to see if any other RS reports on an IED on capitol grounds.Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "According to an NBC report...", so I assume they are just repeating what NBC have said, probably best to wait and see if it can be backed up by other evidence. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since a major cause of the protest was President Trump's claims of election fraud, should that be added to the infobox in the "Caused By" section? Alienmandosaur (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following claim lacks sources: "The National Association of Manufacturers has also called for Trump's immediate removal from office, calling on Vice President Mike Pence to act."
These should do, if anyone with editing permissions wants to add them:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I note that a flag salad list of "reactions" has made its way on this article. The flags are disliked by many editors, and it is a quotefarm cobbled together from primary sources. Please spin it off, or at least get rid of the flags and prosify. Abductive (reasoning)22:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Portugal's reaction to the protests
On Twitter, the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs was the first to reacte to the protests expressing "deep concern with today's events in Washington" and Portugal "are confident that American democracy, the respect for the institutions and the rule of law will prevail". Augusto Santos Silva finish his reaction saying that Portugal "trust the US and its institutions to ensure a peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration".[1] Minutes later, the Prime Minister António Costa, also on Twitter, saying that he is "following developments in Washington with concern" qualifying the protests as "disturbing scenes". Costa finish his reaction declaring that "the outcome of the elections must be respected, with a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. I have trust in the strength of the democratic institutions in the USA".[2]2001:8A0:F9B9:FB01:88E4:F85:9C0F:33B7 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
Perhaps I'm a bit premature here, but for as long as just one commentator's opinion is present (seemingly to politically disparage against her, at that), this section will be pointless. Who would some names that might validate this section be? I can only think of prominent academics, but that's already a matter of conjecture. Perhaps we should remove it altogether. puggo (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
At this point I was wondering if anybody thinks that adding an image or two of the events unfolding into this wiki article to be a good idea especially given that based on the current and potential severity, impact, and scale of the protests this article will likely be a long/dense one? Thanks! Nicholaspark2001 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Not done Please present reliable sources which describe the information you wish to add. For convenience, it would be helpful for you to present suggestions in extremely specific detail in the form "Replace this wikitext with this wikitext". — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)