Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robertsky (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 12 August 2022 (→Requested move 28 July 2022: add summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 6, 2021.

    Template:Vital article

    US or U.S.?

    SPECIFICO reverted my change of "US" to "U.S." MOS:USA says either are fine, but they should be used consistently throughout the article. Since, "U.S." is used 96 times in the article, it's fair to say "U.S." is the abbreviation that has been adopted for this article. I think my edit should be reinstated. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. The MOS seems clear on this point. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We use US in most of the politics articles, so if you care about it, you could change the other 95. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that's true. I took some random political articles -- Donald Trump, United States Capitol, and Impeachment process against Richard Nixon --- and found they all seem to use "U.S." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cooperation at Wikipedia is valuable. Everything gets unpleasant otherwise. Per WP:Civility, “Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's way too hot to sweat such small stuff. FWIW, the MOS asks us to apply the "consistency rule" (my name for it) on a per article basis, rather than a per topic one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the editor of the Britannica Dictionary, "there seems to be a slight preference among native speakers and editors for the abbreviation with periods (U.S.), as shown below, so I recommend using that style."[1] Although there is no tag on this article about which version of English is following, I assume it is American and hence we should use the preferred American spelling. TFD (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (A) I could not care less which is used
    (B) I could not care less if our article is internally consistent.... you've heard of "bigger fish to fry? IMO this is about the size of phytoplankton
    (C) As a matter of procedure, I oppose using outside authorities rather than the current MOS without vetting at the MOS talk page or Village Pump, especially when the outside authority can only report a "slight" preference one way or the other. If such a discussion does get started for the wider community, I probably won't show up because....(goto A above) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
    This issue speaks volumes about the mindset at this talk page and article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you now regret starting this thread, simply close it by withdrawing your complaint. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I didn’t start this thread. And if I had, I wouldn’t close it to make your diktat into a fait accompli. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Manual of Style says, "Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently." (MOS:CONSISTENT) We are allowed to use "outside authorities" to determine which usage is the convention and the Manual of Style is concerned with "if our article is internally consistent." TFD (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Change it to "U.S.", if you want. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a big deal; it should be more so on a case per case basis. Just make sure it's using the same one consistently. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The last sentence of the second paragraph is new; it was inserted at 20:01 on 24 July with only one wlink, to Burning of Washington.[2] A couple hours later, I inserted a second wikilink,[3] so it would read like this: "It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814." Then a half hour later that wlink was removed, leaving only the wlink to Burning of Washington.[4] I will remove the sentence now, because I don't think it should be included without the additional wikilink. Please do not reinsert the sentence until we have consensus here in this section.

    I didn't initially object to the new sentence that mentions the burning of Washington, but I do object to it now because of the deliberate omission of the pertinent wlink that I inserted, which fully complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and is totally appropriate. In this connection, it's worth noting that while many reliable sources say 1/6 was the most violent Capitol attack since the War of 1812, a minority says there were other incidents that were more deadly and also more famous than what happened in the War of 1812:


    Even if there were unanimity that the War of 1812 was the only Capitol incident that was more violent and deadly, still the usual practice is to wlink relevant terms and phrases if we have a Wikipedia article about them, like this: "It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814." I believe the real reason for omitting the first wikilink is because it might potentially spoil the narrative; readers might get access to pertinent information such as the information relied upon in the blockquote above, and that might cause them to doubt whether the War of 1812 is the only comparable precedent. Maybe they would have doubts, but that's not the main reason for including the wikilink to the list; the main reason is that it's a plain old standard relevant wikilink. In any event, I am still willing to compromise by having the sentence at the end of the 2d paragraph that focuses exclusively on the War of 1812 without mentioning any other incidents, but only if the pertinent wikilink to the list is included, not because the list contradicts the sentence, but because the list provides useful and relevant information just like 99% of other Wikilinks at Wikipedia.

    Again, please do not reinsert the sentence that was inserted less than 12 hours ago, until we have consensus here in this section. This is the first challenge to it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the wikilink should be there, but I still think the sentence was usable. There was nothing improper or inaccurate about it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I left a note over at the NPOV noticeboard about it. My feeling is that exclusion of the wikilink makes the sentence non-neutral. And others seem to believe that inclusion of the wikilink makes the sentence non-neutral. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider an analogous situation. You want to say "Jackie Gleason was morbidly obese". Then you link to a list of 100 other fat people. That deflects attention from the point of the sentence which is "morbidly". Many of your edits entail this sort of obfuscation and deflection. That's why you find yourself forum shopping and generating endless talk page threads. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of "obfuscation and deflection", I would never want to say "Jackie Gleason was morbidly obese", and even if I did I would not link to a list of 100 other fat people. I might conceivably re-write your sentence to say "Jackie Gleason was one of the most obese actors in Hollywood" and then wikilink our hypothetical List of most obese actors but we do not have such a list AFAIK, and even if we do I probably wouldn't include such a sentence in the Gleason BDP because I doubt readers would be much interested in comparing his girth to that of others, and it would be insulting to his memory to place such emphasis on his size by wikilinking it. If he were on our List of heaviest people then maybe I would write "Jackie Gleason was one of the most obese people in Hollywood" but he isn't on that list, is he? Our article on Gleason says he was "100 pounds overweight", not 700 pounds overweight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it's not clear you intend it, you have just endorsed the concern of me and the other editors who see Anything's second link as a deflection, obfuscation, changing the subject, false equivalence, straw man, and not at all NPOV for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Would you object if I ask people at the NPOV Noticeboard to comment over there if they wish, rather than just asking them to come over here? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Why fragment the discussion. More forum shopping. Sometimes you there just is not support for whatever, and we need to move on. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement implies that there have been other violent incidents at the Capitol before, but this is the worst since 1814. If it wasn't the case, the sentence would say the last violent incident at the Capitol was 1814. It's ok to let the readers access all the other incidents since 1814 that were less violent than this one. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about all the political violence that was worse than this? Shall we link that too? What about the French Revolution. What about Pearl Harbor? Oklahoma City Bombing? World Trade Center? SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we had a sentence mentioning political violence as a whole sure, but that's no what this discussion is about. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is the same. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think the 1812/1814 thing should be left out. It's kind of a non sequitur. The Jan 6 insurrection is unique in modern history. Nevermind what may have happened before the Civil War, it's really not germane. It feels like kind of trivial-fact-stacking and sportscasting. "Ruth is batting .300 against lefthanders, the last time he faced one he struck out." Who cares, that was a different time. Andrevan@ 18:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It's false equivocarion, deflection, distraction to dilute the RS narratives as to the significance of the insurrection. With the recent 1/6 hearings and the abortion decision at the Supreme Court, Republicans are under increasing pressure to minimize the taint of their recent allegiance to Trump. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO, are you talking about the sentence as a whole or just the wikilink? I think Andrevan meant they believe the whole sentence should be left out. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I would cut the whole bit and the mention of the burning of Washington in 1814. I think we should instead say something like, "it was the most significant and violent attack on the Capitol in modern history," if we can find a source that says something along those lines. Or just say that it was the most significant since after the Civil War, or something like that. Andrevan@ 19:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whole thing. Yes, compare it to the civil war, which was the only prior bunch of similarly constituted American insurrectionists. I'm sure you've read the sources on that. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying “it was the most significant and violent attack on the Capitol in modern history” would be fine with me. I would not support hiding pertinent info from readers by departing from usual wikilinking practice and policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That conveys no useful information. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don’t want readers to compare to (or think about) prior attacks then say something like, “it was a very significant and violent attack.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whether you are missing the point or purposely trying out a new and different deflection, but no. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Charlie Sheen once said, “Uncertainty is a sign of humility, and humility is just the ability or the willingness to learn.” 😊 (Jackie Gleason and Charlie Sheen, who’s next?) Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe get yourself a better role model than Charlie Sheen? SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheen was correct on that point though, just look at all the hits it gets on Google, I rest my case. Jackie Gleason was a much better actor though, and had some pithy quotes too, e.g. “The second day of a diet is always easier than the first. By the second day you're off it.” Of course, if that were article text then I would have wlinked both Sheen and Gleason. But you would probably consider wider ramifications, e.g. “Sheen is a lousy role model, we’d better not wikilink him.” Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be an effort to prevent a reader from educating themselves and drawing their own conclusions. That's not a goal that should be entertained. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move 28 July 2022

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

    The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus have developed to move the articles to January 6 United States Captiol attack. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    – Based on the result of this move discussion, a few months have passed. In those few months, the January 6th committee has conducted its first string of televised theories. Headlines on my news apps usually involve "A January 6th rioter pleading guilty". The Justice Department is looking into Trump's involvement in the "January 6th attack". I think enough time has passed for January 6th to become the dominant name for referring to the attack on/storming of/riot on the United States Capitol.

    Let's start with the news. Sources from every angle, liberal and conservative, domestic or foreign, conspiracy or reliable, all use January 6th as the name of the insurrection. See CNN, France24, Chinese State Media, the Associated Press, Fox News, Mother Jones, the Hindustan Times, Sky News, and the Korea Herald. The blacklist prevents me from linking InfoWars, though as untrustworthy as they are, even they use the name Jan 6. There are close to no talking points that this many news sources from such a diverse picture of the international press agree on. Put another way, think of this as the CEO of ExxonMobil and the leader of Greenpeace, or Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both referring to the attack on the Capitol as 1/6.

    The current title is okay, but it doesn't do the job of identifying the event as well as "January 6" or similar abbreviations. Many of my motivations for proposing this move have already been listed in the move discussion, though I do think that WP:Common Name and WP:RECOGNIZE do sway the tide in favor of using January 6 more so than 2021 US Capitol Attack. I've listed some of the arguments from the previous discussion I think would be most compelling.

    • January 6 seems to have become the WP:COMMONNAME. Not too dissimilar from September 11 attacks. Not opposed to having 2021 in the title, though. Pilaz
    • It has became the common name. This is how its referred to in media and scholarship about the event. I don't even understand the arguments against changing it TiddiesTiddiesTiddies
    • It's been a year, and the test of time shows quite clearly that "January 6" is the common identifier used by news media, politicians and the general public for this incident, and therefore should be part of the article's title. The date is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. Beyond My Ken
    • [Within the discussion], AlexEng sums things up accurately: Many of the above opposes are simply false, or they are a blunt reiteration of previous consensus with no explanation of why that consensus should not change based on the increased use of this particular terminology in sources. Oppose rationales have been weak, non-existent, or simply false. For example, it's been repeatedly claimed only one half of the US political spectrum uses the common name, but that's demonstrably false: All parties use the common Jan 6 name. Rationales not based in reality should be afforded appropriate weight. Feoffer

    While the media and the news certainly provides compelling merit for moves, I think that the evidence that solidifies the move the most is how the House Select Committee investigating the attack has chosen the name "January 6" instead of "2021 Attack". The domain name for the committee is january6th.house.gov, and the homepage of the committee's subdomain prominently features not "2021" but "January 6th". The name has proven to be the more common name by far.

    Additionally, event names containing years really don't occur unless common consensus supports it. This usually happens when the event was happening over an extended period of time or if there was only one extremely and overly dominant event happening in that year; examples of this phenomenon include stock market crashes and financial downturn like the 2008 Financial Crisis and the Crash of 1929 which incited the Great Depression, or laws which have their name in it like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many more events which have a date listed in the name use the day and/or month and not the year if the event does not happen over a more extended period of time. This happens all across history; take a look at the October Revolution in Russia, the St. Valentines Day Massacre from the Al Capone era, France's September Massacres, of course the attacks of September 11th, the Tiananmen Square Protests (which very often are called the June Fourth Incident or 6/4 and don't usually include the year because there was only one major recent Tiananment Square protest), the August Coup in the Soviet Union, and too many others to mention.

    It has also been suggested to move this and its daughter articles to January 6, 2021 United States Capitol Attack, which I would not be opposed to as a middle ground, though I could see why people think the title of the article would be a little bit too long. If push comes to shove, January 6th has proven to become the most common name for the incident, and history books are far more likely to use the date of January 6th as the name rather than the current title of the article. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT: I'd also Support alt proposal of "United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021" to avoid the comma issue. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your request is predicated on a misunderstanding of our naming policy. "More-used" is irrelevant; we care if the title is recognizable. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That also is a bad start; there were two attacks on the Capitol in 2021, which we had to add a disambiguation template to the top of the article to separate from this one. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, January 6th is by far a much more recognizable name than the current title. More used in this case more or less equates to more recognizable. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "United States Capitol attack of January 6, 2021", to include the "January 6" and avoid the missing MOS:DATECOMMA. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Just below MOS:DATE the guideline says, “A comma doesn't follow the year unless otherwise required by context”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That phrase applies to the day–month–year format. DATECOMMA applies to the month–day–year format. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. Thrakkx (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I’ve raised the issue just now at the MOS talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) You're reading that incorrectly. That's in the context of DMY dates. This is an MDY date, not a DMY date. For MDY dates, it says "A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it". And MOS:DATECOMMA says "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year", and examples are provided:
    Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
    Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
    —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines you cite use the date as a noun. When it’s used as an adjective things are different.[5] Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not say that adjective usage should be treated differently, and Wikipedia has not adopted that other source as governing guidance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples are sometimes limiting. Surely you would never think proper a title that says Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, with a comma at the end. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that such a title should not end with a comma. Probably no one has ever argued to interpret the guidelines as saying that it should. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the fact no one (including me) has ever argued for it does not prove that your reading of the guideline does not require it. I think your reading does require it, because you decline to consider the guideline’s examples as limiting. Gotta go now, thanks, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you would never think proper a title that says Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, This is a bad faith, literalist interpretation of the guideline. Obviously all titles on Wikipedia do not have ending punctuation. Thrakkx (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." Everyone of that generation remembered where they were when they heard the news. Similarly, the next generation remembered where they were when John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22nd, 1963, and most people today remember where they were when they heard about the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. This doesn't fall into the same category. Kids who were six years old on January 6, 2000, will not remember where they were when they first heard the news in fifty years time. TFD (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ultimately it's unhelpful to compare/contrast with Dec 7 or Nov 22. Jan 6 as moniker is most common, concise, and recognizable. My support for the proposal is in no way conditioned on any comparisons to America's involuntary entry into a World War. No one could compare the March 15 incident to Pearl Harbor, it's just another case of COMMON. Feoffer (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tally so far: Nine editors support as proposed without the year, Six editors propose to add the year in the title but still include Jan 6, two editors oppose any move, and three support including Jan 6 but are neutral or undeterminable in their opinion with regard to the year. I know consensus is not a vote, though I thought it would be helpful for future contributors to the discussion understand where we are right now.

    • Most arguments against a year in the title say something along the lines of the title being too clunky with the year and J6's naming is comparable to 9/11 in how we only refer to it as a date and not a year.
    • Most arguments in favor of a year in the title say something along the lines of the year being inseparable from the event and confusion with the date January 6 itself and not the event.
    • The two arguments against propose the current title is good enough, and that J6 was a common phrase before the storming of the Capitol.
    • Regardless of the year, 18 out of 20 participating editors agree on at least including January 6th in some form in the title.

    Please correct my math if for some reason I screwed up (which I likely did). InvadingInvader (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposed. Everybody refers to this as “January 6”, nobody mentions year. We can rename it later, once/if another Capitol attack happens on January 6 another year (which I hope it won’t actually). Stansult (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So that's the thing, the idea that "everybody" refers to this event as the "Jan. 6 riot/attack/insurrection" or whatever. It's true that US/American media are calling it such, but what about the global context? I'm not sure that an international English speaking audience is going to have much of a reference point for "what this is about" (culturally & historically) without also including the year it happened, for more clarity. Of course it's true this info is in the lede, but I don't see any harm in adding the year to the title of the articles.
      Does anyone know how to get access to stats about Google search terms across multiple countries, to see what the popular terminology is for the Jan. 6 attacks, country by country? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic has strong national ties to US so American nomenclature takes precedence. Feoffer (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Feoffer, but if you insist, Google Trends should help; the URL is trends.google.com. After placing your terms in the search bar, you can set the date between countries.
    Make sure when you're doing this that you select "search term" and not "topics" in the autocomplete. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will check out Google Trends.
    Totally understand about American nomenclature taking precedence, but I also see the addition of the year as making the content more accessible to a broader audience etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, so from doing a handful of queries on Google Trends it looks like "January 6" & "Jan 6" are the popular English-language search terms globally. The only countries that had significant statistics for the keywords "US Capitol attack" were Indonesia and Japan. Unsurprisingly, the addition of "2021" in searches was negligible, as nobody is going to be searching for the year of the attack since this happened so recently. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support as proposed (January 6 United States Capitol attack). "January 6" is the common usage in all media and most recognizable among the public (WP:COMMONNAME); it should be included. The year doesn't matter as much, given that this is a very unique, and very much infamous event. If there needs to be a change sometime in the future, there can always be a distinction. I agree with Stansult. Teammm talk
      email       16:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support It hurts to switch to such a long title from the beautifully concise one we have now, and redirects are cheap, but sufficient evidence has been presented in the above discussion (especially the Google Trends graph) to show that Jan 6 is the COMMONNAME. I agree that the year (2021) is a little redundant; in a previous discussion I voted on, it was pointed out that while there was more than one notable attack on the Capitol in 2021, there has only been one such event on Jan 6, making it more than unique enough to identify the subject. My only suggestion is that we abbreviate "United States" to "US" - I haven't checked the policy on this, but it would make the title a lot more concise and readable, while doing nothing to harm uniqueness or identifiability. Toadspike (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would not be opposed to abbreviating the United States down to "US" InvadingInvader (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been about a week since I proposed the move, and most editors since my tally are preferring to move as proposed. Is it time that we close the discussion and proceed with the move? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @InvadingInvader: it'll automatically list at WP:RME shortly. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not rush MOVE requests, give it a 3-week minimum. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relist comment There is an apparent consensus so far to add January 6, but there is still no consensus on any other relevant issue in this RM, like whether to include the year or whether to put the date in the beginning or end of the title. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Proposed name is hanging on current on-going investigations of House Committee which happens to be dominating the current US news. Cuts too close to WP:RECENTISM. No indication this name will last, nor that it is used outside of the US. I'd rather wait and see before making such a dramatic title change on the basis of a news spike. Walrasiad (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I personally think that we have waited long enough, and the evidence myself and others have provided has shown that over time, January 6 has become the most common name. Jan 6 is also the most recognizable name as nearly every group has settled upon it. See the Google Trends reports especially (which can include Google Searches for regions outside of the United States once properly configured); January 6 and its variations like J6, 1/6, or Jan 6 are much more popular than other terms. The proposed name doesn't hang onto the House Committee and investigations if every source from the mainstream media to Google Scholar results refer to the events as Jan 6 in a more prominent manner. While I don't think it is necessary, I would not actively oppose the creation of an article outlining different names for the January 6th Attack, similar to how we have an article detailing the different names of the Islamic State, or incorporating a similar section or set of Efn's into this article.
      Until a more popular and recognizable name for the events that took place at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 becomes present, January 6 should be in the title. It doesn't take too long for a common name to be the name of an event. With regard to the attacks of September 11, see these Google Scholar results for "9/11" from 2001 to 2002, and these Google Scholar results for "September 11" in the same time period. 9/11 gained nearly 100,000 more hits than September 11 when it came to scholarly articles. The difference is even more stark with Google Scholar results for the attack on the Capitol since 2021; 10,500 Results exist when searching for the article's current title, while while 174,000 results exist for searching for January 6. Searching for "January 6 Capitol" produces 15,800 results, which is still more than "2021 United States Capitol Attack" on Google Scholar. Keep in mind all of these searches only include results published since January 1, 2021.
      This is a case where the evidence suggests that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZE would overrule WP:RECENTISM. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere close to a comparable case. 9/11 took up that name within 24-48 hours, largely because news organizations, commentators, etc. could not find another name to refer to it. It was not quite a bombing, not just on WTC, not only in New York, etc. and so opted to refer to "events of September 11" for lack of a suitable descriptive name. This has not had a comparable struggle. This was one event, in one city, involving one edifice. Everyone referred to it as the Capitol attack or insurrection in some form, next to nobody used the date. We maintained this title fine for a year. Practically nobody used or thought of using the date for name until the House Committee a year later adopted the date name for the committee. It is telling that the proposed title is NOT proposing to rename the article "January 6 event" but still contains "Capitol attack" in the title. It just reinforces that the current title is WP:PRECISE, and adding "January 6" is an extraneous and irrelevant addition. It is needlessly expanding the title and does not improve recognizability. This "January 6" name is not likely to have any more lasting power than than "November 22". Sure, the date may remain (weakly) in the political memory of Americans, but it is certainly never going to displace or substitute the actual description of the event, both over time, and certainly over place. Certainly no more than "November 22" displaced "JFK assassination" as descriptor. This proposal is just adding extra words and improving nothing. It is just trying jump on a frankly temporary news spike in the US political news cycle. Walrasiad (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    9/11 comparison/contrasts are unhelpful. No one could compare the March 15 incident to 9/11, you could never compare the March 24 strike to Pearl Harbor, and nobody would liken the March 3 affair to the Kennedy assassination. Those are all just boring, banal cases of COMMON, and so is this. Feoffer (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are awful uninformative titles and should be changed. Walrasiad (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZE link the same section in the same policy, which is about recognizability. It hasn't even been demonstrated that this proposed name is the most common, let alone that any of the proposed formulations are any more or less recognizable than the status quo title. Articles about the attack will generally include the date "January 6" whether or not they use that as the name of the attack. Your Google searches are therefore flawed. As I noted in my !vote, there are numerous news organizations that primarily use "attack" or other formulations as their main term for the attack; the examples in the nom of the inverse are just that: cherry-picked examples. More generally, you've contributed more words to this discussion thread than all other participants combined. It's probably time to sit back and quit replying to every !vote. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No indication this name... is used outside of the US. This objection tells us you haven't read the thread; The title is used outside the US and it wouldn't matter if it wasn't. No reason to wait. Feoffer (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly every country has some groundbreaking political event which its popular press likes to refer to by date. That doesn't mean it is suitable for Wikipedia, which has a global audience. Just recently I was involved in an RM to prevent retitling a Romanian coup as the "23 of August coup" -- certainly well-known to Romanians by that name, but not to Wikipedia readers from other countries. Is there a reason US political dates should be assumed to be universally recognizable but Romanian political dates not? Smacks of WP:BIAS. Keep the audience in mind. We serve Wikipedia readers, not ourselves, and Wikipedia readers come from all over. Walrasiad (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason US political dates should be assumed to be... recognizable but Romanian political dates not? Other stuff exists, but you pick a strange comparison -- obviously US events are likely to be more recognizable to an English speaking audience and Romanian events are going to be more recognizable to readers over at RoWiki. Feoffer (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    Not all English-speakers are Americans. Indeed, the English-speaking Wikipedia has probably a greater share of foreign readers than probably any other Wiki. It is not about the language, it is about the assumed knowledge of a global audience. Very few would recognize "January 6", but they would have heard of the attack on the US Capitol. It is an informative title. Just like "1944 Romanian coup" is more informative than "23 of August coup".
    That the proposal is retaining "US Capitol attack" in the title is proof positive that this is an extraneous and unnecessary addition. It serves no useful purpose to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (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.

    Trump said “fight” 23 times

    This edit claimed that Trump said the word “fight” 23 times on January 6, but said the word “peaceful” only once, therefore it’s undue weight to quote him in the lead about peacefulness. But neither of the currently cited sources mentions this “23” number, nor mentions the number of times he said any particular word. In contrast, all three sources that were cited for his statement to “fight” also fully quote his statement about being peaceful. Wikipedia policy requires us to “fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources….” It does not require us to personally examine speeches and decide for ourselves which parts were emphasized most by the speaker, contrary to reliable secondary sources. This should be obvious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please survey the most recent tertiary sources and see how they describe his messaging. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to cite or mention sources you think are pertinent, please do. Do any mention “23”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, the “23” number used to edit this article and promote your own POV is ridiculous. It includes chants from the crowd (3), statements by Trump that Rudy fights (2), a statement that Jim Jordan and his colleagues fight in the House (2), a statement that GOP candidates should fight or get primaried (3), a statement by Trump that he and others were fighting during his speech (1), statements about he and the “fake news” used to fight back and forth but now they give him the silent treatment (6), and a statement about fighting against big donors, big media, big tech (1). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frivolously, you raise a technically good point.... per WP:CALC the actual number of TRUMP utterances of "fight", and grammatical derivations thereof, is 22...... rather than 23. I wonder if my mistake saying "23" instead of "22" twiddled the needles on the seismometers at the US Geological Survey? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if it’s proper to use Wikipedia leads for your original research. You know it’s POV-pushing whether you use 23 or 22, for the reasons I’ve explained above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    calling this OR is itself classic POV... see WP:CALC; I agree that the transcript I used (from NPR [6]) attributes one of the 23 utterances of a variation of "fight" to a chant among the crowd. That leaves 22 utterances by trump of some grammatical variation of the word "fight". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I am aware that DS Applies to US politics, if you wanna cast aspersions over this at me again, do so at WP:AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ve blatantly inserted your POV into this lead without consensus based on original research. That’s the way it is. If me saying so hurts your feelings, that surely was not my intent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that WP:CALC requires a consensus that the calculation is accurate. As you know, consensus on Wikipedia depends on the substance of reasoning, rather than the opinions-that-are-not-votes. Do you have a valid reason to contest the count based on the agreed transcript is 22? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CALC says, “Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.” What you’ve done is not routine, no one’s ever done it AFAIK, except some Democratic congresspersons such as Madeline Dean. You admit lack of consensus. And it’s not a meaningful reflection of the sources, given that no secondary or tertiary sources mention it, and the primary source shows that the vast majority of your 22 or 23 instances were not with reference to anything the audience should do. I’m not going to bring this to AE because the many readers of this article and talk page could easily help fix this problem if and when they want to, and if they don’t want to then I have no reason to believe AE would want to either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on my review of your block-log, and prior history as user:Ferrylodge, and partial outting to the NYT as being a lawyer, I only care about your talk page comments that are evidence-based and void of logical fallacies. I will read them and respond as I deem appropriate, but at the end of the day what matters is article content. I would say more, but the rest is sort of besides the point. You have not tried to revert, nor have you offered evidence-based critical thinking reasons to oppose my change in the article content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on my review of the comment you’ve just written, you are misusing this talk page (in your first sentence) and being untruthful in your last sentence; I have indeed tried to revert you, and you jammed this new original research of yours right back into the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:DISRUPTSIGNS... if you have problems with my article edit, please change it or complain at WP:AE. I mean, I've been asking you to show your cards and you keep accusing me of thins like being "untruthful". I have quite had it up to here with such accusations. I'm asking.... show us and convince us. Will you give a direct answer to this challenge? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s bad enough to put partisan talking points of a congressperson in the lead of this article, based on a single source, but even worse to erase in-text attribution. I get that many people hate Trump, but that doesn’t entitle anyone to go overboard here trying to implement that sentiment. Moreover, the use of dummy edits to hypocritically accuse me of what you’ve been doing nonstop is quite revealing. Please stop using dummy article edits merely to try criticizing me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • A Wikipedia editor counting how many times he said fight and then adding the number to lead of this article is WP:OR. Having a Democratic congresswoman count them for you and then adding the number to the lead is a WP:NPOV concern. The specific number of times is not something that's mentioned in RS at all from what I can see; therefore, the specific number should not be in this article much less the lead section. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 04:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree, based just on the sourcing I've seen so far, that specific point in lede would be UNDUE. Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Resting the argument on WP:CALC was a bit of a stretch, but the addition of the pbs.org citation IMO solidifies the case for inclusion. Rep. Dean is not just "some Democratic congressperson" expressing "partisan talking points", she was speaking in the context of her role as a House impeachment manager. Zaathras (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Her role doesn't make her speech nonpartisan. We never quote actual politicians as a RS, much less to establish weight in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not quoting a politician directly, we're quoting a reliable source that deems the politician's words noteworthy. Zaathras (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there really an argument over 22 times or 23 times? Perhaps we can compromise, with 22.5 times. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm breaking my voluntary project ban [7], to appreciate this comment, for which I laughed so hard I quite literally laughed out of my chair. THANK YOU!!!!!!! Funniest thing I have read here in many days....... I even looked for a humor barnstar, but didn't find any that seemed appro. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that nit has been settled, now the inclusion or exclusion hinges on Due Weight. Zaathras (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the whole sentence because no number would be adequate. Obviously, if we were to include the sentence then there would have to be inline attribution. But I don’t see it as significant enough for the lead or even the article body, if no one can find one tiny secondary source that says in its own voice what Rep. Dean said. As I detailed at great length above, when Trump used the word “fight” in his speech almost all of those were instances where he was not suggesting the audience members should fight, and if anything those many uses of the word “fight” show that he was using the word metaphorically as politicians often do. It it turns out that Trump gave secret instructions to go lynch a bunch of officials, then definitely we should include that once reliable secondary sources report it. But until then, let’s follow what the reliable secondary sources report as true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1104078263"