Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Requested move 20 May 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.

The result of the move request was: Consensus for moving to 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is clearly consensus for moving to a title with 2021 United States Capitol. Consensus clearly supports the proposal to remove storming from the title as not enough of a common name, but likewise rejects the proposal to use the date (January 6) in the title. The overall weight of consensus, especially per WP:COMMONNAME, is that any title should explicitly mention United States Capitol, and that January 6 is not common enough at this time to be used in the title. While there is more support for attack than riot, this may be because only the former was mentioned in the initial request. Using riot may receive more support than attack in a separate requested move discussion, and both have more support than the current storming. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → January 6 United States Capitol attack – 1. The current title does not meet WP:COMMONNAME, per analysis here. The current wording is rarely used and it is a bad name per WP:COMMONNAME. The word attack is far more common. 2. WP:RS's refer to the date when referring to the event. If you google January 6th, it pulls up news articles about the event and this article. 3. United States Capitol is still needed to identify the article, as it is for a global audience. 4. We are comparing this title versus the current one. What I suggest might not be perfect, but it is an improvement. Casprings (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Minor change per (MOS:ORDINAL) since I opened this last night. Removed the th.Casprings (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. Obvious improvement; "Storm" is not a COMMONNAME. Feoffer (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support. I can live with this title. I prefer 2021 over January 6, but neither is really ambiguous (assuming there isn't another attack on the Capitol this year or on any January 6 in the future, that is) and I agree that "attack" is preferable to storming - if only weakly so. I personally still prefer "riot" as I think it is more common and has a more accurate meaning, but "attack" is better than "storming" per COMMONNAME. I'm not going to hold this proposal back regardless of my opinion on its prematurity, and I appreciate that it is, as the OP suggests, an improvement - not perfection, but better than it is now. I encourage all who opine to consider that - it may not be the perfect title in our opinion, but it's definitely an improvement per our titles guidelines/policies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: is it too late to consider January 6 United States Capitol attack without the ordinal? Or have you found that the th is much more commonly used? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Either works for me. Feoffer (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Consider this a vote for 6 over 6th per MOS:ORDINAL. No comment on the overall RM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Meets the criteria of the event's common name. Attack is probably the best of all the options -- none of which is stunningly ideal, but each of which at this point is better than storming. (I actually favor riot a bit, but that seems less likely to get consensus. My dark-horse favorite is assault, but that's been a non-starter in the past.) One thing: I don't think ordinal numbers ("th") pass the Wikipedia smell test. I recommend January 6 United States Capitol attack, even though it's true that everyone pronounces the th. It's just one of those wiki-things. Moncrief (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support January 6 United States Capitol attack (without the 'th'). "January 6" and "attack" constitute the common name of this event, not the "storming". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't feel there is a clear WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources yet, so this is an exercise in picking the least-bad interim name. Per my comments above, I oppose having "January 6" in the title and not having 2021 - the year is more important in all contexts that aren't saturated with Trump stuff already. Neutral on "attack", if I had to pick a word between "protest" and "insurrection" I would pick "unrest" but attack is an improvement over "storming". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel like a WP:COMMONNAME hasn't been decided yet for this case. Some sources are calling it an "insurrection", others are calling it a "riot", and so on and so forth. Maybe we should hold off on a potential rename until about a year, when sources have decided what to commonly call it. Love of Corey (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Of course without the "th" as per MOS:ORDINAL. January 6 is clearly the common name at this point - if it changes to 2021 in the future, we just change it again, but it seems that January 6 is becoming more and more ubiquitous. And, although perhaps not a PERFECT term, "attack" is a more prevalent and more neutral term than "storming". BappleBusiness (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support for at least the "January 6th", with the "th" -- and no, I don't care what MOS:ORDINAL says -- and weak support for the "attack" part. I've seen "January 6th" as a modifier and even a noun phrase shorthand, so leaving it out makes no sense. Still thinking about "attack" versus "storm", but "riot" doesn't get any consideration. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Strong agreement that "protest" and "riot" are inappropriate in title. Sund is clear: this wasn't spontaneous, it was planned and coordinated. Feoffer (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support appears to be a more common name.Storm is not a common name .It could be riot.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Move to 2021 United States Capitol attack and oppose use of January 6. Assuming any move at all has to be made (I haven't looked at the specific evidence for/against storming/attack), it should have a year identifier rather than a date, which is a standard recognizable format found in Wiki titles. This may be fresh in our memories now, but in five or ten years someone might look at this and wonder January 6th from which year? Also, it's not like the proposed title is actually commonly found in sources. I seem to get only two results when I Google it, one of which is our article.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't support a move at this time, but to be fair – that Google search is flawed. US and other English-language media rarely say "United States Capitol", they say "US Capitol" or just "Capitol". Similar searches yield tens of thousands of results, e.g. "January 6th Capitol attack", "January 6 Capitol attack", "January 6th US Capitol attack", "January 6 US Capitol attack", etc. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support but without the "th", as per September 11 attacks format. As of this writing, a google search for "6 attack" produces 526m results, while "6 storming" only yields 4.4m hits. Meanwhile, 6 insurrection" (the other possible name that comes to mind) gets 18.4m results. Definitely seems like attack>insurrection>storming is the common name for the event. pluma♫ ♯ 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is not remotely comparable to September 11. The date is not the key indentifier that has become etched in people's minds. It's the words "capitol" and probably "attack" which do that. September 11 attacks is a common name exception to WP naming conventions, but there's no rationale to make such an exception here.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Agreeing with others that comparisons to Sept 11 are inappropriate, but the proposed title is utterly in line with naming convention for events: When Where What. There's only one Jan 6 attack, while there've been two 2021 attacks so far. I think a lot of people are opposing the date disambiguation just because they mistakenly think it implies similarity to Sept 11. It doesn't, we use that style all the time, eg June 9 Deng speech, May 12 Karachi riots, February 6 Intifada, May 16 coup, June 25 cyber terror, March 18 Massacre, March 19 shooting incident, etc. Just a boring disambiguation. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – it would look clearer as "attack on United States Capitol", and be more in line with sources calling it the "January 6th attack" or "January 6 attack". Calling it the "2021 attack on United States Capitol" looks premature and less well sourced. Thus, January 6th attack on United States Capitol, or January 6 attack on United States Capitol if more standard usage. . . dave souza, talk 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• January 6 attack Because it's common and three-parted, not because it should resemble September 11 attacks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Best option -- simple, concise, clear, and common. Props to its proposer, who has a gift for naming as demonstrated by their most excellent username. Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I stole the idea from House Democrats and Dave Souza, but thank you! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  The House Democrats suggested your username? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - storming as in "to attack a place or building by entering suddenly in great numbers"[1] is a more accurate term than attack, which doesn't capture the "entering suddenly in great numbers" part. Comment - Alternatively riot leading to storming. Terjen (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, maybe move to 2021 United States Capitol attack instead. The problem with "January 6th" or "January 6" is that it is missing information about what year the attack was in. It could even be interpreted so that this were an annually recurring event. JIP | Talk 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Storming" was always a weird euphemism, the usage of which by sources seems to have dipped over time. ValarianB (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I checked a few dozens of recent sources. The words "January 6" are usually not used as a name in articles about the events, but simply as a qualifier, e.g. "the Capitol riot on January 6". Even in expressions like "the January 6 Capitol riot" it's not clear that this can be considered a name for the event – I guess it's more likely that next year most sources will say something like "the Capitol riot on January 6 2021". It's not impossible that "January 6" will become a name like "9/11", but it's much too early to tell, and I'd guess it's unlikely. Maybe this move request was started because of the vote on the commission today in the House of Representatives, which is sometimes called something like "Jan. 6 commission" in headlines? Then I'd say it's a case of WP:RECENTISM. Also, "riot" still seems to be a more common name for the event than "attack". That has been the case from the beginning, and it hasn't changed. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of year for Jan 6th outside US the actual day won't have registered on most readers worldwide. Looking at UK, African, Australian and Indian news sources will confirm that. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support a move to either the proposed location or 2021 United States Capitol attack. Seems a straightforward improvement, and any choice of naming is going to be a compromise to most people. Per WP:NOYEAR we don't need the year for this, but I can understand the desire to retain it for recognizability. VQuakr (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above — RealFakeKimT 14:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per previous attack RM !vote (diff). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Nah. I think debating 'storming' vs. 'attack' is appropriate, but not debating "2021" vs. "January 6". I'm not sure "January 6" will be remembered/used in the same way as "September 11", though time will tell. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support move for the following reasons: 1) This event doesn't have one, formal, commonly accepted name like "World War II" or "Academy Awards", so for that reason we're left with coming up with a neutral descriptive title. Any such descriptive title will never be completely identical to other such descriptions in sources, because each source will come up with their own shorthand descriptions of the event, and the same source will also probably use many such descriptions. 2) There is unlikely to be one, singular, obvious, best title. 3) The proposed title is better than the current one, and at least as good as any of the other multitudes of other titles that have been, and could be, proposed. It is neutrally worded, accurate, and contains common descriptors that make it easily recognizable. This checks all of the boxes for me. If a slightly different title that met these requirements had been proposed, I would have supported that one too, because there is no one best title, there are just a bunch of "good enough" titles, and the proposed one fits that category well enough for me. --Jayron32 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment

1. IMO nothing's changed since previous discussions. "Storming" captures the spontaneity and crowd dynamic better than "attack," and I agree with others that 1/6 is only famous to US politicos.
2. This particular discussion hasn't dealt with similarity to Storming of the Bastille; I'd be interested in reading some debate on whether that's appropriate.
3. We should remain conscious of Wiki's power to self-fulfill, especially in this case where there really isn't consensus. Today, NYT published an op-ed in which the author calls it an "attack" -- but the editor headlined it "storming." A weightier burden than usual.
4. There's an independent value to consistency. Not changing the title frequently, in the context of an extremely active page, entails a heavy status quo bias. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Storming" captures the spontaneity and crowd dynamic better than "attack,". Actually, Sund has testified this was a coordinated, planned attack that began before the Trump rally even ended. Feoffer (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on sourcing for our timeline there were both a group of coordinated, planned stormers AND a group arriving from the Ellipse speeches who acted more spontaneously. At 12:53, rioters were already breaching barricades, reveals videos by ProPublica. By 1:03 p.m., a vanguard of rioters had overrun three layers of barricades and forced police officers to the base of the west Capitol steps, reports the NYTimes. Yet Trump's speech didn't end until 1:10, according to the Secretary of Defense. The crowd at the Ellipse had 1.5 miles to walk to the capitol building. A routine calculation would indicate that the rally crowd didn't reach the capitol until 1:40 or thereafter. It is a mistake, based on sources, to lump all the rioters together. Some had special training and coordination; most were following spontaneously the explicit instructions given by Donald Trump in his speech less than an hour before. BusterD (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

All reasons I argue against "storm" as over-implicating the protestors who later walked through the breached Captiol -- the attackers who actually caused the initial breach likely weren't even at the protest, at minimum they weren't there for all of Trump's speech. Feoffer (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Injecting the date rather than the year into the title is a terrible idea. I also prefer "storming" to "attack", as it is a much better descriptor for what actually happened. There is also no definitive common name/term for this event. Various terms have been used, including "storming", "riot", "protest", "attack", "insurrection", "mob", "demonstration", "assault", "rebellion", etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. There has been no clear name established in reliable sources that unambiguously meets WP:COMMONNAME. Until there is, it's disingenuous to propose a name change based on that guideline. The word "attack" may be somewhat more common, but it's also a more common word used in the English language generally, so that doesn't mean anything. The word "storming" is a more accurate description of the event. And omitting the year from the title makes no sense at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" is a more precise description of the unlawful actions of the day. I too have noticed that some version of the word storm is often used in the headline or lead of an article, but varied nouns are used in the body of text for interesting writing's sake. It has not escaped me that many of the rioters, notably Ashli Babbit, believed their actions that day would "bring the storm." There's some symmetry in using an identical term used by rioters in one context and by journalists in quite another--describing the rioters. User:Anachronist makes a good case that there is no common name unambiguously used by sources. There are a wide variety of terms used. Finally, I must concur with User:GordonGlottal that making move requests so frequently "entails a heavy status quo bias." BusterD (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The similarity to Storming of the Bastille flatters the rioters, some of whom chanted "Storm the Capitol" during Trump's speech. Other similarities include Storming of the Legislative Council Complex, Storming of the American embassy in Khartoum, Storming of the Venezuelan National Congress, Storming of the Winter Palace, Storming of the Tuileries, and Storming of the Annaberg. Interesting that several redirect; to an attack, an assault, a battle, an insurrection. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The argument that we should parallel QAnon buzzwords in our title is... novel but deeply unconvincing. Feoffer (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC) --

I made no such assertion. I made several points, one of which is the term is used by both pro-riot and journalistic sources. This is hardly controversial and is well documented. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean to use that as a straw man, it's just no, we don't care what Babbitt would call her crime. RSes, yes. Babbit, no. Feoffer (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: I would argue that this fits COMMONNAME perfectly; when the attempted insurrection is mentioned, it's almost exclusively referred to as "January 6th", in the same way that the 2001 attacks are referred to as "9/11". DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Attack" still remains a remote second/third name for this event, behind "riot" and "insurrection". There is clear evidence of this at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. As for "January 6", I can see some currency to that as I peruse the recent news articles in the various compiled searches, but it seems plausible that this usage will fade as we roll into the next year. If "January 6" without a year modifier persists into 2022, there is a stronger case to use that in the title, but we should wait before making a rash comparison to the naming scheme of 9/11 or 7/7, as some editors seem keen to do. Time will tell, and this is too soon. — Goszei (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: You could have just replied to me, since it's obvious you're referencing me - directly beneath my comment. Is half a year "rash" to you? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not addressing any editor in particular, as several editors have invoked 9/11 and 7/7 in this thread and in the thread above. "Rash" was admittedly not the best word to use, but I maintain that this is premature. "September 11 attacks" was surely prevalent in December 2001, and the name persisted into 2002 and beyond. As we are still in 2021, there is insufficient information to determine if the date-only name will persist into 2022 and beyond. — Goszei (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your position. If I read your response correctly, you also agree that "attack" is more prevalent than "storming" - so shouldn't we try to improve the article (for this aspect of the request)? And if we know that "January 6" is the most prevalent name right now, and that it's unclear whether "January 6" will stick or fade within the coming years, wouldn't it make sense that we change the article to reflect the current name, at least until we have time on our side? BappleBusiness (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring by date to events that happened previously that year is common practice in contemporaneous news, and happens all the time. For example, "April 19 bombing in Oklahoma City" in 1995 and "22 July attacks in Norway" in 2011 make sense when the years are still 1995 and 2011. However, those faded away quickly in the next year, becoming "1995 bombing" and "2011 attacks" in reference. Wikipedia is not the news, and so we should always take the longer view, including when we title articles. When given the option between a naming scheme that only rarely has produced a long-lasting title, like 9/11, and the far more common outcome, we should not play the weaker odds and force ourselves to flip-flop when 2022 comes along. — Goszei (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "attack", it beats "storming" on commonness, but loses on precision. I personally think that "riot" is blend of qualities that best meets the WP:CRITERIA (the most common, and reasonably precise). — Goszei (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Worst case scenario we have to add the year back in later; Seems improbable that we'll need to disambiguate "Jan 6 US Capitol attack" anytime in the next three years at least. Feoffer (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

To summarize my evaluation of the terms at play: on usage in RS it is (riot >> attack > storming), while on my evaluation of precision it is (storming > riot >> attack). "Attack" doesn't capture the mob violence well, and makes it sound like the building was hit by a missile or the like. "Storming" captures the mob violence very well, and furthermore conveys that the violence happened inside the building. "Riot" doesn't convey mob violence in the building, but I think this can be overlooked given the overwhelming usage in RS, which we should defer to on naming judgement. If the editorial boards of the major newspapers have coalesced around a term, as has happened here (try other terms, if you like), we should follow their lead. — Goszei (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Storming is more precise than attack. We use attack for the September 11 attacks. We have an article called Storming of the Bastille, which is about French insurrectionists who attacked and entered a government building. Also, there is no common name at present, so we should use the most descriptive one. TFD (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This was my EXACT thinking a few months ago. But it's since emerged that the initial breach happened before Trump had even finished speaking (and it's a long walk to the Capitol). Chief Sund has concluded: "This was not a demonstration. This was not a failure to plan for a demonstration. This was a planned, coordinated attack on the United States Capitol." Feoffer (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Any time there is a demonstation, there is the possibility of violence. That's why police presence is always increased. But in this case there were only 500 Capitol police on duty and, as Chief Sund said, the House (which was Democratic controlled) rejected a request for additional military backup. What do you think would happen in any demonstation where the demonstrators were angry and there was reduced police presense? As an article in TMZ points out, "The way it works in most police departments around the country ... when there's the possibility of social unrest it's all hands on deck. That did not happen here."[2] Sund bases his conclusions (made Jan. 15) on the dud bombs outside the DNC and RNC HQ.[3] But we don't know who left them, so it's just speculation. It could be that he is just trying to defend himself. TFD (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"It could be that he is just trying to defend himself" A suspicion I initially shared, but now that we're a few months out, it's clear Sund's timeline (breach before end of rally) is backed up by video evidence and RSes. Feoffer (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "January 6" instead of "2021", neutral as to "storming" versus "attack". Disambiguating an event by calendar date alone appears to be quite uncommon. In the absence of strong evidence that "January 6" is universally associated with this event in the same way as, say, September 11, we should default to the more normal strategy of disambiguation by year. Rublov (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is excellent. Wikipedia can be proud of having gotten it right so early and stuck with it. Srnec (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose replacing "2021" with a yearless "January 6", neutral on "storming" vs. "attack". It's a big mistake to get rid of the year. It seems the reason that sources are only saying "[the events of] January 6" and don't feel the need to say "2021" at the moment is because it was literally this year. We should see what sources say when we're further into a non-2021 year (like, you know, 2022) before seeing whether sources include "2021". Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment support changing to "riot" and leaving the date per Goszei. Spudlace (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement compare to the current version, but I think a better title would be simply United States Capitol riot or United States Capitol attack. My very best wishes (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue with that is that there has been more than one such event in history, from the Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Capitol up to the April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

But those were "burning" and "car attack". The titles are not exactly the same. "Capitol riot" seems to be the most common name right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted that you are submitting this idea. Just letting you know why it will be pushed back against; the terms are too broad. Riots and attacks have happened at the U.S. Capitol complex at other times. Moncrief (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Which other riots (rather than just ordinary demonstrations or protests) do you mean? There were also many riots in the US, but which of them targeted the Capitol complex? My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that it's helpful to the discussion at hand, but there's been all kinds of violence at and even in the chambers. The Bonus Army came to demand WWI bonuses and they had to call in the Army. Riots have broken out on the floor of the House and Senate -- in the 1850s one senator was almost beaten to death on the floor of the Senate. Feoffer (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes [4], but it was described in sources as a violence and a brawl [5], not a riot, an attack by the mob on the Capitol or insurrection. I am not sufficiently familiar with US history, but it seems there was no other case when the Capitol would be taken over by an organized mob incited by the President and the members of a major political party. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose changing "2021" to "January 6", neutral as to "storming" versus "attack." It's still 2021. If after 2021 the attack is commonly referred to as "January 6," (akin to September 11) we can change the title. Right now, it's too early to tell. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. Reliable sources universally refer to the month and day (January 6). The right-wing euphemism of "storming" for the actual attack and insurrection has been challenged by several academic scholars who have noted its propaganda value. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Viriditas, do you have any sources for that statement? I see the term used in numerous non-right-wing media. While looking for such sources, I came across an article by Patrick Cockburn (not to be confused with Alex Cockburn) in The Independent that says that terms such as coup and insurrection are reminiscent of "war propaganda."[6] That's not something we should be associated with. TFD (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I just finished reading Mr. Cockburn's article you linked, and I'm deeply confused. Virtually every major point he made is either misinformed, erroneous, or out of touch. This might be due to newer evidence that has come out since that time or due to his contrarian nature, I don't know, but his point about the singular British film crew is just out there. Is he unaware that ProPublica alone uploaded 500 cell phone videos of the event? I suspect Mr. Cockburn means well, but this article can't be taken seriously due to errors like this. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• It's difficult to give much weight to Cockburn as he is clear that his was a minority opinion criticizing mainstream reporting: "The three-hour takeover of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob is portrayed as a “coup” or an “insurrection” egged on by President Trump." It's somewhat moot as we're not proposing a title switch to "coup" or "insurrection". 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Viriditas, Cockburn is an award winning journalist who has been a columnist for The Independent, a British newspaper that is one of the world's most respected news sources, for thirty years. He was criticizing "US media reports." Weight means that we should not limit our perspective to U.S. media. I notice you failed to answer my request to provide sources for your claim that, "The right-wing euphemism of "storming" for the actual attack and insurrection has been challenged by several academic scholars who have noted its propaganda value." I assume that means your claim was false. TFD (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I certainly can't speak for V's original comments, but FWIW, I know it's a fact that "The Storm" is the preferred nomenclature among a certain segment of far-right propagandists. But that's by no means the only consideration. IF RSes were still using Storm as one of the three COMMONNAMES, we might not mind that "Storm" was also a propaganda term. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• You should provide sources for your claims. I would point point out that the term "The Storm" does not refer to the storming of the Capitol, but to a conspiracy theory that top Democrats will be arrested.[7] The far right would not refer to the events of Jan. 6 as storming the Capitol because they see it as a legitimate protest. TFD (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Storm" does not refer to the storming of the Capitol, but to a conspiracy theory that top Democrats will be arrested Point being, the term is tied to right-wing propaganda, which is what Viriditas originally asserted and I confirmed. It's well established that a segment of extremists identified Jan 6 as the storm. Feoffer (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• That makes no sense. No reasonable reader is going to mix up "The Storm" and "The storming of." Perhaps you think we should rename the January 1998 North American ice storm because readers might think it was a right-wing conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support I support the move per the argument above,in addition that it was an attack on the capitol from a security perspective,the capitol was breached and people died.Alhanuty (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Partial support of changing "storming" to "attack"; oppose changing "2021" to "January 6". Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing "2021" to "January 6", in the vast majority of reliable sources, January 6th is mentioned. Nojus R (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Love of Corey, Terjen, and Chrisahn. Zonafan39 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Partial Support, but better is to change title to "January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex", which is the name used by the House of representatives in the bill for a January 6 commission. These other alternative names should be included in bold, in the article's first sentence, as alternative names, because they are massively used in media stories- 1 - "Capitol Riots", 2- "January 6th Insurrection", 3 - "January 6th", 4 - "January 6", 5 - "1-6". At a minimum, all of these names should be in bold in the first sentence of our article. Note that the expression "January 6 Commission" also implicitly names the event as being "January 6". MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose January 6, neutral on the noun. Regardless of what RS say, the fact of that matter is that all of the RS come from 2021, so it is really WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL to believe that they would continue to call it the January 6 attack years down the line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment "January 6th insurrection" is what AP is calling it.[8] AP is picked up by many other sources. "Storming" is most accurate for what physically happened, but lacks info on the intent, and is not being used so much in major media stories. "Attack" lacks info on the intent. "Capitol riots" lacks info in intent and on specificity of what physically happened. MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - If the article title changes, I would prefer if "January" were included in the new title due to April 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Love of Corey (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose changing "2021" to "January 6". I would not be opposed to using both at the same time, but why remove the year? "January 2021" is also a plausible option. Neutral about "storming" and "attack". Super Ψ Dro 09:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As someone outside the U.S. I've never seen the event referenced by the specific date like the World Trade Center attacks. In fact I doubt most people outside the U.S. would even be able to remember the date if asked. I also think 'storming' is a very handy neutral term that is also very descriptive of the event while completely sidestepping the political hot potato that is 'riot/insurrection'. Attack doesn't really have the same descriptive quality since the event differs a lot from other events that are described as attacks, no weapons where used by the attackers, none of the defenders were killed, the building wasn't damaged, etc. --KristinnKr (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"building wasn't damaged"???! "no weapons"???!!!? Feoffer (talk)

• • Comment - Your larger points are valid, but weapons were indeed used by the attackers. Not a bomb, but certainly weapons were used. Also, phrasing this as neutrally as possible, defenders did indeed die. There are defenders who are dead now who would not be were it not for the events of that day. Moncrief (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know how we fell down this rabbit hole of comparing this to the World Trade Center -- it's a total distraction. The argument for including date in the title is just boring old disambiguation, like June 9 Deng speech, March 19 shooting incident, or February 6 Intifada. Feoffer (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - "Attack" has become the common name. –dlthewave ☎ 12:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Attack", while the common name, may not be WP:NPOV. Also, User:KristinnKr made some very good points; terms like "riot", "insurrection", or "attack" may be biased towards the Democrats, but going too light would not be neutral, which could include terms like "protest", "march", or (Jimbo forbid) "liberation". "Storming" is a term that is the most neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvadingInvader (talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think things are always "equal" in political disputes. See false balance, which is why Wikipedia articles resolutely say that climate change is real. Consider the balance of reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Perennial sources) and note that some of the pet GOP online sources are discouraged for a good reason. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but open to alternatives. ~ HAL333 18:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" best reflects the nature of what took place. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the longevity of this topic including "2021" is the most ideal and accurate title for this. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. "Storming" succinctly captures the crowd dynamics of the event. "Attack" is accurate, too, but a little vaguer. KFan3 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Jayron32. Shoestringnomad (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of the year from the title ("2021"), consistent with my belief that a year should almost never be included in an article title except 1) as part of the common name, 2) as part of a descriptive name due to the lack of a common name, or 3) absolutely necessary for disambiguation. Support use of the term "January 6", as this has become the common name in the media. Oppose use of the word "attack", as the analysis clearly indicates that the common name would either be "riot" or "insurrection." Oppose use of the term "United States Capitol" as being needlessly descriptive. The best title would be "January 6 Capitol riot" or "January 6 Capitol insurrection".  Mysterymanblue  21:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per above supporting. This was a semi-coordinated attack on the Capitol building, and forevermore should be called what it was. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Storming" best reflects the nature of what took place (a mob, by force of numbers and violently intimidatory behaviour, breaching a protected building) and no COMMONNAME has as yet established itself. I endorse the excellently succinct analysis of Anachronist. "Attack" is very vague and appears to be supported partly because it (very marginally IMO) implies pre-planning. I think it reasonable to assume that some attendees came with consciously formed insurrectionary intentions (or insurrectionary fantasies at least), but to seek to extrapolate from that a general character to the event is to generalise everyone's motive as the same and to mistake journalistic hyperbole for WP fact. If - collectively - these were insurrectionists, they were the most chaotic, most easily deterred, most absurdly dressed insurrectionists of all time - on their way to a fancy dress party while busy taking 'selfies', all while seizing the reins of govt? It is possible to be appalled (as I am) by the destructive, intimidatory and frankly infantile behaviour of these rioters without needing to imagine that any meaningful plan to overthrow government existed, or certainly was held in common by this mob. "January 6" has no resonance AT ALL outside US and even inside US it may never acquire the recognisability that some editors here believe it already has. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"January 6 has no resonance AT ALL outside US" We add dates to titles for simple disambiguation, we don't require international recognisability. Nobody outside of Taiwan recognizes "March 19" -- perhaps no one in Taiwan would recognize it -- but March 19 shooting incident is a perfectly appropriate article title. Feoffer (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It isn't practical, nor even desirable to treat "disambiguation" as distinct from "recognisability" - the dabber has to be recognisable to fulfil its function. I'm not going to comment on the Taiwanese incident's title - but presumably you recognise that what happened in and outside the Capitol is also of interest to those of us who are not American. We rememmber what happened and are interested in how investigation and coverage evolves, even if we don't remember, or refer to the exact date in the way that a US person might. I'm not even very opposed to changing from year to date, as long as people recognise that it will probably need to be changed back in 12 months time, and that what may be more specific to US readers, may well be meaningless to non-US ones. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even very opposed to changing from year to date, as long as people recognise it will probably need to be changed back in 12 months time. Thanks for saying that, and I certainly don't oppose including the year -- either now or in future, whichever people/MOS want! Others are getting tripped up on why we add dates to titles, saying things like "It's not impossible that "January 6" will become a name like "9/11", but it's much too early to tell" when the actual reasoning is far more mundane. Feoffer (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support For removing "2021" in favour of "January 6" as it is less ambiguous but, oppose of changing "storming" as it already accurately describes the event. The Meta Boi (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing title to "2021 United States Capitol raid" or similar. The definitions of "raid" and "storming" per Webster's Dictionary: Raid: "A hostile or predatory incursion, a surprise attack by a small force". Storm: A violent assault on a defended position." Both terms are technically correct, however, I believe "raid" is more concise. "Insurrection", meaning "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government" may also be correct, but "riot" is not. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 03:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title is not ideal, but the suggested title is not much of an improvement. There are sources that use January 6 in particular, but I've seen no evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME, nor that "attack" is the correct wording to use. - Aoidh (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is awkward. The most WP:COMMONNAME is insurrection. Google "2021 insurrection" gets 31 million results vs. half that for "2021 storming".

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.

Requested move 1 June 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.

The result of the move request was: moved per RM closure above. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack – Consensus on talk for move, but target is a disambig. Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Feoffer, Onetwothreeip, and Srnec: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Onetwothreeip: as the RM closer should be the one doing the moving. Is this in fact the consensus title? 162 etc. (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I have changed the disambiguation page into a redirect back to the primary topic, and have left a link at the top of the subject article to the second disambiguation entry. All that is required now is to swap the two articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 United States Capitol attack is the consensus title as of the recent discussion. I have tried to move this as requested of me, but I am unable to do so due to the redirect (formerly disambiguation) article taking the place of the consensus name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm contesting this close. I have left a note on the closer's talk page. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In light of Srnec's contesting of the non-admin closure, we will need an admin to come close the discussion. (Even without Srnec's objection, we need an admin to effect a move). Feoffer (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Feoffer and 162 etc.: Is admin closure required if one or two people object to the close? There were many participants in the discussion, so it's inevitable that one or two people may object. I'm willing to request the technical move myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MR has the procedure to follow. User:Feoffer seems to have reverted your close; that should not have happened. However, if I was in your shoes, I might step aside for this one as it's a pretty volatile discussion and might be more of a headache than it's worth. 162 etc. (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with all options. Apologies for any mistakes. Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I note that Feoffer has reverted the undoing of the close and we can proceed as normal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection to the requested move to 2021 United States Capitol attack as per User:Onetwothreeip and RM discussion. Any editors who believe this close to be improper are urged to consult WP:MR for the proper followup procedure. 162 etc. (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The page hasn't been moved yet, but I've filed an MR. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please make the move. I'm sure examination of talk will confirm the consensus for replacing 'storm' with 'attack'. Feoffer (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

123 is one of the most active editors on this page and should not have attempted to close a contentious poll. SPECIFICO talk 11:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard Did you mean to copy this technical request discussion over to this page? There's an existing move request permalink which was just closed as Consensus for moving to 2021 United States Capitol attack yesterday. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: This should not be up for discussion again. The RM was just closed. There is also an MR disputing that RM. Let's not make it even more complicated. 162 etc. (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Unless an administrator is overturning the closure of the discussion for a valid reason, this cannot be a contested technical request. A discussion was closed, it is at move review, and the norm is to allow the move to be completed while the move review is pending. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've merged this section with the initial RM, as it wasn't really an RM, just a continuation of the previous one. Grouping for clarity makes sense here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll put this here in case this gets revisited in future. Turns out, we actually have reliable sources talking about why Wikipedia should NOT use the noun "storming".

"At 3 a.m. on Thursday, after more than 200 editors had weighed in, an admin changed the name of the article to “2021 storming of the United States Capitol.” It was a stopgap measure, wrote CaptainEek, not a permanent solution. ... Joanne Freeman, a professor of American history at Yale, shared her disapproval: “It romanticizes it. There are plenty of other words: Attacked, Mobbed, Vandalized. Use those instead. Words matter.”

That's never happened to me before -- looking for RSes about what the title should be and seeing experts actually opine on the question at hand. Feoffer (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a "this article in the media" section in the header of this talk page (currently collapsed, click "other talk page banners") which mentions that Fast Company article. Of course, the Freeman quote is irrelevant – someone's opinion (history professor or not) is not one of the five WP:CRITERIA. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointer to "in the media". As to relevance -- if, in future, we find ourselves debating the merits of 'Storm', the RS citation of the Freeman opinion would inform our application of WP:NPOVTITLE. Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Mock Gallows

For the record, the gallows were clearly labelled as an art piece. Adda'r Yw (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned in an article in Smithsonian Magazine: "The first large item to greet me? A wooden structure on its side with signs affixed to the base. A square piece of plywood read “THIS IS ART.” Graffiti from a variety of hands covered the legs and sides of what I recognized as gallows, sans noose." Terjen (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the press have reported it to be "mock gallows" including this recent Associated Press based article. Perhaps we should include that fact as well. Terjen (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You have no knowledge when and who later put the graffiti on the gallows - photographed with noose, widely published, Please no OR here. SPECIFICO talk 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We should obviously not quote Smithsonian's observation from the day after, assuming that was your concern. RS have said it was a mock gallows. Terjen (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain to me (and more importantly to readers): Apart from a post-hoc observation that the gallows was never used in an execution, in what ways does a "mock" gallows differs from a "gallows"? Feoffer (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mock as in being an imitation of something. It's intended to seem real but is not the real thing. [9][10] Terjen (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as your definition hinges upon the intention of the builder of which we have no sources, we should side with the majority of RSes. There are cases where a minority opinion might beat majority -- I'd support RSes that show the gallows were non-functional rather than merely theoretically 'intended' to not be used. Feoffer (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

These definitions of "mock" are from the cited dictionaries, and don't hinge on us determining the intentions of the builder. We have high-quality RS: Associated Press explicitly says "mock gallows" in their May 28 article. Terjen (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated by RSes that the gallows was somehow "non-functional", we absolutely must mention that; there's a proud tradition of non-functional "guillotines" in political speech. But "art" of gallows can function quite well as an "actual" gallows unless RS are sure it's very carefully constructed to be non-functional. Feoffer (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That RS calls them "mock gallows" is sufficient for us to report them as such. Terjen (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

One source"s passing remark? No. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) RSes refer to them as "gallows", and while at least one source called them "mock". If the minority verbiage is well-substantiated in a way we can explain to readers, we should share that info with our readers. Feoffer (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the original article directly from Associated Press dated May 28, 2021. Terjen (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A single source cherrypicked. The gallows symbolize the insurrectionists' oft-voiced intention to kill VP Pence. Think of the many celebrities who've killed themselves with less substantial apparatus. Look at the sturdy joinery at the beam end. Look at the well-tied nylon noose. I see no qualified opinion this was not lethal. SPECIFICO talk 09:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please no OR here, as a wise editor once said. Terjen (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I am recounting narratives of countless mainstream reports. Have you read widely on this? If so, it's not apparent. SPECIFICO talk 09:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Look at the sturdy joinery at the beam end. Look at the well-tied nylon noose." Please provide a RS for these claims. If you can't, it's OR, obviously. "I see no qualified opinion this was not lethal." Please provide a RS saying this was lethal. If you can't, it's OR, obviously. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In a SKYISBLUE way, of course it could be lethal. You could hang someone in the loop, bash his head against an edge or place him underneath and have some goons sit on it. But it definitely wouldn't have met any state standard for an official execution gallows (missing even a shoddy trapdoor), and quite obviously wasn't lethal or even harmful (beyond stiff mockery) on this relevant day. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to the argument that this was created as a work of speech or was not functional -- but we need an actual source saying one of those things, and we don't have it. Feoffer (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Would the complete absence of sources even implying the gallows performed its function as the usual kind of gallows practically always does be enough to call it "an unused gallows" in Wikipedia's voice? We're allowed to paraphrase, remember, even encouraged (in normaler articles). If you insist no qualifier is best, I understand; let the reader decide whether it served any supposed purpose by the time the afternoon was over. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could take Steve Rose of The Irish Times' word for "mock gallows". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Or trust Chauncey Vega of Salon.com, who's been calling it that since January 8. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not persuaded of quite obviously wasn't lethal or even harmful. It appears constructed of vertical and horizontal 4x4s which would be adequate. But because of its makeshift nature, its constructors can hope for plausible deniability they meant business if events unfolded to their liking. soibangla (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking potential, hypothetical or otherwise imagined harmfulness. As I said, it could be used as a weapon (like any sculpture). But on January 6, the relevant day, it simply wasn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to go with what do the bulk of RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No. We have an up-to-date high-quality reliable source substantiating the use of mock gallows: The May 28 Associated Press article. Currently, gallows is mentioned twice in our article body, cited to lesser sources:

• Snopes page from January 9.
• New York Times photo essay from January 6.
• Washington Post opinion piece from January 15.

We should replace these citations with a reference to the Associated Press article, and change the wording accordingly in the body text. Terjen (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-functional art? Sturdy crossbeam with noose—the "makeshift gallows" looks plenty functional to me, considering that people have been lynched by hanging from tree branches, lamp posts, bridge railings, the balcony of a courthouse. And the storming of the Capitol was an art performance, including the chants of "Hang Mike Pence?" So by the next day the noose was gone (souvenir, evidence?), and the gallows had been adorned with graffiti and a piece of plywood proclaiming. Unable to remove pieces of the structure, I opted for photographs of the graffiti, with Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia referenced in ink amongst notes such as “Where are you Thomas Jefferson?! Revolution 2021!!!,” “hang the thieves,” “hang treason,” and “God Bless the USA.”

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mmmm https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/07/USAT/247dbc80-2689-4c87-bc21-b31a1142185e-XXX_TH__DC_protests697.JPG

If this is genuine its not a real Gallows.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Neither is this but the message is still clear. But back to the "technical merits" of the gallows: the beams are at the end of the platform. I can think of at least a couple of ways that would work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

True, which is why we go by what RS say, and whether it was a mock gallows or real does not affect that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is genuine its not a real Gallows It's not WP:SKYBLUE from the image that the gallows is non-functional. Feoffer (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure I was the one who was talking to you about functionality and blue skies. Still waiting to hear from you on whether AP, The Irish Times and Salon are satisfactory sources. But if you'd rather associate my policy-driven ideas with Slater's arguably more philosophical take on the reality of it all, I'd totally understand why, no rush! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, see what others think, but I think describing it as an "unused gallows" is more provocative than just "gallows", like it implies the gallows were waiting and able to be used. Obviously, we DO want readers to come away knowing that nobody was hung on the gallows. Feoffer (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The gallows are mock in the sense that they would not work. They are too small, too rickety and there's no trap door. Here's an article with an image of the mock gallows with a person standing on it for perspective. It's miniature. It would only be effective against an animal the size of a rabbit or chicken. I think the term we should use to describe them is model. TFD (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"They are too small, too rickety" -- that's what I strongly suspect as well, but I haven't actually found a RS that says that or something similar. Feoffer (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sadly yes, we need an RS and not OR to say this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess until we have that we just have to refer to it as a gallows. We might consider however changing the image. I prefer the one in USA Today,[11] which shows the whole structure with a woman standing on top of it to the albeit very artistic one which only shows the upper part. But of course we would have to ensure that copyright allowed its use. I think though that it is consistent with policy to get a picture that shows the whole structure with people in the frame so that readers can see how large and robust it was. TFD (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a great picture, we absolutely should be on the look out for free versions to add to the article. One of the other things I like about that pic is showing tall trees interposed between the gallows and the Capitol -- anyone who was in a mood to lynch people didn't need any logistical assistance from this artist. Feoffer (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I must sound like a broken record, but here goes: We have an up-to-date high-quality reliable source substantiating the use of the term mock gallows: The May 28 Associated Press article Terjen (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of independent sources saying "mock gallows":

• Washington Post, Jan 7: "Someone erected a mock gallows with a noose."
• salon.com, Jan 8: "Trump's mob also placed nooses on mannequins and constructed a mock gallows near the Capitol entrance."
• Daily Illini, Jan 9: "...culminating in the construction of a mock gallows, complete with a noose made from fluorescent orange nylon rope..."
• ITV, Jan 18: "When insurrectionists erected mock gallows outside of Congress, one name was written at the base: Joe Biden."
• Jacobin, Jan 26: "Some among them constructed a mock gallows, from which was suspended a menacing noose."
• Sky News, Feb 11: "There is the image of a mock gallows that has been erected just outside the Capitol..."
• New Republic, Feb 11: "The Democratic managers pointed out several times that a mock gallows had indeed been erected outside the Capitol"
• Irish Times, May 14: "a Confederate flag and a mock gallows featured in the January storming of the Capitol"
• EA WorldView, May 20: "...a mock gallows set up outside the building."
• And of course, as mentioned above, the AP report from May 29 that has been picked up by hundreds of RS: "...a mock gallows in front of the Capitol..."

So unless someone provides even more reliable sources reporting that the thing was indeed functional, we have to assume it was a mock gallows, and we should say so in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with "mock" now that AP's gone with it and its been so widely picked-up. New Republic is especially helpful in showing widespread usage of mock. Feoffer (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Normally I would say stay with the description that major media used. Unfortunately just calling it a gallows is misleading so I agree that we call it a mock gallows now that we have reliable sources that have come to that obvious conclusion. TFD (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we go with makeshift, as it is not a gallows like those once built by governments, yet it is nevertheless functional. soibangla (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-functional, in theory. You couldn't reliably or suddenly break a human neck with it. You'd need to go slow, like a pervert, or spill blood with the pointy ends when the whole thing falls apart in the struggle. Someone would jump in, probably shoot you. As art, though, it arguably worked. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said, it's only functional if one were hanging chickens or rabbits. It's not sturdy enough to hold the weight of a human body and the drop has to be longer than the person's height. TFD (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If somebody held each leg out about 90 degrees, parallel to the platform, it's theoretically possible (given about five undisturbed minutes). But it'd be easier for a murderer to just use the hammer, saw, rope or nail-studded boards by themselves. Construction is the most absurd form of destruction. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Any "structure consisting of an upright frame with a crosspiece" is a gallows, per Merriam Webster, definition 2. It's a threat, and calling it a mock gallows is whitewashing ("makeshift" does not say it's non-functional, it's still a gallows). Most RS do not use a qualifier. WaPo, NBC,Atlantic, New York Magazine, PBS, National Geographic, The Guardian, Military Times, NY Times. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"makeshift gallows" NBC source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

NBC and Guardian use both "gallows" and "makeshift gallows" in the same article. I'm going with "it's the thought that counts"—journalists don't always way every word they put in their articles (time constraints). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahd what they seem to be saying is "a makeshift gallows designed to indimidate", so maybe we should say that?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we should stick with the preponderance of RS, and personally I think preferably major sources like NY Times, NBC, PBS rather than EA WorldView, Daily Illicit, Jacobin, etc. I don't see that we need to point out that it's a makeshift gallows but I could live with that. "Mock gallows"—no; the sign that showed up after the event, proclaiming the gallows to be a piece of art—no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding another WaPo article with "makeshift gallows." Quote:Someone wrote “BIDEN,” in reference to President-elect Joe Biden, on the wooden structure, with an arrow pointing toward the noose. It was not clear if TheDonald or any similar pro-Trump forum directly coordinated the takeover of the Capitol, or if posters simply shared general advice, promotion and celebration of the idea of thronging to Washington in support of the president. Much of that was included in a popular thread called "PATRIOTS STORM THE CAPITOL / WATCH PARTY." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Makeshift gallows" and just "gallows" live on one semantic pole, and "mock gallows" on another. There is virtually nothing about "makeshift gallows" specifically as opposed to "gallows" that would convey a message that the the artifact could not be used to kill somebody by hanging. The opposite is true for "mock gallows". — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

After having seen the image that TFD shared with a woman for scale, and seeing the recent widespread usage of "mock", it seems entirely appropriate to call it "mock" rather than "makeshift". It certainly could be lethal, but there were already far better gallows-esque objects around in the form of tree branches, balcony railings, etc. Feoffer (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's the desired direction, and if this formulation is supported by RS, editors should be aware that "makeshift gallows" is in no way a euphemism for "mock gallows". Makeshift gallows are still very much gallows, and mock gallows are just mock gallows. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with Space4Time3Continuum2x's suggestion that because definition 2 of gallows in Merriam-Webster includes any structure with an upright frame and crosspiece that we can use the term. While that was the original definition, it is obsolete and today it always refers to an instrument of execution, which is definition 1. We would therefore be falsely implying that the structure could have been used to hang people. We know both from reliable sources and our own original research that is false. Note that we are allowed to use original research to evaluate "article content and sources." I have never come across this type of situation before, so see that it is difficult to decide. TFD (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's worth considering that the artist is almost certainly a living person who shouldn't be accused of making an actual gallows. Despite having read our article, I was deeply shocked at the scale when I saw a woman standing on it -- my first reaction was "what is this, a gallows for ants?". Now that RSes are widely using mock,so should we. Feoffer (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the artistic interpretation/ambiguity, it also had a placard on it saying "Stand with Trump"... ;-) Terjen (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a good example of gallows humor. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, it wasn't a full-sized gallows. A few more images: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] — Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Great finds, we really do need a picture with people for scale. The man kneeling on the platform is particularly effective. Feoffer (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical context

Organized mob uprisings specifically related to (leading up to, during, or following) an election is not new in American History. Documented examples right here in Wikipedia include:

• 1868, St. Bernard Parish massacre
• 1873, Colfax massacre
• 1874, Eufaula election riot
• 1875, Clinton riot
• 1898, Wilmington insurrection
• 1920, Ocoee massacre

This history is academically relevant to the ideologies of the people who were instrumental in its fomentation and execution. There ought to be a section that sets this event within the known historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 2001:56a:799a:d00:82c:a34a:e3ae:18f6 OughtThoughts (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like this to appear in the article, please provide verification from a reliable published source explicitly discussing it in relation to the 2021 attack on Congress. And please sign your posts. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

[Edit] I might have invoked wp:iar, but here is one article, A History of Attacks at the US Capitol, which connects a history of violence at the Capitol building specifically to general violence against Black people. It also mentions other events, beyond the Capitol, tied to this overarching point of aggression. The article is also full of links to other references. And, most relevant to this challenge, it concludes by mentioning the 2021 Capitol attack by supporters of Donald Trump, setting this event as the culmination of a history of such violent uprisings.

So, having satisfied the requirements, can we go ahead and add this section from an academic, neutral standpoint without bias or prejudice? I would suggest it appear in the section "Aftermath" and retitle that section "Aftermath and Analysis" as somewhat of a clearinghouse for this and other insight into not so much the how (tactical and technical) but the why (meaning and understanding) of it all. OughtThoughts (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Um, History.com didn't generally impress last year at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294. You may be able to find other discussions. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting how different these events, which mostly occurred during reconstruction, were to Jan. 6. They actually were organized and were mostly if not all involved the massacre of dozens of black people, mostly lasted for days and occurred within the southern States, broadly construed. But we'll have to wait for someone to compare and contrast these events. TFD (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are differences. But, there are also similarities, and it is these similarities that ought to be included, again, for historical context - what happened on January 6, 2021 did not happen in a vacuum. OughtThoughts (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, but still needs a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The article you found is interesting (and might be useful for List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C.), but it doesn't mention any of the events you listed above (or other attempts to influence or overturn election results). If there are WP:RS discussing a relation between the events you mentioned and the 2021 Capitol riot, and the information is deemed relevant, we could add a sentence or two to the background section. The page is already quite long though, and we generally try to keep it focused on the events of Jan 6. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I concede that History.com may be dubious as a reliable source, I did not know. Having said that, do we need a reliable source to state that water is wet or the sky is blue? We all acknowledge and agree that the 2021 attack on the US Capitol happened, with a basis in politics, and that uprisings based on politics dot the US historic landscape; what about these observable, known facts require resources in order to set this this event into that known, documented, larger historic context? At the very least, please clarify how, if there's any weight to wp:iar, it does not apply here? OughtThoughts (talk)

I think IAR means that if the existing rules do not meet the intent of policy then and only then should we ignore them. There is a law where if following the letter of the law defeats the intent of the law then the courts can ignore it (equity.) Similarly, accountants should ignore accounting rules if there would lead to a material misrepresentation on the financial statements. But this is not a case of the sky is blue. You are bringing your own personal interpretations of events and finding links where no obvious links exist. You may as well compare it with other events that occurred when the planets were in the same alignment. TFD (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but there's nothing "personal" nor "interpretive" about the fact that all of these events, including the 2021 attack on the Capitol, were conservative, politically-oriented uprisings, as indicated by the very participants themselves in all cases. Providing wider historical context to this latest such event is academically honest. But, carry on. At the very least, this conversation here on the talk page can provide readers with some historical context they can research for themselves. OughtThoughts (talk)

None of these was "conservative." SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the term conservative either because it has various meanings, but the same applies to all descriptions of U.S. politics. In any case the connection that they were conservative protests that led to violence is too weak to be meaningful. Conservatives like to group all the BLM protests with antifa and link it back to George Soros. In both cases there's an assumption that there is a grand conspiracy spanning generations to overthrow the Republic usually linked somehow to foreigners or disloyal Americans operating under their influence. It detracts from the actual causes of conflict in American society, seeing dissent as merely criminal and alien rather than a result of domestic social, political and economic conflict.

Curiously, the term conservative was introduced by FDR to describe what he saw as people outside the American tradition, which was liberal in a classical sense. But they eventually adopted the term themselves.

TFD (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and this conversation - please rest assured that I did not intend for the term "conservative" to be pejorative or to bely any assumption of a grand conspiracy. I used it in the strictest political sense, insofar as the element in question is reticent of, and defines itself in juxtaposition to "progressiveness" and its related implications of diversification, inclusion, etc.; it's about wanting to retain the status quo against these social changes, and all these uprisings were in opposition to this political concept of "progress", that is, diversification of the political process. Another thermometer that keenly reflects this is the correlation between laws that ushered in new degrees of suffrage and civil rights for minorities and flurries of activity in erecting Confederate monuments. This is well-documented - the following article provides a visual that is quite effective in clearly conveying the timing: There are certain moments in US history when Confederate monuments go up.

OughtThoughts (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In any strict sense, these rioters against constitutional process are "insurrectionists" not "Conservatives". It's an insult to the legacy of Ronald Reagan and even an insult to Newt Gingrich and Poppy Bush to call these insurrectionists "conservatives". SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please leave out your interpretation about what Reagan, Gingrich, or Bush represents to the modern Republican party. It's a red herring, beside the point I was making, which is that there is a long, well-documented history of political uprising that has an overwhelming tendency to emerge from a particular element of American society, and this 2021 Capitol attack fits within that context, and that this is historically factual, not any biased interpretation. Splitting hairs about how we interpret the modern Republican party is not what this is about. OughtThoughts (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, opponents of progress who are not insurrectionists are called "reactionaries" rather than "Conservatives" -- Goldwater's self-description to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but Goldwater has as much right to express how he saw himself and his party (especially as he worked to effect the party from the inside) as you do to opine about Reagan or Gingrich, so, respectfully, relegating Goldwater as "notwithstanding" while pushing your opinion about Reagan is heavy-handed and belying clear bias. OughtThoughts (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

At any rate, I think this discussion has run its course and is now in danger of running completely off the rails. I've provided sources of varying degrees of reliability, as well as my thoughts on their relevance, and I'm content to bow out and let this discussion, as it currently stand, speak for itself. Thanks to all for this conversation, as well as retaining here on the talk page for all to read, do their own research, and form their own opinions. Cheers. OughtThoughts (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

All these historic massacres were carried out by the majority in order to reverse black voting rights. The Capitol riot was carried out by a lunatic fringe with no clear objectives or, if they were clear, not viable. TFD (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That horned furry facepainted maniac was pretty clearly seeking fame and fortune. Definitely won fame. Arguably lost fortune. The important thing is there was nobody matching his description at these race riots. If there was, history would remember. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Bombs discovered weren't at the Capitol building

I know that everyone knows this by now; however, the section "Bombs discovered" falls under the section "Attack on the Capitol building". Should the rollup section be called "Attack on the Capitol"? It would make more sense, and it fits better with the overall title of the article: 2021 United States Capitol. The bombs weren't even on the Capitol Complex, let alone at the Capitol Building, so that wouldn't work either. I looked for any discussion on this but found nothing, but if this has been discussed and decided on, please ignore. :) Shoestringnomad (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point. The bombs at the RNC and DNC offices are at best very loosely related to the storming of the Capitol. We should move them to the "Events elsewhere" section. So far, the section is about events in other cities or countries, but it would work just as well for other areas of D.C. (Some suspect that there was a "level of coordination" between the bombs and the storming, but that's hardly possible - the person who planted the bombs the night before could not have predicted when they would be discovered.) — Chrisahn (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can definitely say whether the two were connected. And while someone cannot predict what will happen, someone can put pieces together and think what is plausible. Premeditatively laying bombs as a distraction is nothing new. I would be opposed to moving this subsection to another subsection focused on events outside of DC. That's why I suggested the name change. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hm... I thought you suggested that we rename section "Attack on the Capitol building" to "Attack on the Capitol", but you also wrote "the bombs weren't even on the Capitol Complex"... I think I get it now - you suggest renaming the section, and you're looking for a title that encompasses the storming of the Capitol as well as the bombs at the RNC and DNC offices. Correct? — Chrisahn (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I think they should stay together given proximity, but you're correct that my suggested title is inaccurate as well. "Attacks in the U.S. capital" would seem more accurate, but I don't think that will fly. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: As Chrisahn correctly points out above, "Attack on the Capitol" would also be deficient. The best option I can think of is "Attacks in the U.S. capital". Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(EC)I've dropped the word "building" the heading as you suggested. Since RSes report USCP handling of the bombs had a direct effect on the success of the on-going attack, it make sense to cover it under the heading discussing the "Attack on the Capitol". If we want to add more geographic precision, we could retitle the bomb discovery section as "Bombs discovered near Capitol complex". Feoffer (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think "Bombs discovered near Capitol Complex" under the heading "Attack on the Capitol" is the most precise and least confusing discussed so far. Just note that I capitalized complex, as I think that is more accurate, at least here on Wikipedia: United States Capitol Complex. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for improving the article with your observation! Feoffer (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding the "Bombs placed" sub-section to "Background" makes a lot of sense. A suggestion: The second paragraph of the "Bombs discovered" sub-section (from "The two pipe bombs were found..." to "...the promised reward") is about how, when and by whom the bombs were placed. I think the paragraph should be merged into the "Bombs placed" sub-section. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! Great suggestion, Chrisahn. Feoffer (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Capitol Breach

I initiated this talk only because I am unable to edit the entry. The subsection titled "Capital Breach" contains the phrase "...capitol surveillance surveillance camera footage..." It might benefit from the removal of at least one "surveillance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.73.118 (talk) 09:28, June 8, 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Move review

Don't know why this was archived, so here it is again: Please be aware of the move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_June#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol. Please participate there if you are so inclined. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevant recent news (06/06/2021) worth adding?

A seemingly relevant recent News reference (Business Insider; 06/06/2021) was added to the main article, but later reverted - is the news reference worth adding to the main article in some form - or not - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd expect only footage of the subject itself in a section like that, not videos of assorted news shows about it. Those seem more suitable as regular citations for ordinary claims. Not seeing what's so different here from the existing PBS or WaPo vids, except maybe length. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It was removed as an external link, where it doesn't belong. i think it has received too little coverage for inclusion in the article. Bear in mind that the PAC is relatively unknown and we don't know why Fox News Channel rejected it. Nor do we have any pundits speculating about this. TFD (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Still pretty confused. Is this stuff you think and I bear in mind (part of) the reason this external link doesn't belong? Is there much (or enough) coverage of any of these videos (or text links)? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

References

RFC on naming term in title

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.

---

Based on the multiple move requests here, here, here, here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here, and here and the excellent analysis on names used by RSes, this RFC is designed to provide editors with an opportunity to rank choice the verb used in the title. The idea is to gain consensus by using rank choice methodology so that we can account for editors that have a first choice that lacks consensus but have second and third choices that may have consensus. The verb in consideration:

• assault
• attack
• breach
• coup attempt
• incident
• insurrection
• invasion
• occupation
• protest
• raid
• rampage
• riot
• siege
• storming
• takeover

I would ask that editors format their votes by listing their choices from 1st choice to last choice at the start of their response, then provide the rationale for their ordering. Casprings (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• riot 1 attack 2 assault 3 invasion 4 protest 6 Breach 7 incident 8 Raid 9 storming 10 The rest are irrelevant or just plain incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• insurrection, riot, attack, breach, assault: Basically followed WP:Commonname, per analysis here. I would note that insurrection is a little more descriptive. However, would support all titles over storming, which has problems with WP:N.Casprings (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• riot: I strongly vote that the title be changed to riot. I would rank vote this but I am concerned that the first and second choice would most naturally be "attack" simply because this is the existing title and it is listed near the very top of the list (alphabetical ordering is coincidental but still confers a strong bias). Therefore, I hope others who vote on this RfC take this into consideration. The reason why I believe "Riot" is the most appropriate choice is because it is more neutral than "attack." Riots can form spontaneously without a strong premeditated plan whereas "attack" makes it seem as though the entire event was orchestrated. It may well be that the event was incited by former President Trump and his key supporters but that would be a non-neutral claim. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum:, you cite NPOV in favor of riot and at first blush that's true! But counter-intuitively, that's the very reason we CANNOT use "riot" in our title. The RSes report this was was, in fact, a planned criminal conspiracy complete with multiple bombs, weapons caches, body armor, coordination across teams, and the recruitment and participation of law enforcement and military.

Entirely APART from those attackers, there were people who came as tourists-protesters never planning to do anything other than have their voices heard who wound up participating in a riot. Out of fairness to those individuals, we can't mischaracterize the events as a mere "riot". If people had just gotten rowdy at a protest, this article might not exist -- this article is about a coordinated attack along with bombs and soldiers, not the people who spontaneously got upset enough to commit minor vandalism. Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Let's stop this. An RfC like this might be productive if done properly, but this one won't. Haven't you learned anything from past debacles? 1. The move review isn't done yet. Let's not start a new RM or RfC until it's done. 2. There are way too many options, making the process much more complex and confusing than necessary. 3. Don't say "verb" when you mean "noun". Come on. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:AN#RfC about title started while move review is in progress. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Also see this very similar RfC which was started by Casprings on Jan 24 and closed by an admin on Jan 25 with this comment: "The entire set up (quasi-RM RfC) is too unconventional and shouldn't be repeated again." — Chrisahn (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

For a topic of this fluidity, Jan 24 might as well be 2004. Feoffer (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Attack, Insurrection, with coup attempt a very distant third due to its uncommonness. Most common, most precise. "Riot"ing occurred but that's not why this article exists. RSes are clear: this wasn't a riot, this was an attack. There were bombs. The participants have been charged with criminal conspiracy. Feoffer (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Some of those words can be used as verb forms, but none of them would be used as a verb in the title. They're being used as nouns. Please (for the love of god) stop calling them "verbs." Moncrief (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.