Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Survey of proposed titles: These instructions are not based on a consensus
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 752: Line 752:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Please add your suggestion for each proposed title. Feel free to propose other titles. '''Please remember this is not a substitute for discussion.''' You should still discuss your views in the discussion section above. [[User:Octoberwoodland|Octoberwoodland]] ([[User talk:Octoberwoodland|talk]]) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)</p>
<p>Please add your suggestion for each proposed title. Feel free to propose other titles. '''Please remember this is not a substitute for discussion.''' You should still discuss your views in the discussion section above. [[User:Octoberwoodland|Octoberwoodland]] ([[User talk:Octoberwoodland|talk]]) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)</p>
<p>You may only enter another user's ''(who didn't put their name in at all)'' name in the table if they have commented substantively and clearly in [[#Discussion (requested move 23 January 2021)|the discussion above]], and do so in strict accordance to their advocacy. You may delete any name which doesn't have a corresponding comment. If you entered your name below, but only commented in a prior RM (and can't be bothered to make the same comment again), please make a comment in the discussion above in the form of "...per my comment in prior RM", or else someone could delete your name. </p>
<p>You may only enter another user's ''(who didn't put their name in at all)'' name in the table if they have commented substantively and clearly in [[#Discussion (requested move 23 January 2021)|the discussion above]], and do so in strict accordance to their advocacy. You may delete any name which doesn't have a corresponding comment. If you entered your name below, but only commented in a prior RM (and can't be bothered to make the same comment again), please make a comment in the discussion above in the form of "...per my comment in prior RM", or else someone could delete your name. [[User:Alalch Emis|Alalch Emis]] 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)</p>
<p>Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should ''not'' add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)</p>
<p>''Please don't comment on the proposal in this section. Table meta-discussion is further below.''— [[User:Alalch Emis|Alalch Emis]] 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)</p>
<p>''Please don't comment on the proposal in this section. Table meta-discussion is further below.''— [[User:Alalch Emis|Alalch Emis]] 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

Revision as of 23:01, 25 January 2021

    Template:Calm

    The "coup" & "insurrection" discussion

    Seeing that there are now sources beginning to describe this as a "coup attempt", I wanted to make an organized section discussing the situation. It also seems that some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt, but the forceful entry into the capitol was a coup attempt. Below I will make a few sections to organize this discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you explain what is meant by "some scholars are agreeing that the legislative act was not a coup attempt." Which legislative act? The joint session counting votes? RobP (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the heat of the moment, most newspapers will use emotive and hyperbolic language because their job is to attract readers' attention. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should describe the event as it is described by authors after the event, not in the middle of it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Coup", "Insurrection", and "Sedition" have specific legal implications. Beyond WP:BLPCRIME, confirmation needs to come from an official source. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The description of events will not become more rational over time. Let's let hyperbole roam freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.17.25 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the hard work that went into organizing this and from everyone who added sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources describing as "coup attempt"

    All of the media listed below promote a liberal, left and progressive viewpoints. There is no evidence that protesters were a united organized group that was actually attempting to take over the US Government with, I've read, 13 weapons found? Instead it looks as if it was a mixed group who invaded the building to disrupt the electoral college contest and make some messes. The behavior of some of the DC police is also puzzling. I would avoid hyberole and wait for some official DoD reports. The mainstream media is advocacy based. Here we aim to present different sides in a neutral way regardless of personal viewpoints. If you can't manage that attitude, edit non-political articles only. Lmlmss44 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "coup attempt" or similar (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

    Generally reliable sources

    Other sources

    -- Removed "coup de force" French-language sources, as the French "coup de force" does not correspond at all to English "coup (d'état)". Alalch Emis (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was unaware that screaming, breaking windows, looting stores and then leaving fell under the definition of "coup". TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources describing as "insurrection"

    This is a list section only used for sources describing the event as a "insurrection" (May be expanded and please don't use opinion pieces):

    Generally reliable sources: categories and policies

    Generally reliable sources: headlines

    The Insurrection At The Capitol Is A TV Event That Will Live In History RobP (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump caused the assault on the Capitol. He must be removed. "Failing that, senior Republicans must restrain the president. The insurrection came just as many top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), were finally denouncing Mr. Trump’s antidemocratic campaign to overturn the election results." RobP (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Others

    Other terms used

    Autocoup

    Breach

    I'm seeing more & more stories on this event refer to it as a "breach". I personally don't think it is the best word to use, but feel with respect to the principle of NPOV this fact needs to be mentioned. -- llywrch (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not been seeing more and more such stories. A breach can be done by a single human and is roughly synonymous with trespass. The breaching of the Capitol is a moment in time. That's when the first door was broken down. By my estimation, that's 0.0003% of the totality of what happened. That's the sporadic type of usage of "breach" i'm seeing – in reference to particular moments and situations of that event, not in reference to the event itself. Alalch Emis (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding Alalch Emis: Breach is appropriate for articles like List of White House security breaches; a four-hour occupation by armed persons is far more than just a "breach".-Ich (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Invasion

    • Capital Invasion [[3]]

    Its what it was, RS say it and it really is not all that loaded.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Riot

    However sources like this say people are bieng charged as rioters [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    “A”, if not “the” mainstream view is that ‘coup’ is apt. Instead the word has been entirely whitewashed from the first half of the article, where it is called a mere riot.
    C’mon, people. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A riot would be if a normal protest went out of control; there is evidence showing that this was at least partially planned out and the intention was to kill or kidnap several members of Congress and maybe the vice president which makes it an insurrection SRD625 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This was not a riot. This was a violent uprising against the legislators in order to stop them from performing the Constitutional requirement to count the electoral votes. This is the very definition of an insurrection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree with calling this a coup or insurrection. Media headlines often exaggerate things to attract the attention of the readers to the article.The words “coup” or “insurrection” are more likely to attract attention than simply stating the capitol was “stormed”. Based on the evidence, this was mob of people from a variety of groups. It doesn’t appear to have had an organized leadership, and had no intention of overthrowing the US government, simply to disrupt the vote count. The theft of labtops was probably by conspiracy theorists trying to confirm they were right. Many members of the mob seem to have just contented themselves with vandalism, with several pieces of artwork representing historical figures from both the left and the right targeted. This indicates the goal was general destruction rather than targeting paintings and statues of people associated with one side of the political spectrum. In any case, we cannot simply speculate or exaggerate details like the media. We need reliable, unbiased sources, which will presumably become available as time goes on and the investigation reveals its findings. Investigation is still underway, and it could be awhile before we get any concrete answers. I say we leave the title of the article as is for now. Anasaitis (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack

    @Somedifferentstuff: your proposal is worded using "domestic attack". This generally refers to domestic violence. It's an unfortunate coincidence. I don't think anyone but you has or would support including "domestic" for this reason, and for the reason of that exact phrase not being supported by reliable sources, and for not being concise either. What do you think about this assessment? — Alalch Emis 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Alalch Emis, in this context, domestic means that is was done by people within the country (def. existing or occurring inside a particular country; not foreign or international), as opposed to being done by people from outside like 9/11. Take a look at the first sentence of this article (Oklahoma City bombing) as an example. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Somedifferentstuff, That's "domestic terrorist truck bombing" not "domestic attack". "Domestic attack" is nowhere to be found in that article. Your usage of that term in this context is novel and unusual. IMO it was a bad idea to condense it with the default option as it differs significantly with the addition of "domestic". You can still remove it, because it's not supported by anyone else. People who support attack support the default version. — Alalch Emis 20:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    In the sections above, "coup" is more widely used internationally. On the other hand, it seems that "insurrection" is more prominent in English sources and in use among US politicians. "Storm" does not appear to be more popular than the other two, though it appears frequently in German media.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Very few not-in-the-moment sources use coup without attempted, because the word coup does imply a success. The word storm doesn't have that implication, a storm is a still a storm whether it's successful or not. Same with a protest, an attack, a demonstration, etc. I think that we should avoid using coup simply because we can't use it without putting a qualifier there, which instantly strays into commentary territory. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Holding on Changes I appreciate the work that went in to making this list, however, caution should be exercised. Business Insider is currently the subject of an intense discussion at WP:RSN and I question the quality of Uproxx for reporting civil-military relations; many of these are op-eds and editorials that are using the word "coup" as a term of art; and several of these are non-English language sources where the nuance of the word coup does not precisely reflect in English translation. Factually, if it were determined to be a putsch of some type, it would be an autogolpe and not a coup. A coup is an attack against the existing executive power, while an autogolpe is an attack against the existing legislative power. As time progresses, this nuance will be learned and internalized by reporters on beats that normally don't deal with this subject and we may see an evolution in nomenclature. We must chronicle the terms used by RS, however, that does not preclude us from proceeding with deliberation and caution, particularly insofar as current events are concerned. Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford: Not a survey, but thanks for the info as I agree that we should wait and created this discussion so we can pick apart the sources while we wait. The op-eds included are written by the editorial boards of the said sources, showing that the term they use is what the publication decides best describes the event. "Putsch" is not used often in English and especially not in this circumstance, though it is often synonymous with "coup" when used. Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue. An autogolpe or self-coup is a type of coup, so it would still be accurate to describe it as a "coup attempt" without being too specific on what type of coup it may be (which seems like many publications have done by simply calling the event a "coup attempt"). Also, we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt", such as the 1851 French coup d'état, the 1973 Uruguayan coup d'état and the 1970 Lesotho coup d'état. So if the event were to be determined to be a self-coup attempt, then it would be acceptable to name this the 2021 United States coup d'état attempt in accordance with predecessor articles. That is, unless, sources give us a special name for the event.--WMrapids (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your statement that "[a] coup is an attack against the existing executive power" is simply untrue." I regret to inform you that's an objectively false statement. As the French term is invoked in English, a coup d'etat is understood to be an attack against the executive power in all literature on the subject while the Spanish term autogolpe is invoked to mean an attack against the legislative authority by the executive. I can't find my copy of Luttwack's Coup d'Etat at the moment, but I'm pretty certain he clarifies it that way (and it is the definitive source on the subject), but there's a breadth of other scholarship on this as well in the academic literature (e.g. [5] or Paul Brooker's Non Democratic Regimes [page 83 in my edition]). "we describe various self-coups on Wikipedia as simply a "coup" or "coup attempt"" Please see WP:WINARS. In any case, this is all neither here nor there since it sounds like we both agree we should wait to implement any changes. Chetsford (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some searches just then, most of the articles I just read referred to it as a "riot" or the "protestors storming the capitol building". I'm not seeing a lot of obvious references to coups, and my personal feeling is, a coup would involve some level of sophisticated organistion, this is just the working of a mob. Just my 2c! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford: The simple definition of a coup is "the removal of an existing government from power" (Wikipedia), "a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power" (Oxford) or "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" (Merriam-Webster), all meaning that it is the removal or change of a government, which generally can constitute multiple branches, not only the executive. However, it seems that you are more interested in the intricate definition of a coup according to various scholarly opinions which, as you can see in some articles above, are divided. Your opinion is respected, but we do not use WP:OR. Reliable sources seem to be using the simple definition approach. As for WP:WINARS, that is obvious. The articles were listed as examples for if this event is determined to be a coup attempt by reliable sources, not as a source to determine the article title.--WMrapids (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate you looking up the word "coup" in the dictionary, we generally frown on WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford: I feel like this article by the Brookings Institution makes good points and pretty much gives an explanation of what I said above.--WMrapids (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The are some outlets starting to refer to the insurrection as the "Beer Belly Putsch", though it's clearly never going to be the most common name for the event. — Red XIV (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kingsif: That's helpful. It seems like many reliable sources are describing this a "coup attempt", though it's still early so we are working on determining Wikipedia:Verify. Due to the importance of this article, we can be sure WP:OR should not be a problem as well. WP:NPOV seems to be alright too as numerous reliable sources have verified that Biden had won the election and that such acts of reversing the election are unlawful, so describing this as a "coup attempt" would be neutral. It seems like we are just working on the verifiability regarding how to describe the event at this point (insurrection, coup attempt, etc.)--WMrapids (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If looking at more sources, The Guardian has now collected all its coverage under the tag "US Capitol stormed" on its website. But then they have a headline calling it an insurrection, and an opinion piece saying to call it a coup. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in my mind too early to use these types of words. The most accurate statement is protest turned riot. Unless someone can prove that the people involved had an organized plan to overthrow Congress, which is very doubtful, than the other labels don't apply. Also a lot of the sources using these terms are opinion pieces, they can be useful in describing what people 'think' of what happened, but not what it actually was. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's untrue that the labels "insurrection" or "coup" don't apply if there was not an organized plan to overthrow Congress. This is an arbitrary standard. I don't see what would support such a stance. The RS are converging on "insurrection" as many have noticed. Although there are some RS using "coup", as you have observed, some of the sources listed here are opinion pieces. This is not the case with "insurrection". Alalch Emis (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting aside my own personal opinion about this event, I wonder why do we need to count noses & apply just a single label. Why not write something like the following: "While this has been described as a coup [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], others have described it as an insurrection [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here], or a riot [add citations to 2-3 examples of usage here]." IMHO, that would adhere to NPOV: we are reporting what others say, not our own opinions. (And we can save our discussion energy for which sources to use as examples.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would consider a coup to be an attempt by a group of high ranking government officials to suddenly seize the reigns of power, generally by posing a threat to the life or freedom of the existing leader. The storming was not by government officials and did not appear to have their support to take control of the government. It also seems that most of the people who broke in were not there in some sort of an attempt to take control of the government. As such the 'coup' label is unhelpful to readers. I am more supportive of insurrection, especially given its use by NPR and AP. Generally speaking, this seems most similar to Euro-Midan. ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.... an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

    Also, Biden used that term.

    A coup is a quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.... a sudden violent or illegal seizure of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What these guys did was really stupid. I would put that in the article if I could. For now there is only speculation about insurecction or conspiracyt. I'm joining others in voting wait and see. Spudlace (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is tremendous clarity regarding what happened due to the incredible amount of journalistic activity and coverage, and the public nature of the events. The pseudo-revolution was televised and it amounted to an insurrection. This is what the RS are expressing at this point. This is not to say that what took place isn't a storming, but the storming is the 'how' to the 'what' - the insurrection... which does not have to be smart. This standard amuses me. This event will not be remembered as stupid but as painful and frightening to people all around the world. Alalch Emis (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I really apologize if I'm in the wrong section, I'm really rarely contributing to Wikipedia as a whole, I just wanted to point out some thoughts on the naming convention for this article:

    1. The "See Also" list gives other examples of "storming the legislature building". However, none of those articles are titled using the same naming convention. For example, the Armenian and Serbian articles are listed as "Protests" and not "Storming of X", even though the situation is almost exactly the same.
    2. Different naming conventions are often thrown around as political rhetoric, so a media site calling something a coup does not (by itself) make it a coup, any more than political rhetoric from conservative news sites are taken in the opposite direction
    3. Strictly speaking, a coup implies a military insurrection of some kind, but all the people in this situation are civilians, not military

    So the naming convention of the article I would support, one way or the other, would be simply something that is consistent with other articles that already exist LutherVinci (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • not a coup There are some mainstream sources and dedicated articles that the event was not a coup. A problem with "a coup or not a coup, that is the question" is because of strong feelings of journalists, some have been very forceful to call it a coup. With polarization, nobody wants to compromise. To me, it was a riot but there was no concerted efforts common in a coup. That could change with a FBI investigation. How exactly was the man with the fur hat and horns going to be King of the US? And the man with his feet on Speaker Pelosi's desk; did he have secret plans to be the new Speaker of the House? The problem with the above list is that many of the articles have become politicized so that they are no longer reliable sources. That is sad to see. Vowvo (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Federal law enforcement assistance of Trump

    European officials are now saying that Trump received assistance with establishing supporters within the Capitol. Security officials from Europe stated they train with US federal forces and that "it's obvious that large parts of any successful plan were just ignored". This is interesting as one argument regarding the definition of "coup" is that it requires assistance from armed branches of the government.--WMrapids (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Insurrection?

    While the previous move was closed with the recommendation to wait about a week, we are now about three days after the event. After reviewing more recent sources, it seems that the term "insurrection" has been determined to be the most common term. CNN is even hosting a special titled "The Trump Insurrection". Any opinions on this?--WMrapids (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What is an insurrection? "Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers." [6] How is the occupation of the capitol "violence against the state or its officers"? Certainly, it is the primary inflammatory term associated with the event. But is it accurate? Jrb1tx (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is very accurate.... many news used the word, "insurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:2DEE:EC99:D4AD:2C0F (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, insurrection is the term most used by reliable sources. Only Fox news calls it a "storming" in attempts to romanticise the event and build support for a Trump pardon for the participants. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that the decision was to wait for a week to see what the event is to be referred as. Many reliable sources started using the word "insurrection" at the Capitol more consistency now. I assume at some point, the article will be moved to 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol, right? Here are just a few examples:

    Media
    • NPR created a news category called "Insurrection At The Capitol"[7]
    • PBS Classroom resource: Three ways to teach the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol[8]
    • Tampa Bay Times "insurrection at the Capitol"[9]
    • Fortune "the insurrection at the Capitol"[10]
    • National Geographic "the Capital insurrection"[11]
    • The Guardian's First Thing "insurrection at the Capitol"[12]
    • Aljazeera "US Capitol insurrection"[13]
    Politicians from both parties
    • Statement of President George W. Bush on "Insurrection at the Capitol"[14]
    • Mitt Romney on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (NYTimes)[15]
    • Joe Biden on an "insurrection" as reported on a reliable source (Sydney Morning Herald)[16]
    Discussion and event names
    • Hammer Museum "Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s Next?"[17]
    • University of Denver "Insurrection at the Capitol"[18]

    An important reliable source is from the the Congress. The Article of Impeachment describes the event as an insurrection which had 4 elements in it:[19][20]

    • Beaching and vandalizing of the Capitol
    • Injuring and killed law enforcement personnel
    • Menacing the Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel
    • Engaging in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts

    I think the word breaching is similar to the current word "storming" that is used as the title. That is just one element of the overall event in which it is known in the article as an insurrection. By leaving the title to just one element of the event, it may not capture the overall picture of what it is as many reliable sources now describe the overall event than just as the "storming" part of it. Z22 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The second Trump impeachment WAS for him "inciting an insurrection" and it is now in the history books. So how is this not the most appropriate description for what happened at the Capitol now? RobP (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a coup d'état

    I am looking at this new article in CNN, Investigators looking into planning of Capitol riot. Indeed, it is highly probable that the planning and participation involved well prepared groups of rioters in all gear (they even brought restraints to capture the members of Congress, just as they wanted to capture the Michigan governor), some police (who did not stop the mob and allowed everyone to leave when the rioters realized that lawmakers are gone), possibly some Pentagon officials (who did not sent the guard even after the request by DC mayor), and possibly even Republican lawmakers and the president. There is a lot of chat about it, including even some analysis by Michael Moore and separately by Yuri Shvets who is definitely an expert (here (Russian)). The purpose of the coup was to prevent the inauguration of new president. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. A coup d'état attempt (so far).
    The Capitol siege was planned online. Trump supporters are now planning the next one
    "Given the very clear and explicit warning signs – with Trump supporters expressing prior intent to “storm and occupy Congress” and use “handcuffs and zip ties,” clear plans being laid out on public forums, and the recent precedent of the plot to storm the Michigan Capitol building while Congress was in session – it is truly mind-boggling that the police were not better-prepared,” said Rita Katz, executive director of SITE Intelligence Group, which was among the research groups that detailed what was coming in the weeks before the Capitol was attacked. It recapped much of this evidence in a report published Saturday." ... "ARMED MARCH ON CAPITOL HILL & ALL STATE CAPITOLS” for Jan. 17, the last Sunday of Trump’s polarizing presidency."
    Ruth Ben-Ghiat, professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, wrote the book Strongmen: How They Rise, Why They Succeed, How They Fall: “Historian of coups and right-wing authoritarians here. If there are not severe consequences for every lawmaker & Trump govt official who backed this, every member of the Capitol Police who collaborated with them, this 'strategy of disruption' will escalate in 2021.”
    This Is a Coup. Why Were Experts So Reluctant to See It Coming?
    Fascinatingly, fascist-natingly, the Defense Department is referring to the pro-Trump riot as “the January 6, 2021 1st Amendment Protests.” https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/1/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC.pdf ← This memo tells you all you need to know.--217.234.68.109 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! In particular, this interview] with Ruth Ben-Ghiat is very helpful. This might be a bifurcation point in US history. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcomen ;-) Ben-Ghiat: "I’m very worried that this... “armed march” being planned for January 17th around the nation. And once you legitimize and give a presidential imprimatur to extremism, and once you convince — you plant people throughout federal agencies, you know, you radicalize law enforcement, as Bill Barr, who stepped away but has a huge amount of responsibility for this, it’s very hard to turn this back." Remenber, No public appearances with remarks from the AG or FBI director. Capitol Police haven’t held a single briefing. DHS secretary just stepped down. All since a mob just stormed the Capitol. --217.234.74.185 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And what they are going to do next? "They were talking about 4,000 armed 'patriots' to surround the Capitol" [21]. Who knows? In 1999 Putin and his comrades arranged a series of terrorist acts to grab the power (that page was fixed for "neutrality" by one of Russian-speaking accounts [22]). My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking more about coups, the leader must have a support by organizations like the army, the secret police or political Parties in order to succeed. Neither seem to be the case here, except only supremacist organizations and some Republicans. However, this is hard to say with certainty at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Not a coup. When this was taking place, lots of names were used. Now, I don't see coup used a lot or at all. These leads me to believe that WP:RS reliable sources dictate we not use coup. The same thing with assassination. Now there's a news report that someone wrote on social media about assassinating AOC. Terrible. However, that does NOT mean this article should be retitled "2021 Assassination attempt on AOC in the Capitol". Vowvo (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    French-speaking sources cited

    I am a native French speaker, and it seems that some French newspapers in the list above don't actually qualify this event as a coup, but as a « coup de force », which Wiktionary defines as “A suddent, violent act.” The word “coup” in English would be translated as « coup d’état » instead. The affected sources are Le monde diplomatique (both), BFM TV, Orange, Euronews, Ouest-France, and La Voix du Nord (which uses « coup d’état » in citations only). Also, I couldn’t verify the citation for the France Info article, “Pro-Trump coup” is just « États-Unis » in the title of the article on my computer. In fact, the article says that « Didier Combeau estime qu’il s’agit plus “d’une manifestation d’extrémistes peu nombreux” qu’une tentative [sic] coup d’État » (“Didier Combeau believes that it is more “a menifestation of few extremists’ than a coup attempt.”) Nicolapps (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have verified that "coup de force" indeed does not correspond to "coup d'etat". Therefore I have removed the following sources from the list:
    -- Alalch Emis (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Nicolapps (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTFORUM and Civility violation

    Please remember that news outlets use sensational words to describe an event in order to get the attention of the viewers. Those that were protesting wanted their voice to be heard. Just a portion of the people that attended the demonstration were violent. Most of if not all of the priceless works of art were untouched. There were many videos of people in the capital just mulling around like they were on a guided tour. Almost in awe of their surroundings. The love of their country and their freedoms brought them to the capital. Many did not heed the words of the president when he asked his supporters to be peaceful. If it was a coup, who was the one calling for it? If it was an insurrection where is the evidence. The news outlets use those terms, but they do not provide any proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBehaving (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You sweet, summer child. What sort of dull-eyed thugs are needed to overthrow the nation and keep power? The current president will use any support he can find, and did so, and as it became ugly, he reveled in what he had unleashed. In the Rwanda genocide, leaders announced over radio it was time to "cut down the tall trees". They don't say 'Ok, let's quite precisely knock on the door and demand control of the democracy.' I do think "Hang Mike Pence" is no construction of sensational words by a click-seeking media. This is technically a "reverse coup" I guess. I'm glad they only wanted to murder the vice president, rather than destroy priceless art. I don't believe they love this particular country, which is a democracy. And crushing the skull of a policeman isn't embracing freedoms. This is a coup attempt in plain sight, with all the ingredients. Mcfnord (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote earlier, a coup implies some actions by regular military or organization by ruling elites. If the action is done purely by normal civilians, no matter what their intentions are, no matter how organized they are, would still be an insurrection and not a coup, and as I pointed out there are other Wikipedia articles of similar events in Armenia and Serbia which aren't even called insurrections, but called protests. Media outlets may use sensationalist terminology to grab people's attention, or purposefully imply that the action was a coup, even if that is more flowery language. That being said, if there was any media outlet that proves the action was done by military or specifically orchestrated by Trump as an attempt to disband congress, then yes it would be a coup. So far, all we have proved is that Trump incited or inspired the action, and some police were delayed a few hours before intervening, and that's pretty much it right now. In fact, if the people are calling for hanging Mike Pence, who is absolutely in Trump's camp, that kind of invalidates the claim of it being an elite-orchestrated event, and therefore invalidating it being called a coup. QED. LutherVinci (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC) (forgot to log in earlier)[reply]
    @LutherVinci: Having the military being involved is a common misconception; it just requires a violent attempt to overthrow a government. The New Yorker actually hypothesized a similar example in October 2020, stating "For example, Trump could summon federal agents or his supporters to stop a recount or intimidate voters. According to some experts, this would constitute an autogolpe, or 'self-coup'". This is almost what happened on January 6. However, it seems that the event has been consistently described as an "insurrection" by reliable sources, so we should use that description and then make comments about the term "coup" in the body.--WMrapids (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @WMrapids as your source says, mobilizing federal agents would be a coup, and I would agree, because again that would be actions by elite authorities (even if not technically military). As you pointed out, that is "almost" what happened on January 6, but ultimately federal agents were deployed to recapture the Capital and arrest the rioters, and therefore no elites were involved in the insurrection. LutherVinci (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Insurrection is what the United States government has declared took place.

    Time to change the headline

    https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-news-01-12-21/h_ff48d5c57b86031716423f4c0b8b9940

    --Caffoti (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    cnn is explaining the difference between sedition a coup d'etat and an insurrection. ://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/insurrection-coup-sedition-meaning-trnd/index.html

    Riot or Insurrection/Coup Attempt

    One more important distinction, no one has been arrested and/or charged with the crime of treason, insurrection, or for a coup d'etat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.167.165 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The unsigned comment above is simply not true. Famously, the president of the United States has been charged with the crime of "insurrection of the United States" when he was impeached by the US House of Representatives. Univremonster (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The "2021"

    Should we keep the "2021" in the upcoming title "Insurrection at the United States Capitol" (i.e. it would be titled "2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol")?

    BobTheBob45 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    See below. The proposed title under discussion is Insurrection at the United States Capitol. --RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the proposals to rename the page as the "2021 insurrection of the United States Capitol. Most media outlets have now switched the term "insurrection" over "storming" and Congress has officially adopted the term in their articles of impeachment ("incitement of insurrection"). It would therefore make sense for Wikipedia to fall in line with this more accurate consistency. Golfpecks256 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Court findings from greatly acceptable sources

    [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?

    Should this event be characterized as terrorism? 00:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


    Transcluded discussion from other talk page

    Support

    • Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." "terrorism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000". web.archive.org. 20 June 2006. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes: clearly described as such by reliable sources and by influential people across the political spectrum. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes similarly in The Oxford English Dictionary - 2a "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". This event is literally the definition of terrorism. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, by the definition of terrorism by the FBI: "Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives." https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 Dobekofcas (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes per my comments at Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States. We aren't smarter than numerous reliable sources, the President-elect, and a multitude of other leaders. This isn't complicated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft Yes IF sufficient RSes in support of calling it terrorism can be established, AND consensus is established that there is enough RS publication for it to be in Wikipedia's voice. If the first but not the second happens, then support maintaining current section: "The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." Builder018 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, applicable to all articles that mention this event., per Bongwarrior's reasoning. Jdphenix (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    • (edit conflict) Comment Let’s see... they attempted to “overthrow” the results of the election with violent insurrection. They attacked law enforcement with lead pipes in the process of breaking and entering the government’s legislative building. There was a stand-off inside the building with guns drawn. A woman in this so-called mob was shot and killed trying to climb through a window. They ransacked offices and defiantly sat in officials’ seats with their fists raised. If it were in any other country what would you consider calling this? So yes, because that was their intention even if the dramatic irony befalls them. Trillfendi (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ... MSNBC in its self-ad, refers to coverage of "domestic terrorism" as part of their purpose. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then certainly the riots of the 60's and those of last summer were "terrorism" as well, no? The George Floyd Protests article makes clear their purpose was to extract political concessions. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as per what is directly above. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes WP:RS call it terrorism. WP: What happened at the Capitol ‘was domestic terrorism,’ lawmakers and experts say As such, we should follow. Casprings (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes per various WP:RS provided above by many users. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I believe this fits the definition of Domestic terrorism. At least some of them went there and had the attack planned before Trump gave his speech. There were reports of reconnaissance tours. There is a video of a woman giving coordinating instructions to people inside the building. There is a photo of an invader climbing over seats holding handcuff-zipties implying he intended to take hostages and came prepared to do so.--Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, FBI, Homeland Security, former Department of Defense and military, as well as federal government officials are all referring to it as a terrorist incident. Domestic terrorists used "average" people at the rally as a cover to do what they want to do, just like the 9/11 hijackers pretended to be airplane passengers. The next president has called it domestic terrorism. Etc. Not to mention the numerous citations of RS referring to it as such. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the USG is widely referring to it as a terrorist incident. When the media talk about whether it was a terrorist incident, many find it it was. And they are cautious about referring to any incident as such. At first I thought No - not in WPVOICE but yes if attributed. But as I looked through the comments, I found the No vote comments to be misses: Whataboutism, fiction, even gibberish, but mostly non sequiturs. While the Yes comments- well, not a wall of granite, but at least solid and coherent. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - clearly meets the definition of terrorism - violence in order to achieve a political end. A violent mob wanted to stop the counting of electoral votes, and successfully (if temporarily) did so. That's what the sources say, and that's what we should say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes This is definitely terrorism. Rioters stormed into the Capitol, many wanting to kill lawmakers, to stop a "stolen" election. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as violence or threats of violence used as a weapon of coercion or intimidation. The rioters wanted to coerce and intimidate lawmakers with violence and threats of violence (numerous threats were made, not to mention the pipe bombs). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 12:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "28 CFR § 0.85".
    2. ^ Borger, Julian; The Guardian: "Insurrection Day: when white supremacist terror came to the US Capitol" 2021 January 9 [1] Retrieved 2021 January 11.
    3. ^ Tucker, Eric. "Attack highlights challenge of pursuing domestic extremists". The Associated Press. Retrieved 12 January 2021.

    Oppose

    The difference between a group of people infiltrating a government building thinking they can threaten politicians into not voting (symbolicly as it were) for something and a group of people protesting against *checks notes* human rights violations while being tear gassed, is that the latter group of people weren’t threatening the action of democracy. Trillfendi (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have a problem with that either. Many of the BLM/Antifa riots were far more violent than the Capitol Hill Storming and tactics used certainly checked the boxes for terrorism. Similarly, there were certainly participants of the storming who had terroristic intentions at very least. I would be supportive of both this, and the BLM/Antifa riots being categorized as terrorism. History Man1812 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812[reply]
    Again, NPOV must be maintained and your views of motivation behind two different rioting mobs do not decide whether it constitutes terrorism.ExplosiveResults (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Terrorism is a method, the idealistic motivators of an action are irrelevant to whether it's "terrorism" or not.PailSimon (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect. The definition(s) of terrorism include the political purpose. Breaking into a house in order to steal something is not terrorism, but breaking into a house in order to intimidate someone to vote a specific way is. Sjö (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Lives Matter were people protesting unarmed African Americans getting killed by police; the Capitol Insurrection was primarily white supremacists upset they lost an election and tried to change the result by force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.117.147 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the people identified at the Capitol were already on FBI watchlists, there is no such things as BLM riots, BLM doesn't organize riots, they conduct protests, which isn't terrorism, and have permits from the city to do so. White supremacists at the Capitol had weapons and handcuffs, used flag poles, fire extinguishers, and stun guns to attack police and others, used mob force to crush and rip of the badges and weapons of law enforcement, prevent them from leaving, caused Congress members and staff to go into hiding in fear for their lives, wore anti-semitic clothing and carried white nationalist symbols, and went on a search to find the Vice President of the United States and Speaker of the House of Representatives. They also planted bombs nearby. One sounds like terrorism to me, the other sounds like protesting as allowed under the Constitution. Oh, and all rioting isn't terrorism. It involves more. Teammm talk
    email     01:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean by BLM riots, ExplosiveResults - which doesn't seem notable - do you have a reference?. There have been protests on many things (like sports games) that have descended into rioting after extended period. That doesn't make it terrorism. This storming appeared to have been the plan of the "protesters" ... and happened almost immediately. As far as I know the vast majority of BLM protests were entirely peaceful, and the worst offence was blocking traffic, or noise violations - certainly around here. Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BLM and/or Antifa protests have done more than "blocking traffic". They have burned down police stations, repeated attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland, set up "autonomous zones" in several cities, and don't even get me started on the five police officers killed in Dallas in 2016 during a BLM protest.96.241.129.33 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BLM protests were scheduled ahead of time, coordinated with local law enforcement and the media. The fact that looters and other opportunistic types showed up to create chaos was not the goal of BLM. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this straight: Breaking past capitol security, causing minor property damage to the building, and walking around inside for a little while in response to an allegedly stolen election is terrorism, but killing civilians and burning down cities because a few criminals got killed isn't? How absurd. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course! That's why they were there. They just wanted to have a little walk around the place. Very fine people, I'm sure. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Terrorists are usually armed though. Pipe bombs found outside the building notwithstanding, I don't think any of the rioters were armed. Otherwise, just refer to RS, not POV. Including mine. RandomGnome (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the rioters absolutely were armed. You are correct, though, that we should go with RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking the article, I found mention of an 'armed standoff' and 'chemical sprays'. You are correct that some of the rioters were armed, but these appear to be more isolated events within a highly disorganized and opportunist riot by a disparate group that managed to gain access to the building, rather than a concerted, armed terrorist siege. But as you say, we defer to RS. I would urge editors to find sufficient high quality RS before RfCing for 'terrorism'. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed several extensive discussions on this talk page and others related to terrorism, with edit warring. I've seen reasonable RS arguments for both. I opened this to get discussion in (hopefully) one spot. Jdphenix (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Display name 99: Holy strawman Batman! "minor property damage" and "walking around inside"? That's a funny way of describing violently breaking into a federal building and planting not one but two IEDs in an attempt to overthrow an election. Bravetheif (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No As said above, most if not all reliable sources call this a riot, at most it is referred to as an insurrection, which is a dubious claim in it of itself JazzClam (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No This is a malformed RfC, and probably going to end up as a snowball again, as declaring it to be ex post facto terrorism by interpreting it as "Yes, per "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." would clearly be wp:OR. Let's chill on the RfCs for a while. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow consensus on “facts”...could this be anymore intellectually dishonest...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.229.135 (talk • contribs)

    I don't see how, User:PailSimon, that identification of event is a biased issue, with Republicans and (former) Trump supporters calling this terrorism. How is this article from a local newspaper (Washington Post) not a reliable source? It even identifies some of the white nationalist terror groups involved. Nfitz (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The last part of this argument is demonstrably false. Lin Wood; "The time has come Patriots. This is our time. Time to take back our country. Time to fight for our freedom" [BusinessInsider]. His Parler post; "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." [Washington Post]. The bombs. Violent intent isn't debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Most reliable sources are not characterizing it as a terrorist attack, even if they report declarations of this or that politician that calls it domestic terrorism, they usually do it clear in-text attribution. If you have followed media coverage of actual terrorist attacks, you probably know the difference between most reliable sources calling something terrorism, as opposed to some politicians calling names. --MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ......why the hell not? You either don't know what those words mean, or you're hoping that people who read your comment won't. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see the reason now after all the news. In some aspects, seeing how terror tactics were used, despite the event not being a terrorist attack, terrorism was involved. But this aspect is not the most prominent one, as the desired political end was primarily not indirect, through terror (which is the defining element of terrorism), but direct and immediate, through intimidation of members of Congress etc. — Alalch Emis 22:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I went through all sources cited in this discussion, and none call it terrorism in their own voice, so as best I can tell it fails verification. Moreoever, "terrorism" is a contentious label that requires wide use by reliable sources. If anyone can establish such wide use, then please ping me and I will reevaluate my position. R2 (bleep) 07:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No/Wait Most reliable sources of international reputation — including progressive ones such as the New York Times or The Washington Post — are not classifying it as terrorism. Some people in the "Yes" section argue that the have reliable sources, but either don't provide them or provide sources that are not that straightforward on this subject. Others argue that this falls into their preferred definition of terrorism, but that looks like original research to me.--JBchrch (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. 1) It's a lazy catch-all that conflates very different types of acts. 2) Reliable sources are not using it. 3) There will be a better description (though which term has not yet been resolved. It might end up being called a failed coup, maybe an insurrection.) Jd2718 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously no. Even the question of this RFC is ridiculous, terrorism is milestones to the power of infinity far cry away of this event. I heavily agree as well what is coined on the top of this thread about NPOV and double measure, on the other hand quite sad political soapboxing became so widespread in WP, seeing the number of votes to support, incredible! Not knowing/understanding what terrorism really is raises a huge concerns. Btw. I am not watching or editing this page, just by coincidence I saw this RFC, so without any ping will ignore any further here, I hope sane thoughts will trial here, not political interests/propaganda/agenda.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • No. FOR NOW. Demonstrations which lead to occupations of public buildings aren't usually defined as terrorism in reliable sources. But we have to follow if the historical consensus uses that term down the line.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they were a protest that evolved into unlawful actions of serious caliber, but that's it. Even if a couple of protestors may turn out to have had terrorist intentions in my opinion it should not represent the whole event.Forich (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No That is ridiculous. Terrorism is conducted by a terrorist organisation, it's usually a violent act to cause fear in a populous - ie it causes "terror". This was simply a mob attacking a building, and at the heart of it, there is no "terrorist" act that causes "terror" (ie a bombing, or the taking of hostages, or someone being killed). I don't think the public are particularly afraid of these protestors, in the terror sense. The motivation of the crowd wasn't to cause terror in the public for a political cause, - essentially the protestors were pissed off at the government and wanted to vent their frustration. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No A no opinion does not mean support for the riot. Vowvo (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an incorrect assertion, because an act of terrorism does not necessitate "a LOT more people" being killed; for instance, in 1985'a incident involving TWA Flight 847 there was 1 fatality. In fact, an act of terrorism can occur without any casualties, like in Japan Airlines Flight 351. In the Capitol, there was an officer of the law killed, and The Guardian reported that "Two pipe bombs had been found at Republican and Democratic party offices near Congress"[1] Tortillovsky (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal definition of terrorism varies from country to country - in some countries a certain level of seriousness/damage is required. In most Anglo-Saxon countries 'intent' rather than outcome is the defining factor. IRA actions in London often did no actual harm but caused massive economic disruption simply by threatening acts such as planting multiole small incendiary devices on the transport system, thengiving an ambiguous warning. But yes, there is not generally a minimum 'body count'. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - not in WPVOICE although attributed claims in the form "politicians/sources X+Y" described it as domestic terrorism would be apt. Terrorism has a precise legal definition in each country and it is exremely unlikely that anyone is going to be charged with any directly 'terrorist' offences. Riot, trespass, assault, damage or theft, threatening behaviour, possibly insurrection and possibly manslaughter iro a few individuals are all that are being spoken of as possible charges at the moment. You can't have terrorism without a terrorist, just as you cannot have murder without a murderer, and despite many of the perps being filmed, directly 'terrorist' - and probably even directly 'political' charges, such as insurrection, for the mob itself - are extremely unlikely AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - Just because it fits the definition of terrorism does not mean it should be classified as such. By definition all riots that ever happened would have been classified as terrorism. While it may feel good to label this as a terrorist act, using a technicality is not the way to do it. Orangewarning (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Not all RS calls it terrorism. Others call it coup. Others call it insurrection. Others call it storming. Others call it riots. Others call it rape. Others call it concert. Others call is anarchy. Others call it apocalypse. Others call it judgement. Others call it doomsday. Others call it massacre. Others call it flood. Others call it noisy. Others call it bad. Others call it stupid. Others call it violent. Others call it discredited. Others call it hate. Others call it hatred. Others call it killings. Others call it event. Others call it earthquake. Others call it tsunami. Others call it impeachment. Others call it pedophilia. Others call it breach. Others call it vandalism. Others call it edit war. Others call it war. Others call it World War 3. Others call is Donald Biden. Others call it looting. Others call it protests. Others call it BLM2. Others call it Just Some American Stuff. Others call it The Simpsons. Others call it Capitol Disaster. Others call it evening. Others call it day. Others call it January. Others call it 2021. Others call it something. We can't fit everything to one. Thus, they can be redirects and Wikipedia can give itself its own name (the current). GeraldWL 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - As per above. I would honestly support a renaming to 2021 United States Capitol Incident, even, but that's somewhat irrelevant. I feel like storming is about as neutral as we can get without people from either side protesting the decision.SkynetPR (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Σ LOL. Great response. Made me laugh. That said, I must admit I was somewhat surprised to discover that September 11 attacks did not have the word "terrorism" in it, despite the coverage seeming to almost universally call it that. Before I saw that title, I might have been inclined to support "terrorist" in the title to this article--if that word was associated with the event as much as it is with 9/11--which it certainly isn't yet. I'm still waiting to see a stronger list of RS that calls it "terrorism" before I would join your yes vote. It still looks more like a coup attempt or insurrection to me than attempting to scare or intimidate civilians. I see it as trying to intimidate lawmakers and police, but it's up to the RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - I'm pretty vehemently against the actions of the rioters and what they stand for, but that said, calling this "terrorism" would seem to raise a lot of WP:NPOV issues. It also doesn't seem to be reflective of the verbiage that a majority of reliable sources are using. Most definitions generally call terrorism violence directed at civilians, which doesn't entirely fit in this instance. We can certainly make qualified statements that use "terrorism" (e.g. "Several news outlets referred to the incident as terrorism"), but we shouldn't use "terrorism" in narrative voice. Remember that "terrorism" is a word to watch. We should only apply it if we're confident. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No – we didn't call the BLM protests terrorism; therefore, it's a violation of NPOV to call this incident terrorism. Firstly, terrorism is a strong word that carries many legal connotations, and not everyone there will likely be charged with terrorism. So it may not be the most accurate and neutral thing to mention (even if it's true). Also, not all references are calling it terrorism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No — hard to believe this is even a question. If this was "terrorism" then so is virtually every riot, including those of last summer. Enough with the trying to call what was clearly a riot a "storming", "insurrection", "coup attempt", etc.—it's just embarrassingly POV and 100% inaccurate. These "debates" are pure partisan political hackery and a disgrace to Wikipedia. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - no evidence that this was a terrorist's plot. We should use WP:RS reliable sources. There's no frequent mention of "the terror attack on the Capitol". True, some may cite terror in the same line as if you don't have Medicaid assistance, it's terrifying if you're sick, but that's not the mainstream definition of terrorism. That is not to say that the riots were good. They were not. Vowvo (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Other

    • Wait. If individual rioters receive charges of terrorism, terrorism-related charges, or charges of sedition - we should refer to this act as "terrorism". Until then, I propose that we simply wait. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. I would prefer to wait until there has been news of individuals or organizations being referred doing "terrorist" behavior. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, per Mt.FijiBoiz. This seems reasonable and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait I would wait until such individuals are charged with terrorism-related charges, once they are I will be in support. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait While the definition of terrorism has been expanded significantly in recent decades, it's looking like a very few of those involved were prepared for terroristic acts. When this is clarified we can have a suitable section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • Wait Personally these seem to be acts of terrorism to me, but I agree with the above that we should wait for charges or expert opinions. Ziko (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, per above. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and as this isn't classified as terrorism (yet?), we should wait until it is classified as such. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. Per WP:LABEL, value-laden labels should be treated cautiously even if used by reliable sources. Sources will begin to describe the event more neutrally as it leaves the realm of news and enters the realm of history.Jancarcu (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. Wait a bit and see what RS converge on, and we get a clearer picture of motivations, who the leaders were, who planted the bombs, how they organized, et cetera. Terrorism isn't really well-defined, so I'm opposed to an appeal to definitions. DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait if there are charges of "terrorism" for people involved I'll consider it, but I don't see the support for that label as-of-yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait Too soon, but if a majority of reliable sources begin using the term, so can Wikipedia. Usage in RS will probably be influenced by what kind of charges will be brought (i.e. terrorism-related or not). Sjö (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait until a consensus is reached within our sources. -- ToE 11:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait per everyone else. Some people were there to protest, some were clearly rioting, some were clearly there to commit assassinations and acts of terror... It's a very complicated, multifaceted event, and we should just wait to see what a majority of experts and officials say, all across the board. Love of Corey (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait per most above. 777burger talk contribs 06:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait for reliable sources to converge on descriptors, per Sjö. GABgab 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait until, as mentioned above, news on if those arrested have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on - While organizations such a QAnon and Proud Boys might be characterized as terrorist due to their plottings of assassinations and such, Wikipedia shouldn't characterize the attack that way in Wikipedia's voice. The article can include examples of reliable sources, properly attributed, that characterize the attacks that way. The only class of topics I know of where it's permissible (even required) to use a value-laden WP:LABEL in Wikipedia's narrative voice is WP:FRINGE topics, and this isn't one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, someone made a good point. - OK, so before I continue with my justification, let it be clear that none of the following sentences shall show either political support or political opposition to either of the events mentioned herein. If we are going to classify the event at the Capitol as terrorism, then (as some users above mentioned) there have been other events last year, most notably BLM/Antifa riots, that must also be classified as terrorism. My reasoning: Categorizing something as terrorism requires 1) political motivation to cause a desired change 2) targeting of noncombatant persons (usually civilian) 3) intention to (preferably quickly) instill fear into noncombatant targets 4) at least one person present, virtually or physically, to do something destructive through the use of violence or intimidation. So, the event at the Capitol hits the first (obviously). The targeting is hard to pin because it was not specific, but the third one is a hit, as is the fourth one. At best it hits 4/4, at worst, 3/4. But note, however, that this "checklist" applies only to the people who are actually committing to #4. I can't add this to the article without sourcing because WP:OR but it was clear from footage that most people were not interested in violence, only a portion of them. Because other people were present in large numbers that fit #1 but not #4, the validity of classifying this as terrorism is debatable. Compare this to the various riots in 2020 by BLM/Antifa. They hit #1, obviously. They targeted stores and other buildings, so #2 is a hit. And all of the riots involved their burning, so #4 is also a hit. #3 is debatable, but because at least one person of clear political opposition who were in their way was beaten (to death iirc), I tend to lean toward the affirmative. So at best, this gets 4/4, at worst 3/4. And unlike the event at the Capitol, this one does apply to almost every single person involved. So, my stance: if we classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots must also be classified as terrorism, but (to avoid affirming the consequent) if the BLM/Antifa riots are classified as terrorism, the event at the Capitol need not necessarily be classified as terrorism. Inversely, if we do not classify this act as terrorism, the BLM/Antifa riots may still be classified as terrorism, but (again, a.t.c.) if the BLM/Antifa riots are not classified as terrorism, then this act must also not be classified as terrorism. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait until the Biden administration makes a statement either way. That some of the insurrectionists have been charged with domestic terrorism is not sufficient to make the entire insurrection a singular act of terrorism. Forklift17 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait if anything. In a "reactions" section or similar, it may be appropriate to say "some sources have referred to [the acts/list specific parts of the events here] as [domestic] terrorism". But until reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the act as a whole as terrorism, it is inappropriate to call it such in WP voice. We are still within a charged time in the political environment - and until the dust settles, it is inappropriate to even be considering this. There is absolutely no rush to call it terrorism, even if it eventually can be determined to be the correct thing to do here. That being said, the trajectory of news coverage of these events has been decreasingly calling it terrorism/insurrection/related words in recent days - possibly to try to avoid polarizing the situation further and any "repeat" or "copycats" based on the use of that language. We will see what coverage over the next few months/year(s) calls it - but until then, it's not appropriate to call it that in WP voice. I'll note that even some participants being charged with/convicted of offenses called terrorism does not mean the event as a whole can be called a terrorist attack. It would be appropriate in such a case to discuss the charges/convictions that resulted, but the event as a whole is not determined by a few charges/convictions. TLDR: potentially the word has a place qualified by specific sources/individuals/charges/etc - but not as a whole yet, if ever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait We must wait for more evidence to come out that it was a coordinated and planned attack between "most" of the people who stormed the capitol building. Current evidence (already cited in discussed article) shows maybe a few hundred people stormed the capitol while the protest had tens of thousands of people attend. We do not know if the majority that did storm were coordinated and planned or if some of them were just opportunistic. If the evidence does come out that the above is true and every intention was to stop democracy from continuing and a planned and organized attack took place then I am all in favor of calling it what it would be, a domestic terrorism attack. For now the process and trials have not concluded and I am very skeptical to call it Domestic Terrorism as we can label many events over the past decades and even as recent as 2020 as Domestic Terrorism. The article already has holes and biases I'm sure will be edited once more information is received. The best part of the discussion is seeing everyone who voted Yes get no feedback or flack for their opinion yet almost everyone who voted no has a comment from another user challenging their opinion. It's honestly sad.

    Discussion

    • Some articles, categories and lists that are relevant to this RfC: Domestic terrorism in the United States, List of terrorist incidents in 2021, Category:Terrorist incidents in 2021, Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States. --MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the fence between "yes" and "wait". Per WP:NOR, the question is not whether we think the events fall under a dictionary definition of "terrorism", but whether reliable, secondary sources think so. On the other hand, I do see there are already some secondary sources trickling in (e.g. this WaPo article mentioned by My very best wishes above), so if the answer here is "wait", I don't think we'll have to wait long. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We could always add a sentence right now citing the WaPo article and giving in-text attribution, e.g. "The event was described as domestic terrorism by various lawmakers and national security experts." I don't think the WaPo article alone is enough to support calling the event terrorism in, say, the first sentence of the article. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Mz7, that sounds good. Most reliable sources are not calling it a terrorist attack, but they are definitely covering declarations by lawmakers describing it as such. MarioGom (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw someone added the following sentence to the lead, which 3Kingdoms just removed:

      This violence against innocent people to further a political ideology is consistent with the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.[2][3]

      We cannot use the FBI primary sources to support this sentence because of WP:SYNTH: the sources themselves do not directly come to the conclusion that these specific riots fall under its definition of domestic terrorism. On the other hand, the WaPo article that I linked earlier does come to this conclusion directly ("National security experts agreed with that assessment, comparing the aggressive takeover of the federal landmark to the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism"). I would probably support adding a tweaked version of the sentence to the lead, citing the WaPo article instead of the FBI primary sources. Mz7 (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Mz7, indeed, it seems a sizeable amount of !voters here are relying on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based on FBI and dictionary definitions. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it seems that it is terrorism does not mean it is. We need sources. All the "Yes's" are all opinion. Whenever we have made big decisions, such as on the Taiwan article and referring to it as a country, (That was a good day Wikipedia!) sources have been used. The primary reason the "Taiwan as a country" campaign won was because nearly all reliable sources refer to it as a country. This is no different. We cannot refer to them as terrorists because we don't like them, I don't like them either, that was a dark day, but that's no excuse to lose our moral high ground. JazzClam (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    if the article on terrorism has enough info to answer this question, then let it answer it. If it doesn't, improve or remove it-thanks

    No, this was not domestic terrorism. This was a case of heightened emotions that lead to a riot. The pipe bombs that were left around the Capitol did not detonate and there is no proof that a pro-Trump supporter placed the pipe bomb around the premise. The individual that placed the pipebombs could Possibly be classified as a terrorist, but those that stormed the Capitol should not be placed in that category unless there is a premeditated plan to break into the Capitol building. The media outlets like to use words that draw in their viewers. Also, if we go by what President-Elect Biden calls it, then we should follow the same guidelines with BLM or Antifa because Trump has called those entities terrorists. MissBehaving (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Occasionally repressive regimes attempt to stretch the definition of "terrorism" to include political protest of lesser or greater degrees of violence, we could perhaps include the Bolivian coup government of 2019-2020 in this, or the government of Belarus. However, terrorism is generally viewed as a military operation conducted by covert non-state actors whose goal is not to control territory or further some tactical or strategic aim within the context of traditional warfare, but to make a political point. I don't see any military aspect in this action, not were the participants behaving covertly. The violent demonstration in Washington was possibly, in the minds of some of its participants, an attempted coup, but even then, a failed coup attempt is not usually classed as terrorism. However, if by some miracle the balance of reliable sources in future (things like encyclopaedias and history books) refer to it as "terrorism" then I suppose it's ok. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a large number--if not most editors--have answered giving their personal opinion and analysis about whether this is or is not "terrorism." Isn't that WP:OR? How about we follow our most basic rules of Wikipedia and call it terrorism if and only if the WP:RS calls it that? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @David TornheimI think the problem here is that we have an event so prominent that we can find RS that call it a massive variety of things including "terrorism", "insurrection" and a "coup attempt". However, on balance the majority of RS won't take that position. This is why people feel free to wade in. I think we should just exclude terrorism for now, as it pretty clearly isn't from any neutral standpoint (and if it is, I've done terrorism on several occasions), and wait to see if a historical consensus calling it "terrorism" emerges in academic sources rather than news media. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Borger, Julian; The Guardian: "Insurrection Day: when white supremacist terror came to the US Capitol" 2021 January 9 [2] Retrieved 2021 January 11.
    2. ^ "Terrorism". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2021-01-10.
    3. ^ "Terrorism 2002/2005". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2021-01-10.

    Refs in lead and 'Prior intelligence' section (Oath Keepers)

    Given that the Oath Keepers are mentioned in the section headed 'Prior intelligence and concerns of violence', and there fully referenced, expanding on the few words in the first paragraph of the lead, Some rioters had earlier planned aggressive action, is it necessary to repeat the references in the lead? Qexigator (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits relevant to a discussion about this are

    • as edited by Soibangla (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 23 January 2021 (→‎top: once again, and hopefully for the last time, this most definitely belongs in the lead because it indicates a conspiracy by a paramilitary group to invade the Capitol, and I can understand that some would like to whitewash that they allegedly said "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas.").[26]
    • as edited by Qexigator (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 22 January 2021 (necessary link in the abbreviated sequence of events [27]
    • as edited by Qexigator (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 23 January 2021 (better placed here as necessary link in the abbreviated sequence of events, and rmv repeat to later section (discuss at Talk if you propose otherwise)).[28]
    • as edited by Qexigator (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 23 January 2021 (concise mention of preplanned aggression placed in first paragraph, as necessary narrative link in the abbreviated sequence of events described there, expanded in 'Prior intelligence' section (if you still think it a problem do not merely undo but discuss at Talk)[29]

    Qexigator (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the refs in the lead if they will prevent editors from removing the vital sentence from the lead for any specious reason, including any assertion that it's not supported by citations. soibangla (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Other edits

    • as edited by Soibangla at 19:58, 23 January 2021 (??top: once again, and hopefully for the last time, this most definitely belongs in the lead because it indicates a conspiracy by a paramilitary group to invade the Capitol, and I can understand that some would like to whitewash that they allegedly said "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas.").[30]
    • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 at 07:08, 24 January 2021 (this info just appears grafted onto the existing sentence and its awkward)[31]

    Qexigator (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 23 January 2021 (Rm info repeated later on in lead with easter egg piped link and repeat wikilink)[[32]]
    • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 at 13:31, 22 January 2021 (Not the place to add this)[33]
    • as edited by Qexigator at 10:16, 22 January 2021 (Oath Keepers violent intent)[34]
    • as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 at 02:09, 19 January 2021 (copyedit and trim lead)[35]
    • Talk:Clarify sections "Planning of the storming" and "Rioting in the Capitol building"[36]

    Qexigator (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move 23 January 2021

    2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol riot – Improved title per WP:NCE and WP:COMMONNAME

    • WP:NCE — "2021 United States Capitol riot" is a "when", "where" and "what" title
    • WP:COMMONNAME — Of the most common descriptors (protest, storming, riot, attack, insurrection) riot is overwhelmingly the riot and attack are names that are most commonly used.
    JaredHWood💬 21:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To the RM closer: Please consider the #Survey of proposed titles for proposed and discussed titles for the article, along with the discussion when determining consensus. JaredHWood💬 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (requested move 23 January 2021)

    It's neither too early or too late, this is the ideal time to improve on the current title. — Alalch Emis 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Time will tell better than any sources to date or opinions on this page (including archived). What is the length of the string to measure the time in units of weeks or months, expecting up to five more years for historical perspectives to consolidate, and perhaps a further five for revisionism to take up the baton? Meantime, the ever-changing tabulating - Survey of proposed titles,[37] not yet closed- (adding, shifting, hiding, meta-stasing) is more muddling than helpful, in ways that others have already remarked, but may have helped to demonstrate the divergent range of views of !voters.[38] Qexigator 09:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC) revised) 10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC), Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czello: The information given by Chrisahn is what I based my assertion on. I would add these counts of occurrences in the article itself.
      • riot: 245 mentions with "capitol riot" 69 times
      • storm: 105 mentions with "storming of the capitol"(and derivations) 32 times
      • attack: 58 mentions with "capitol attack" 11 times
    The exact search term "Capitol riot" is the most common name for the January 6th event at the US Capitol. JaredHWood💬 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another approach yields basically the same results: Set region to US and language to English in a search for "capitol" on Bing news search or Google news search and count the terms used for the event in the headlines of the first 50 search results: "Capitol riot(s)": 70-80%; "Capitol attack": 20-25%; others (e.g. "Capitol insurrection"): less than 5% each. (I didn't count terms for perpetrators, but "Capitol rioters" is clearly most common.) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is what I have thought all along the article should be called. It is straightforward and easily understood; everybody knows what a "riot" is. Much preferable to "insurrection" or "storming," which could be challenging to those without fluent and well-educated English. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beat me to it. I would support the current suggestion. However, I would suggest United States Capital Attack is better. First, I think we need to understand what is actually WP:COMMONNAME. Doing a google news search and searching for the terms in title combined with Capital gives us, Riot used 67,700 times, attack is used 193,000 times, insurrection is used 15,400 times and storming is used 6,340 times. That is extremely strong evidence that the current title is not aligned with WP:COMMONNAME and we should use attack. Next we must weigh precision and disambiguation. I think what gets you there is United States Capital Attack. I don’t think you need a year, as what occurred isn’t common enough to confuse people. I do think you need to clue the reader into the country. I would argue that this title meets Wikipedia standards for a title far better then the current and, even through we just had a move discussion, we take the time to look at this again. As noted in the orginal move, this was a temporary solution.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your search is not convincing. You misspelled "Capitol", and for some reason you used "Capitol Hill" instead of Capitol. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is sad. Give me a second and I will fix it.Casprings (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And fixed. It’s the same results. Google is smart. That said, no one likes typos.Casprings (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also updated to be Capital versus Capital Hill. I would note, the overall result is the same. Attack is the the common name.Casprings (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your results are still totally weird. Maybe it's because you are still misspelling Capitol. Here's what I get, searching for each of the four words together with (quote marks) "U.S. Capitol". The result: Riot 84,300,000. Attack 82,700,000. Insurrecton 42,000,000. Storming 23,600,000. Riot and attack are the most common, but riot is slightly more used than attack. To the extent that Google searching means anything (debatable), riot is the common name. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is spelled right, if you click the links. What you are seeing is that I am searching to see if it is used in the title. That gives you a better idea of journalist are using it as a name.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, I see. Thank you for explaining that you were searching for the word in the title. I missed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Was originally just going to comment but as I typed my feelings became more clear. My concern is that the term "riot" doesn't really encompass the breaching of the building, or the specific political aims of those who did so. This wasn't just destruction of property, those leading the group were specifically searching for congresspeople to, seemingly, take captive or even execute, or at the very least to stop the electoral certification. The current title, "storming", shows more of that intent. "Attack" might also work. I like "insurrection", but I feel like that's unlikely to win an RM in any form given the last one. I guess I'll back "2021 United States Capitol attack" or variants for an RM per WP:COMMONNAME. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Obviously this was simply a riot—"storming" is laughably NPOV and clearly designed for dramatic effect. Equally important: the "riot" article ought not to include the speeches, marches, etc. that included many thousands of people. Now that we know that only about 800 people entered the Capitol,[39] and that the vast majority of those were peaceful and committed no crime at all, it's high time to put the numbers in perspective. These were the actions of what's likely less than 150 bad actors—out of tens of thousands of people in DC on January 6 for a day of peaceful marches, speeches, and protests. Lumping this together with the larger events of the day completely distorts the truth of what happened. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary topic of this article is the violent attack on the capital by white supremacist extremists and other far-right actors. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to minimize that, or the culpability of those involved in the day's events. Given your talk page admonitions regarding edits at Race and intelligence, I would discourage other editors from taking your attempts to do so in good faith. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If more such comments appear, it will mean that "riot" is trending as a revisionist term. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary topic of this article is not a violent attack on Washington DC (as had happened several times 2015-2016 and at the time of Trump's inauguration[40]} but a riotous intrusion on the Congress building and its debating chambers so as to disrupt the proceedings of the Senate and House while in session. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural close is not appropriate, as the embargo was only on "insurrection" nominations. The closer specifically says "Other move requests (like "Riots," etc.) may be launched immediately.". BlackholeWA (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Irregardless of the previous RM closer opinion, it is MY opinion that the previous RM discussion stand for 30 days. We cannot keep junking up the article with RM tags and perpetual RM discussions -- it's disruptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, although I think(?) that procedural closures only apply to processes closed because the process itself violates a given rule/procedure rather than due to editor consensus. Maybe there'll be basis for a snow close, but too early for that I think. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. 1. "Capitol riot" is closer to WP:COMMONNAME than any other term, as lots of data about usage in WP:RS provided during #Requested move 16 January 2021 has shown. 2. It's true that "riot" isn't very specific and doesn't encompass all aspects of the event – in particular the political goals of the perpetrators – but other terms (e.g. "attack", "storming", "insurrection") would be slightly off in other ways. 3. It's probably best to keep the year in the title for now. "Capitol riot" is close to a WP:COMMONNAME, but it's not yet the name for the events of January 6, 2021. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose come on. the current title is fine and more descriptive of what is the most well-known facet of the attack. We should move-protect this page. 777burger talk contribs 23:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is already move-protected. It won't be moved unless and until consensus is reached here, and then an admin will have to move it. That does not prevent discussion, since a lot of people don't think the current title is "fine". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Descriptive is not the right adjective here. In general, the title needs to convey "what", not "what did it look like". and if there's a real and specific word for that "what", that is sufficiently common – that is the best choice for the name. — Alalch Emis 01:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging MelanieN; I don't know the procedure on 2 RfC's. Also, should "attack" be capitalized? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That could have been done in the form of Option A/B (Support A / Support B / Oppose (both)), Somedifferentstuff. I don't think it's a good idea, but that's how it can be done. — Alalch Emis 00:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch Emis: See this RM as an example of how to suggest and maintain a table of proposed titles all users can vote for. -> Talk:List_of_works_similar_to_the_2020_Utah_monolith#Proposed_Titles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be a worthwhile approach, although it makes me wish we'd taken it in the last RM. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. As for whether "attack" should be capitalized, no it shouldn't. As for whether it is allowable to run more than one RfC at a time, I can't answer that one. My hunch (speaking as just another editor, not an admin) is that it would be best to finish with one before starting another. And that there is no ban on starting another right away unless the closer imposes a moratorium - which they specifically didn't in this case. As Alalch Emis suggests, it is not uncommon to have RMs with more than one choice, but in my experience they rarely result in consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: since there is so much diversity of opinion it may be impossible to hold an up-or-down vote on any single choice. Maybe something like the below table, where all the choices are presented and people can register themselves as "prefer", "accept", and "oppose", would be the best way to narrow down the community's actual preferences. Just a thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch Emis: Insurrection was discussed. It is known that it will not gain consensus. There was storming, there was rioting, there was attacking, and there was insurrection, but the title has to be set based on Wikipedia policies. I urge you to support this title based on NCE and COMMONNAME. Perfect is the enemy of good. JaredHWood💬 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus against "insurrection" there just wasn't enough consensus for "insurrection". Per my calculations, in the future this article will bear "insurrection" in the title, there's a way to go. — Alalch Emis 00:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ribbet32, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. "Riot" does not convey that the Capitol building was breached. It might just have been a rioting mob in the grounds. I support options like "storming" or "attack" which convey the violent breach of the building. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WWGB, there is a Table of consensus for proposed titles below where you can choose your preferred title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The table below will not represent "consensus", it is just a bank of votes. That table has no relevance to this RM, which is purely about ONE requested change. The table just serves to cloud this standalone issue. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support riot, then attack, then protests in that order. Oppose any charged language such as storming or insurrection or infiltration or anything else charged someone may come up with. I have no strong preference for the year being included or not, but I feel that it should likely be omitted if possible - i.e. if "riot" is chosen, to my knowledge, no other event could potentially qualify as a Capitol riot, thus omit - but attack would require the year as the Capitol was attacked prior - same with protests. My !vote for is based on WP:COMMONNAME - as those three seem to be equally prevalent in my view. My !vote against is per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME - we cannot use charged words such as storming, and in fact none of the "charged" language being proposed are even remotely near common name. I'll point out to all that this is not a vote - the table is useless, as just as the admin who closed the last move discussion brought up - it's not even necessary to count votes and any such counts may be wholly ignored if there are stronger policy reasons on one side. I also feel that any vote for "insurrection" specifically (without any other options) should be struck - the admin who closed the last RM made it clear that there is a discretionary arbitration sanction on this article for at least one month for moving it to that title - thus this discussion, by definition, cannot even remotely entertain the title "insurrection". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Due to fact that "riot" is more a plural word "riots" rather than singular instead. Many sources like The Daily Telegraph and Hindustan Times refers it as "riots" (plural) instead "riot" (singular). Most riots article have standardized word (XXXX [city or place] riots) such as 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 England riots, etc. Aside from this, the current title is till better for now. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but 2021 Riots at the United States Capitol would be better.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. (Given that COMMONNAME is use by the requester, I will explain with quotes.) Under COMMONNAME, Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Use commonly recognizable names, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The issue with 2021 United States Capitol riot is using the word riot. It fails WP:CONSISTENT of CRITERIA, The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. Using riot would not be consistent with events like King-assassination riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots which were events that mostly took place of city streets. By contrast, this event occurred on the grounds and inside the Capitol. Additionally, there are sources that question what we should call the event: 1, 2, 3, 4. This seems to go against there being a single, common description for what happened. However, using a description that waters down what happened does not seem to be the best way forward. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Update: Oppose using Attack as well - Honestly, this proposal has fallen apart with the removal of options from the table below. I believe that using attack is trying to water down what happened along with counting sources like "Attack on the Capitol", "attack on Capitol", and "in attack on Capitol" as equal to the proposed "Capitol Attack". If anything, I believe that using attack would violate WP:CONSISTENT as riot does above, in addition to WP:Precision as it is ambiguous over what attack refers to. It also isn't made clear how using attack would follow WP:NCE: When the incident happened is 2021, Where the incident happened is the United States Capitol, What happened is attack. What attack happened though isn't clear by the title. At least riot incorrectly tried to explain what the event was. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But it's a step up from storming. Attack is the genus for insurrection (obv. the right term), and even though incredibly imprecise, still correct. Storming is not correct (omits crucial facts and aspects that fall outside of what is generally understood by "storming"). I completely share your rationale for opposing "attack", but the same rationale in my case renders a "neutral" position. — Alalch Emis 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not easy to see how using 'attack' in the article's name could be NPOV acceptable here (that is, outside contentious political or media lanuage). Templates at the pagetop use the words 'personal attacks'. The link mentions that There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack, but some types of comments are never acceptable. Much the same could be said of 'attack' relating to the violently riotous conduct that has occurred at the federal and other Capitols. So let us look and see whether Wikipedia's Attack helps. Top of the list is 'Warfare and combat', and the others are not relevant here. Of the six W&C, the nearest is Offensive (military), while 'Offensive' links to 'Fighting words'. None of that seems to be better suited to renaming this article. Use of 'attack' in the name would be literary overkill, unsuited to an encyclopedia, except as a redirect. Qexigator (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I again would make the point above. Look at what WP:RS are using in their title of their articles. This is using google news search and looking at articles titles.
    That is a very good logic to use attack. Moreover, this is one of the most important events to occur. I think we can drop the year.Casprings (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The current title is better than the proposed one. "Riot" vs "protest" are both more subjective terms, while "storming" is a more objective and descriptive term. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The word "riot" does not fully capture what happened. It strikes me that riots tend to be more spontaneous, often without any planning or direct incitement, and can sometimes be relatively trivial (such as riots that follow sporting events). My experience of watching lots of TV news over the past two weeks is that this event is not being described by reliable sources as a riot. I would rather we waited to change the name of the article until a term asserts itself beyond Wikipedia by public consensus -- much in the way that the US terrorist attacks of September 2001 were not right away called "9/11" but only coalesced as that name after some time had passed. (Yes, before anyone asks, I do know that's not the title of the Wikipedia article about 9/11.) In the meantime, I think "storming" is an apt (or apt enough for now) description of what occurred. Moncrief (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I agree with the comment above. "Riot" is not an all-encompassing description and fully-accurate description of what happened. Also there is precedent on Wikipedia for the use of the word storming. See: 2020 storming of the Kurdistan Democratic Party headquarters, Storming of the Bastille among others. - kyyl0 :) (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. A riot - as defined by Oxford Languages - is "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." This was more than a riot, this was an organized assault on a seat of government. Whether or not the majority of the mob intended to breach the Capitol is immaterial, the breach happened, people died, legislators and their staff and various police & security personnel on site were in serious fear of life and limb. Guns were drawn on the floor of the House Chamber - this was a much more serious event than "a riot". Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Moncrief. Love of Corey (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A "riot" could mean anything from an unruly protest to an armed coup. "Storming" is a more descriptive term that describes what happened (the building was breached and people unlawfully stormed it). 🌳QuercusOak🍂 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, storming of the Capitol is factually what happened, riot is an inadequate description of the breach of a government building.Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 'The Table for consensus' that has now been posted is more likely to add confusion than otherwise. It shows that so far there is little agreement for any other title, and the comments on this page, and as archived, show that support for any other title is based on divergent thoughts about the meaning of any of the proposed alternatives. it is quite clear that riots can be more severe and deadly than 2021 at the federal Capitol, such as the Gordon Riots, the March Unrest and many others, such as those mentioned in 11 of history’s biggest riots and why they happened.[41]Support While still unsure But in the case of 2021 at the Capitol, 'storming' is also acceptable, and at least second best or maybe first equal of any so far proposed. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC) revised Qexigator (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The proposed title is certainly better supported than the current title. Protesters storm the capitol a lot. BLM did it back in June. It wasn't even that big a news story at the time. 5440orSleep (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BlackholeWA "Protesters storm the capitol a lot" ... another comment of the said type. — Alalch Emis 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A riot is what it was, and its supported by numerous RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It should be noted that most or all of the above discussion occurred when the proposed move was to "riot". I don't know what to make of the "update" which now proposes a move to "attack", or when exactly it was added. Adding a new proposed title in the middle of the discussion has completely muddled the discussion. It means that when people above talk about "the proposed title" it may be unclear what proposal they are talking about. Bottom line, this RM is probably now confused beyond repair. The "table" below is also misleading if not worthless - because we don't know in what context people were responding, when they posted the comment they are tallied as making. For most of the above discussion this was presented as a two-fold choice, either "riot" or the existing "storming". "Attack" was suggested by multiple people but was never discussed as a support-or-oppose proposal, so its popularity, or lack thereof, cannot be evaluated by the above discussion or the below table. (For my own part, I would accept "attack", still prefer "riot", and oppose "insurrection". But I don't think any decision can be made on the basis of this constantly-changing RM.) BTW I think the table idea may be a helpful approach, but it would have to be started from scratch and not as part of an existing RM. Also it should have three columns: "prefer", "accept", and "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Update has been removed as too many people have already commented when it was just discussing riot. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Somedifferentstuff! I agree with 99% of what MelanieN said. But since only one comment has been added after Jared.h.wood added the "attack" option and it clearly supports "riot" (Slatersteven above), I think we have repaired this RM and can finish it the usual way. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good Chrisahn Thumbs up icon -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. The RM may be salvageable. The table below is still a good concept, but it would have to be started over from scratch - since it currently tallies what people said in a "storming vs. riot" discussion, it does not reliably evaluate people's opinions about all the possible titles. But it could be a good general survey of people's opinions. It should only ask about what NOUN to use (riot, storming, attack, insurrection, etc.). Once the appropriate noun is chosen we can decide about details like including the year or not. It would not have to be a table; it might be more readable as a text sentence where people rank the choices, or describe the various options as "prefer", "accept", or "oppose". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree 100%. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree 100% with MelanieN and Chrisahn, substantive support for "attack" can be drawn from this and the previous RMs. The table covers everything needing covering at this stage (including year and phrasing detail). This RM should result in a move as there is consensus to move away from storming. This was better discussed in meta subsections below. — Alalch Emis 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. Maybe whoever closes the discussion will agree with you. As I said, this RM might be salvageable. The outcome here will be decided, not by my opinion or yours, but by an uninvolved closer. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there would need to be a group of closers to decide this, especially with the mess involved with the table. (Good idea, but the execution didn't work) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Agreed. This should be put out of its misery as soon as possible. Someday when I have more time, I'd like to try and figure out why there has been such a push to change the title of this article. What's so terrible about "storming"? Moncrief (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's bad about storming is that there is consensus to move away from it to a different name. Amazingly, that's why there is a push to change the title. Asking why storming is bad now after thousands of words of prior discussion where it was argued how it's bad (you don't have to agree but the answer is out there) is kinda bad form. — Alalch Emis 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, someday when I have more time, I'll try to read through the many thousands of words on this page to piece together the rationale. I didn't say the discussion wasn't out there; I said I didn't have time to try and figure it out right now. Moncrief (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Both this discussion and the table below are proving useful for gauging where editors are at regarding a title change. Many editors are sharing their thoughts/opinions, both here and below. Give it a chance, there's no rush on our way to eventually gaining a general consensus on an appropriate title for this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Somedifferentstuff: But there's no reason to have a discussion about a better title within the context of a RM, which has prescriptive timelines and is formatted to establish if there is consensus for a specific move. If you want to do a straw poll, call it a straw poll and stop trying to shoehorn it where it doesn't fit. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr:, that's a good point. Shall we separate the straw poll into a new section? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Somedifferentstuff: Removing the table would be OK, but moving it would be wrong. The table was filled by various users with data gleaned from this discussion. To avoid misrepresenting users' opinions, we would have to start from scratch. If we do that, we should take into account these three suggestions. But I think we shouldn't start another kind of vote. We have this messy RM, we've had that table, now we have an RfC (that more or less tries to achieve the same thing as the table)... a new table would only exacerbate the chaos. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a straw poll to separate. We have a table that represents a mix of votes and user names added to sections against their wishes. It should be tossed because it is not and will not be usable for anything. The RfC below fulfills the actual need. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A separate straw poll should've been started before, super useful when done correctly, but the fact that names were added to the table by other users is hilariously depressing. The RfC below is a hot mess that isn't going anywhere (unsurprisingly), but that's another story. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch Emis: as Bill Watterson said, a good compromise leaves everyone mad. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is equally a little mad for a brief while, and then everyone is generally happy. :) — Alalch Emis 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. "Riot" is a word that fails to convey the fact that the building was breached and invaded. "Storming" is adequate. "Coup attempt" and "insurrection" are plausible, indeed very plausible, interpretations of the intentions of those who stormed the Capitol, but then we enter into the realm of legal characterization and qualification of what happened (domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition, coup attemp, violent protest). Those qualifications are better discussed within the article and not as its title. So "storming" is better, and it is a word that does convey the gravity of what happened. Antonio Basto (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vastly oppose: "Riot" is a common word, a crowd of people behave violently in a public place, for example they fight, throw stones, or damage buildings and vehicles. They behave violently in a public place.
      An insurrection is violent action, rebellion, or revolt by a large group of people against the government and/or an established authority of their country, usually in order to remove them from office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "The Trump insurrection".... that literally made me laugh.... that is so biased.
    • Strong oppose. As per above, riot is non-specific, storming is far more accurate. Riot implies disordered chaos in public; Capitol was significantly more ordered in that it was a large number of people with a common goal, rather than wanton violence in the streets. Also, storming doesn't necessarily mean violence, it is near synonymous with overrun. Also, regardless of if protestors were peaceful, police officers were hurt in order for them to gain entrance, and they were trespassing; I'd say this warrants "storming". The article title is by no means perfect, but storming is about as good as we're going to get. Editor/123 21:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do I comment? Here or somewhere else? Here's my comment. The entirety of the event was not the storming. That is only part of it. A riot is more encompassing. So that is the 2nd choice. The best choice is protest because there were lots of people protesting, some of which didn't even enter the Capitol. If we look at BLM protest articles, they are deemed protests even if some had a component of looting. On the other hand, it is possible that some people may accuses anyone who supports "protests" as being a Trump suppporter, which is not true. Vowvo (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Vowvo: Sorry, the structure of this move request has become a bit confusing. I moved your comment here. To make clearly visible whether you support or oppose this request, please add a prefix like Support, Oppose or Comment. See the comments above yours for examples. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to "attack" title. I supported "riot" in the previous RM, and still prefer it to both "storm" and "insurrection" (which are less common and/or more POV), but this above discussion has convinced me that "attack" is the best as being clearer and more comprehensive, while still being relatively common. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've warmed on the idea of moving the page now.Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How many times have there been riots at the US Capitol, and/or how many times has the Capitol been stormed? In other words, it seems that the year in the article title may not be in line with article naming policy – that it may be excessively precise? -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohconfucius: a year is recommended per WP:NCE. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr:I think WP:NOYEAR applies here.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It only applies to insurrection, as these things already happened at least once: attack, storming, riot — Alalch Emis 03:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This event could be commonly referred to a year from now as the "January 6 [blank]," with no mention of the year but rather the month and day, à la the September 11 attacks. I wish we could wait to rename until some more time has passed and a national media naming consensus has emerged. Moncrief (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose riot. I was originally in favour, but Casprings has convinced me that it is not the common name. I support "Attack", as per the argument that it emphasizes the systematic intrusion inside the building instead of a rioting outside the building.--LordPeterII (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "it is not the common name"? "Capitol riot" is currently the most common name in WP:RS by a large margin. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chrisahn: I was referring to the google search comparison by Casprings above, where "attack" resulted in ~2x as many results as "riot". Of course this is only a quantitative assessment, and cannot tell if the weight of reliable sources might favour riot after a manual count. "Riot" is still the second most common name, so it's a valid consideration. But I'm hesitant because it also gives the impression of a "random" violent outburst, when in fact it seems like this incident was planned beforehand - attack would, imo, better show this. But it's a difficult decision, which probably is why reliable sources could not decide on a single name (riot/insurrection/attack) as well. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose there have been many proposals for a name change since this article was made and all of them failed. Just keep "storming", I don't understand what's wrong with this word. Super Ψ Dro 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose to riot. 'Storming' feels most apt in that it's probably the most consistent, commonly-used term for this incident. 'Attack' works as well. 'Insurrection' may be too heavy-handed, not neutral. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose riot. "Storming" seems good to me as descriptive, I'm also not opposed to "attack". "Insurrection" also feels emotionally laden as "riot" does, there are more neutral words that carry the same meaning without the baggage. --Jayron32 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Insurrection would be the first in WP:RS preponderance. Riot seems to come 2nd that way; "storming" was correct for WP:RS coverage when the last title change occurred, but there have been many WP:RS publications since then. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose move and strong support for the current title. The OP says that the article title should describe what the event is, which is what the current title does. It was a storming, which took place on the capitol. It may have been a riot, but that's a more general and less specific term, which doesn't encompass the specifics of what happened here. I would also say anecdotally from my own experience that "riot" implies something a bit less targeted than this. We had riots in London back in 2011, but that was largely mobs going around destroying property and setting fire to things. The events of Jan 6 had a specific goal of entering and perhaps taking control of the capitol by force. Again, attack does describe it, but is less specific than "storming" and I would oppose that too. I tentatively suggest this RM be closed down early, as it seems to be generating a lot of heat without there being much prospect of any consensus forming. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Insurrection is the most appropriate title. It's not a "storming" because most people are interested in staying outside, whether peacefully or not, and of those people, indeed, there are many who have chosen to remain peaceful. Insurrection will not force those who are not being violent to be included with those who are. Call it an insurrection and mention in-article the division, that there are a small group of the "protest" who have turned the effort into an insurrection, though they are just that, a small group within. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey of proposed titles

    (table meta-discussion is underneath – comments posted under this section title are moved to the bottom of the meta-discussion to keep table visible)

    Please add your suggestion for each proposed title. Feel free to propose other titles. Please remember this is not a substitute for discussion. You should still discuss your views in the discussion section above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

    You may only enter another user's (who didn't put their name in at all) name in the table if they have commented substantively and clearly in the discussion above, and do so in strict accordance to their advocacy. You may delete any name which doesn't have a corresponding comment. If you entered your name below, but only commented in a prior RM (and can't be bothered to make the same comment again), please make a comment in the discussion above in the form of "...per my comment in prior RM", or else someone could delete your name. Alalch Emis 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

    Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

    Please don't comment on the proposal in this section. Table meta-discussion is further below.— Alalch Emis 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed Article Titles
    No. Proposed Title(s) Support Oppose
    1 2021 storming of the United States Capitol @Octoberwoodland:
    @Dylanvt:
    @Rreagan007:
    @WWGB:
    @Antonio Basto:
    @Jayron32:
    @Moncrief:
    @Amakuru:    		 @Soibangla:
    @Alalch Emis:
    @Somedifferentstuff:
    @Casprings:
    @GreenMeansGo:
    @99.178.127.90:
    @MelanieN:
    @StAnselm:
    @Darryl Kerrigan:
    2 2021 United States Capitol riot
    2021 riots at the United States Capitol
    – year exclusion to be decided later
    – word order & riot/s to be decided later    		 @Jared.h.wood:
    @MelanieN:
    @Ekpyros:
    @Chrisahn:
    @Darryl Kerrigan:
    @Dylanvt:
    @Berchanhimez:
    @Casprings:    		 @Octoberwoodland:
    @BlackholeWA:
    @777burger:
    @Soibangla:
    @Ribbet32:
    @WWGB:
    @Alalch Emis:
    @Somedifferentstuff:
    @36.65.43.72:
    @Super Goku V:
    @Rreagan007:
    @Shearonink:
    @Antonio Basto:
    @99.178.127.90:
    @Jayron32:
    @LegendoftheGoldenAges85:
    @Amakuru:
    3 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol
    – year exclusion to be decided later
    – note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb    		 @Soibangla:
    @Alalch Emis:
    @Casprings:
    @Super Goku V:
    @Darryl Kerrigan:
    @99.178.127.90:
    @LegendoftheGoldenAges85:    		 @Chrisahn:
    @Somedifferentstuff:
    @Dylanvt:
    @WWGB:
    @MelanieN:
    @IP75:
    @StAnselm:
    @Jayron32:
    4 2021 United States Capitol attack
    2021 attack on the United States Capitol
    – year exclusion to be decided later
    – "domestic" inclusion & word order to be decided later    		 @BlackholeWA:
    @Octoberwoodland:
    @Somedifferentstuff:
    @Jared.h.wood:
    @Dylanvt:
    @Berchanhimez:
    @Casprings:
    @WWGB:
    @Anachronist:
    @Darryl Kerrigan:
    @IP75:
    @StAnselm:
    @LordPeterII:
    @Jayron32:    		 @Soibangla:
    @Super Goku V:
    @Amakuru:

    Survey of proposed titles – 24h w/o support

    Survey of proposed titles – 24h w/o support

    • Note: these options remain valid – table is split for technical reasons
    • Per analogy to WP:SNOW, and to make the table smaller and quicker to edit, these options were split after not gaining any support and gaining unanimous (except proposer) opposition during the first 24+ hrs. These are still valid options, and if you support them or oppose them you can put in your name, and give your rationale in the discussion above.
    Proposed Article Titles
    No. Proposed Title(s) Support Oppose
    5 The Trump insurrection
    – note: "insurrection" moratorium until 23 Feb    		 @Octoberwoodland: @Soibangla:
    @BlackholeWA:
    @Chrisahn:
    @Somedifferentstuff:
    @Jared.h.wood:
    @Dylanvt:
    @Casprings:
    @WWGB:
    @Moncrief:
    @Super Goku V:
    @Darryl Kerrigan:
    @99.178.127.90:
    @Ben8142:
    @MelanieN:
    @IP75:
    @StAnselm:
    @Jayron32:
    6 2021 United States Capitol protests @Berchanhimez: @Casprings:
    @Somedifferentstuff:
    @WWGB:
    @BlackholeWA:
    @Shearonink:
    @Alalch Emis:
    @Super Goku V:
    @Darryl Kerrigan:
    @99.178.127.90:
    @Ben8142:
    @MelanieN:
    @IP75:
    @Jayron32:

    Table meta: similar title consolidation

    Table meta: similar title consolidation

    @Darryl Kerrigan: Please consider removing your proposal from the table, it's too similar to the existing one. It can't be riots (plural) instead of riot, because "riots" means the event lasted multiple days, or there were riots in several locations, and if this is treated as a riot, then it's just a riot – singular. Word order should not form a separate table entry in my opinion (just my opinion). I consolidated my entry with another users' to make the table easier to work with, it's really important. Your preferred exact wording is still listed in your comment, that the closing admin will read. — Alalch Emis 04:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We should allow any editor the freedom to propose any title they wish. They need to have this freedom. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it will work then.
    Also admin talked about year exclusion presenting as a (potentially) separate issue — Alalch Emis 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It will work. calm down. Also, don't archive the discussion below this one. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't resist the urge to do it. It's better now. — Alalch Emis 05:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Casprings: Please consider consolidating your "riot" and "attack" proposal with the existing one by adding the "– year exclusion to be decided later" comment like I did for my proposal.

    Yes, this would be helpful. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it for his "attack" with no oppose and 1 (his) support. — Alalch Emis 05:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    List of consolidated titles
    List of consolidated titles
    returned when "2021 domestic attack on the United States Capitol" was changed to it – still no supporting comment and can be removed
    • 2021 domestic attack on the United States Capitol – done by: (?)

    Table Meta-discussion

    Table meta discussion

    Octoberwoodland VQuakr Berchanhimez It doesn't have to be construed as a vote. The table can be supplementary/consultative and/or a mere aid – there could be a precondition that you must make a substantive comment first. The table is hard to edit because of conflicts however. I think this needs to be discussed more. People posting in it so far have all input their comments first, and everyone seems to like the table, and uses it in good faith. — Alalch Emis 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not collapse the table but I agree with the collapsing. Tables are only useful when there is no policy-based question to answer (i.e. voting on a subjective/arbitrary coloring/etc). The admin (or other person) who eventually closes is free to use a table they create - but having a "running table" encourages people to "pile on" to options which appear to have more !votes, and encourages people to !vote without reading the entire discussion. I am not aware of any policy explicitly prohibiting a table, but the potential negative impact on the discussion is that even if a consensus emerges, the question will always remain: "did the presence of the table unduly influence some people's discussion and/or the close itself" - and beyond that "was the table ever accurate given that anyone can edit". I do not feel that this RM requires a table, nor do I feel it provides any beneficial addition, and I encourage everyone to discuss on their own. I will not be adding my name to any table, and I encourage others who support discussion to also not allow their name to be used in such a table - as the discussion is what's important, not any preliminary/early "vote tallying". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna add as a separate comment that I believe the table was originally created/added to by anyone who did do so in good faith - I simply disagree that it's even useful, and think it may be potentially harmful to have continue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These reasons are not solid enough. Table should stay for 3 days, and then it can be closed if abused. It's easy to see if people post in it without making a substantive comment first. Table helps determine interest for alternatives. There appears to be consensus to move away from "storming". — Alalch Emis 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was absolutely not a consensus to remove the table. It does not have to be taken as a straight vote, but as a manner of measuring support for particular candidate titles. It is a method that has worked well for other RMs and was embraced by the nominator. Why has it been unilaterally closed with no discussion? BlackholeWA (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't need to be consensus, this is firm discretionary terrain. The table is very novel and runs counter to decision of closing admin from previous RM. BUT it's not bad, it should be researched. — Alalch Emis 03:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least there should be a venue to put forth titles on equal terms instead of RM instigators simply choosing their favourite to headline each RM. The table worked well at that purpose. If people also comment their rationale I see no reason not to include it. This is WP:NOTAVOTE but let's be real - consensus will ultimately fall along the lines where the most editors are convinced and chip in in support. Policy should take precedent over that, but that still gives us several fairly evenly placed options, such as attack, insurrection, and maybe riot, which all have WP:COMMONNAME arguments etc BlackholeWA (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The table is useful for determining consensus of multiple titles, which is allowed according to WP RM policy for WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and allows editors to quickly glance over possible titles. It's extremely useful for getting editors to reach consensus quickly with a complex subject which may have many title options. I have used it in other RM discussions and it is extremely useful and it works. It's not a substitute for discussion, but who feels like reading over 500K of confusing and contradictory comments to attempt to glean an editor's viewpoint. WP:RM closing instructions clearly state that multiple titles are required to be considered, and removing the tool which is being used to easily determine that and relegating all of us to RM one title at a time will result in this article being in perpetual RM mode -- which is has been in near continuous RM status since it was created. Editors must be allowed to dialogue on potential titles and not be stifled by a minority who disagree. So please restore the table, it's a valuable tool and we need it to determine the best title. If anything, that table will result in more discussion as new titles are proposed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The table is functionally in line with the less novel Option A/B method which was recommended by earlier admin, and we're still in the same process, just a later stage. Yeah, someone with enough authority just needs to add two and two — Alalch Emis 03:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen so far, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I see too many people giving their own opinions without regard to WP:POLICY. I personally like the table idea, but I see that in an official RM it exacerbates the problem and does not aid in determining consensus based on sound reasoning. Is there a proper channel for the RM to close early? With some users vehemently advocating titles like "The Trump Insurrection" and others accepting nothing but "The Mostly Peaceful Protest" I don't see how anything reasonable can prevail at this time. JaredHWood💬 03:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I advocate for anyone !voting for "insurrection" to have that portion of their comment, or if they only mention "insurrection" the entire comment, struck from this discussion. This is not the place to overturn the prior requested move and discretionary moratorium. I will not be striking those comments myself as I do not feel I am the right person to do so, but I feel that any admin who happens across this discussion should likely do so. I'll also point out that a closers job is to read the entire discussion - not use such a table - and any !votes based on such a table are automatically "less valid" (but not invalid) - as they don't take into account the entire discussion. A table is not a dialogue - you are perfectly allowed to dialogue within the RM itself and the discussion of it - but a table is by definition not "dialogue". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The table will help us get consensus on a name. It's useful because it adds another metric, since it allows editors to select more than one choice. It also shows where editors will reject more than one choice. ignore all rules applies here. The opinion of a minority of editors attempting to impose excessive bureaucracy which is contrary to WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and which is preventing us from improving Wikipedia can be overruled by editor consensus. Removal of the table is overruled. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are more than capable of supporting more than one option, and opposing any/more than one option(s), in a discussion format, while explaining their choices in doing so based on policy/other discussion points. Ignore all rules does not apply here, as the table does not improve the encyclopedia, in fact it helps people violate our core principle of "consensus" for deciding things here. There is no "excessive bureaucracy" by requiring people to participate in a consensus building discussion rather than simply voting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The table instructions specifically state it is not a substitute for discussion and editors are still required to discuss their views. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; straw polling is not a problem, as long as it's used responsibly and in conjunction with discussion [42] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever added my name to the table (against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it) illustrates a prime example of why a table is both unreliable and unhelpful - they added my supports, but not my clear opposition to some of the names that are present there. I won't collapse/uncollapse the table, but I think that it shows clearly that the table could potentially be manipulated by someone who wants to show more/less support/opposition for something, because I don't think most people are going to be checking, and many may not even add their name to begin with. I don't think whoever added me did it in bad faith... but it goes to show how it's less than useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then change it. There is no rule that an editor may not come along and update it with your clear choices since it is not a vote but an informal tally. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This table should me removed, because it implies that we have a vote instead of striving to reach a consensus. The problem I see are the names as listed, suggesting what I see a vote count. Consensus, to editors not used reaching it, instead of the brute force of the numbers, is one in which a lonely editor, but with the better argument, gets the many to agree, what ever their initial position was. Any editor should refrain writing lines like "Oppose per other_editor" or "Support per other_editor" which as such are votes. Voting is editing like Committee, i.e. no neutrality, which is bad for a Encyclopedia. --Robertiki (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robertiki:I moved your comment here, because it's the correct section and we're not supposed to write comments in the table section (like someone before you did in bad form). Please read the above "meta" discussion, it's relevant to what you're saying. — Alalch Emis 05:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qexigator:The status quo option is the first option, which is the current title — Alalch Emis 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding others' names @Chrisahn: We can add others to the table. The table uses pings so people can remove their names. It's important to add people soon after they've added their comment, so as not to inconvenience them with pings too long after they've moved on to other things. You didn't do right to revert. — Alalch Emis 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above discussion of people who actually set the table up, which discussion ended with an uncontested assertion that other's names can be added, I will manually revert your revert. — Alalch Emis 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "uncontested assertion that other's names can be added" — That's bullshit. See e.g. this. But whatever. Add any names you like, I'm not going to revert them. It just means that the table will be completely useless because we don't know if people actually know that their names have been added, whether they know what that means, whether they would have chosen additional options, etc. This is getting silly. Sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well and otherwise you're doing a good job, but it looks you're getting carried away a bit... Well. No big deal. We'll have another RM in three to six days, I guess, and it will hopefully be less chaotic than this one. Take care! — Chrisahn (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You could read a little more carefully. against my specific request to not be included, but I will leave it – there is a general presupposition that other's votes are added, and what it takes for a vote not to be added is specific request (and the user whose name you removed did not make such a request). User you quoted did not contest that names are added, just expressed a doubt as to how it will work out in the end. Thanks, you too! — Alalch Emis
    • Comments on top of the table

    The following instructions express the opinion of one user. There is no consensus on what to do with this survey. Several users have argued it should be deleted. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And the instructions are unsigned! Who wrote them? Of all the things to be unsigned! Moncrief (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chrisahn Moncrief I moved your comments to the appropriate section. The first paragraph of the instructions was written by whoever put the table in, and the other two paragraphs are written by Chrisahn and me, who reformulated his concern by expanding on the existing instruction. The way I reformulated it is strictly based on the above discussion, so be so kind to look it over. Comments can't be put in that section on top of the table, but below – here. This is to save space and to not actively demotivate people from entering their names. No one has a right to obstruct the current set up. If this keeps being a problem it just means we have a dispute, and we'll resolve it accordingly. — Alalch Emis 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these other two paragraphs were NOT written by me and you. I had no part in writing them. You deleted what I had written and replaced it (not "reformulated") by something very different. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, and I answer this further below — Alalch Emis 22:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    May we know who wrote the instructions below? It's customary on Wikipedia to sign any post. Moncrief (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Moncrief: Looks like multiple editors; OctoberWoodland started it out, and it was expanded by Alalch Emis. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I answered this in the meta discussion below. I "technically" expanded it but it was a logical reformulation of a concern expressed by Chrisahn, and I did it to accomodate his concern but he keeps posting here, as well as Moncrief. I raised the issue regarding comments in this section here. Can you help, Anachronist? Comments posted here cause only more comments to be posted, even such that should be in the pertinent discussion above. I've moved one or two. — Alalch Emis 21:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these instructions are NOT "a logical reformulation" of what I had written. I said that several names in this table have been added by others. You replaced that by your ideas of when it's OK to add others' names to the table. That's something very different. But thanks for finally signing your stuff. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's saying that the sky is blue. Of course people have been putting and will be putting others' names in, per the functionality of the table tally method that uses pings; it's already been proofed for this purpose. Your scaremongering comment adds absolutely nothing but erode trust in the process, and doesn't deserve to hold the distinguished spot of being the first thing people see when they arrive to this section, put in their name, and move on with their life. But I still valued your comment in good faith looking for it's best possible meaning – an expression of a relatively valid concern that peoples' names will be entered when it doesn't coincide with their true intent. A logical consequence of this is making sure this doesn't happen by adding clear instructions. — Alalch Emis 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals

    Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals

    Guys we just had a RM close. This RM should be closed, for the same reason that a 4th revert at 24 hours 5 minutes would still be in violation of the 3RR. Rather than endless churning move proposals, let's focus on the article content and have a RM after a clear name for this event has emerged. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been my view from the get go, but I figured it might be worthwhile to get consensus on a title. It appears we have a winner - "2021 United States Capitol attack". Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, we just learned there is definitely rough consensus to move away from "storming". Hard to simply put a stop on everything now, seeing that people feel there is room for improvement. Incremental progress good. — Alalch Emis 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that, over time, we will settle on "attack" as the action word, but still need to work through alternatives like 2021 attack on the United States capitol, 2021 United States Capitol attack, Attack on the United States Capitol and United States Capitol attack. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything with "attack" requires the year, as there have been attacks in history other than this one. That being said, the more concise will always win, thus "attack on the" will fail to "attack" always. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Let's get an admin in here and move the page and close the RM with "2021 United States Capitol attack". After that all of us should agree to a 30 day moratorium on further RM requests. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with that, despite attack lacking specificity. Better than "storming" after all (bombing? attempted hostage taking?). Insurrection is a more specific form of attack. It has a little bit of bearing here too. Semantically speaking, we're standing on a more common ground. Year issue is neutralized with "attack" which helps a lot, and it's short. — Alalch Emis 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nominator is there anything I can do to assist in closing the RM early or making "riot" or "attack" a valid option for support? JaredHWood💬 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We just need to ask an admin to move the page for us. We could request it an WP:AN Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can do it J.h.wood. Don't alter the original request to retroactively infuse "attack" — Alalch Emis 06:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think any admin will move a page on the outcome of a straw poll. The above RM was about changing storming to riot, nothing else. I think you will need a fresh RM to have the page moved to attack. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin is not going to move the article title based on the very limited discussion here. (Am I reading correctly the request above?) You'd need to do a fresh RM with that specific proposal. Moncrief (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of these statements conform to what WP:NOGOODOPTIONS says. A closing admin MUST consider other proposed titles and consensus for those titles. We don't need to keep having RM discussions over and over again with this article. Let's put to rest the title for good (at least for the next 30 days). :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need a new RM. Admin needs to get a feel on the nature of the naming controversy beforehand and read everything (all of the big RMs: the storming one, the insurrection ones /the abortive very early but not insubstantial one too/ and this one). He needs to look at arguments present here, which are ok. Then he needs to look at things in context and understand what caused the lack of consensus-forming in the last RM. He will be able to notice that "attack" is simply a genus proximus for "insurrection" (unlike "riot" which isn't a type of attack). Then, based on the prevailing support (rough consensus) for this agency-driven semantic pole of the naming matter, as opposed to entropy-driven ("riot"; "storming" is in the middle but there is consensus to move away from it) admin can concede there there is a rare window of opportunity for precious incremental progress, and do the move. Then the torrent of RMs stops. Later it could only be a linear issue of whether to go from "attack" to a more specific type of attack, except storming. — Alalch Emis 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say an admin couldn't move the article title without an RM. I said I think that an admin is not going to do so. I say this due to the level of user participation and interest in discussing the title of this article. Moncrief (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather have a 6-month moratorium for moving this page in order to prevent any distruptive page move in the future and makes the article more stable. 36.65.43.72 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The option to support attack has been added. Thanks for all your innovative ideas and discussion on this. I am hopeful this option will move the discussion toward consensus. JaredHWood💬 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jared.h.wood: I'm afraid that's not going to work. There are dozens of "support" and "oppose" comments already, but they support/oppose "riot", not "attack". Could you remove the option to support "attack"? It's only adding more confusion. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chrisahn is correct. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought an RFC with options might be a better means to gain consensus here. I opened one at the bottom of the page.Casprings (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's great that it looks like we might be able to agree on "attack", but we should try to do it in an at least somewhat orderly fashion. Otherwise we might have a WP:move review soon. Let's find a title that we can live with for at least three to six months. Let's finish this RM for "riot" first. Maybe it doesn't have to run for the full seven days if it's clear there's not enough support. But I think three days should be the minimum. After that, we can start a new RM for "attack". If it gets enough support, we might be able to finish it sooner than in seven days as well. We've had "storming" for 17 days now. We can live with it for another week or so. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn’t start a move request. I started an RFC. Can’t move review an RFC. The point of the RFC is to bring order to this. Need clear votes and options if this will move forward.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't responding to you, but to the discussion in this section "Proposal - One-month moratorium on move proposals" in general. I indented your comment like the ones above it to make that clearer. I hope that's OK. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft follow on move request to collaborate on

    As an effort to move this process forward, I would ask assistance from editors in making a move request on United States Capitol attack as strong as possible. Below is my draft. I think it is clear that attack has some support, and it is the most likely alternative. I suggest that we work together to make it a strong request and allow this exercise in consensus building to come to a close.

    A note for whoever closes this move request. Many editors desire a moratorium on move requests. I would suggest this will short circuit the process to build consensus and is not needed. I intend to offer the move request below, with edits from other editors when the current move request closes. A moratorium simply delays the process of building a lasting consensus.Casprings (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft Move Request for United States Capitol attack

    Reasons to use the verb "attack."

    1. Attack meets Wikipedia:COMMONNAME better than any other verb. Using a google news search and only looking at the titles, one can see that writers use the term attack in WP:RS news sources more than other words. One note on methodology, I think only searching in the title is the best means to understand what WP:RS are naming the event.

    ·   attack is used 193,000 times

    ·   Riot used 67,700 times

    ·   insurrection used 15,400 times

    ·   storming used 6,340 times

    2. Attack is inherently a neutral word but captures the significance of the event. Attacks can be negative or positive, depending on the circumstances—for example, the Attack on Pearl Harbor versus Art Attack. In sum, attack best meets WP:NPV.

    Reasons not to use "storm."

    1. As the results show, storm is a terrible choice for Wikipedia:COMMONNAME.

    2. Storm is not the right choice for WP:NPV. First, I would note the connection of the word storm to QAnon. Second, I would note the links the participants made between the event and Storming of the Bastille. For example, a quote from the New York Times, here.

    It's like the Storming of the Bastille as recreated by the cast of National Lampoon's Animal House. These photos will outlive us all

    — Ben Sixsmith

    Given the historical circumstances, the word storm maximizes seeing the events in a positive light.

    Reasons to not include the year

    1. Wikipedia:NOYEAR applies here. As the event is closer to Chernobyl disaster as far as a historical event. As the policy says, "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historical perspective, the event is easily described without it." Using a year is a judgment call, but I suggest the year is not needed.


    Attack is under attack, not favourite see comment above, Revision as of 16:37, 25 January.[43] Qexigator (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt 100% will support, but I think it is the best candidate to gain enough support. Right now, I am just focused on making a good request. It will go where it goes.Casprings (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "As the results show": What results? If you are trying to persuade people to join your point of view, please be as transparent as possible. To what results are you referring here? No one, to my knowledge, has suggested the word "storm" to describe these events, so a comparison to the QAnon slogan "The storm is coming" is, frankly, rather absurd. "Storming" is not the same as "storm." Moncrief (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The ing makes storm its inflected form. I think it is still important, given the number of QAnon supporters who took part in the event.Casprings (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The year should definitely be included with the attack wording. Although it was ambiguous with "storming", there have definitely been other events involving the Capitol that could be reasonably described as attacks. A cursory search brings up the 1983 United States Senate bombing, during which "an explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol's north wing", and the Burning of Washington, during which "British forces set fire to multiple government and military buildings, including the White House (then called the Presidential Mansion), the Capitol building". As further disambiguation is required beyond the location, the year should be included per the "when" recommendation of WP:NCE. As such I remain in support of the wording "2021 United States Capitol attack", as I originally put forward in the consensus table. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, for the reason that we have no idea how this attack will be described six months or a year from now. No one calls 9/11 "the 2001 attacks." It's very possible that this event will be referred to in the future by its day and month, rather than its year. It's for this reason, among others, that I think the rush to rename this article is short-sighted. Moncrief (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has to have a name, and in lieu of access to a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we must go with the current commonly used names and article naming recommendations that are based on providing a clear, concise, and disambiguated title. If some more appropriate name emerges in the future we can hold a further RM at such a time as that occurs. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And, for the record, people absolutely do call them the "September 2001" attacks, at least in the UK. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the consensus, I would put the year in the title. Though I still don't think it is needed.Casprings (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC to gain consensus for a follow-on Wikipedia:RM

    Move requests are the domain of WP:RM. There should not be two concurrent RMs open at the same time, which is what this RfC effectively is doing. The entire set up (quasi-RM RfC) is too unconventional and shouldn't be repeated again. El_C 04:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This RFC is meant to gain consensus for a follow-on Wikipedia:RM. The current title was, per the closer, a temporary solution. Current discussion and a currently open move request concerns the use of riot, attack, or storming. I would ask that you vote on the following choices and, if you favor two or more, to rank your votes.

    • Choice A Use the term attack, as in the title 2021 United States Capitol attack
    • Choice B Use the term riot, as in the title 2021 United States Capitol riot
    • Choice C Use the term storming, as in the current title.

    Second, a yes or no question:

    Discussion

    • Support both Choice A and Choice B, in that order. Oppose keeping Choice C. On the second question, no, the title does not require the year.
    Doing a title search on google news gives you clear results on what WP:RSes are naming the event
    riot used 67,700 times,
    attack is used 193,000 times,
    storming is used 6,340 times.
    That is good evidence, to me, that both riot and attack are acceptable, but attack is slightly better. I would also note the connection of storm and the QAnon.
    No. For the year vote, I would argue that the event is notable enough that it does not require a year and excluding it better meets the standards of WP:TITLE. I think WP:NOYEAR works here because of the importance of the event. Casprings (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V: I would be curious how attack fails either one of the policies you mentioned.Casprings (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Same thought here. Can you explain how WP:CONSISTENT in particular applies? VQuakr (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a typo, has been fixed
    Grammer wise, it should be capitol as it is a reference to the building (see: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capital-vs-capitol/) That said, I don’t think that should take away from the overall argument and if there are other grammer arguments, we can discuss them. That hasn’t been the major hang up in gaining consensus.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    reely??? — Alalch Emis 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. A Capitol is the word for the building. Capital is the word for the city where the building is.Casprings (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Casprings: In Choice B, you had written 2021 United States Capital riot. That's why Qexigator asked. I've fixed it. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chrisahn: Thank you. Sorry I missed that.Casprings (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thanoscar21: You can vote for attack right away, there is an actual RM for attack (and other names) right above. This RfC is potentially misleading in how it's framed. It promises a "follow-on RM" but it's very possible that the result of this RfC will have no bearing on it, because the current RM could have a lasting effect and determine the future of the naming process, if any. — Alalch Emis 02:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no RM for "attack". There's an RM for "riot". This talk page is such a mess... — Chrisahn (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Meta-Discussion

    I think this RFC should be closed. We have a RM discussion above. Then someone added a table. Then someone closed the table. Then someone opened it again. This RFC asks the same question as the table, just in a different format. It will only make the discussion even less focused. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. It asks it in a way that people have to make clear choices and rank their choices. Moreover, it expands the discussion beyond the people taking part in the move and takes it out to a wider population of Wikipedia editors. In sum, more editors and more structure.Casprings (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfC absolutely should be closed as I stated above. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this RfC is made in good faith but is not helpful at this time and should be closed. There are suggestions above for a more general survey of proposed titles that may prove to be more helpful. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MelanieN you seem to be soft- forum shopping (buying support) for your negativist view of the current RM by evading substantive discussion on its' reach and functioning where that discussion is actually being held (the long "meta" subsection underneath the table). The current RM is the more general survey. — Alalch Emis 16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch Emis: Whoa there. Calm down. I really appreciate your contributions to the current and previous RM. Good job! But this comment looks like you should take a breath and relax. We all may not always agree on how to make sure that these messy discussions remain productive, but there's no reason to accuse other editors of stuff like that. Take it easy. Or at least a bit more easy. :-) Cheers! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RFC’s typically stay open for 30 days. I think we know enough about the various fault lines. It seems pretty clear that the current move request is moving towards no consensus. There is no reason we can’t use this to get a clear poll and finish or do other move requests as consensus develops.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already mentioned, this RfC will not be helpful; it should be closed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not clear at all that the current RM is moving toward no consensus. — Alalch Emis 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it does, so what? I support a move to riot over the current title. Still a decent way to move towards a long term name.Casprings (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Somedifferentstuff: No, close the RM instead. It's FUBAR. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: I was attempting to work with you, but we'll have to agree to disagree. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The table is more easy to read, the RFC does not include "insurrection".... it should be added to Choice D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.127.90 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I excluded that because of the last RFC that used that term. It had its own RFC, so I didn't see the need.Casprings (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Using list-defined refs?

    I'd like to consider using list-defined references on this article. I've noticed a lot of references get orphaned due to editor error, and list-defined references mitigate this issue. Additionally, list-defined refs help make the Wikitext more readable. Any thoughts? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please no. List-defined references are a pain. You need to search all up and down the article to find or add a reference - insert it here, cite it there - instead of being able to do all your research and citing within the space of a single section. The references are entered in random order down in the list; good luck finding the one you want to view or edit, in an article with 470 references. And if you remove a text citation, the reference remains in the list as an orphan. Also, although this doesn't affect me, I see that list-defined references do not work for anyone using the visual editor. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Named references, on the other hand, can be quite easy to use (I don't use visual editor). The ref stays with the content, and is removed upon the last use of the ref. See Remove numbering from id/href when reference name is defined on MediaWiki. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New reidirect

    Should 2021 United States Capitol insurrection redirect here? They are both about the same topic anyways. - Cilabsuhsk (talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind. There already is. - Cilabsuhsk (talk | contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Day of Broken Glass" listed at Redirects for discussion

    A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Day of Broken Glass. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Day of Broken Glass until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FBI report that the capitol assault was preplanned

    Every media outlet has reported in a statement by the FBI that there is evidence the assault on Capital Hill on January 6th 2021 was pre-planned. Few actors have been revealed. It is misinformation on the part of Wikipedia to publish a blanket statement that this assault was carried out by an angry mob of Donald Trump supporters. One man, John Sullivan, who posted numerous videos on fb and twitter under his moniker "InsurrectionUSA" was instructional videos with specific details on what to do on January 6th. Time. What to wear. What to bring. When and where to meet. He was arrest and charged with inciting something that day, and released without bail. Jillnage (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Breaking news items aren't always incorporated into articles immediately. But we can't report allegations made in indictments as fact, either. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Section above headed "Refs in lead and 'Prior intelligence' section (Oath Keepers)" mentions edits intended to include some reference to this in the lead, including my edit at 23:31, 22 January, with a few words added to the first paragraph, to read "Some rioters had earlier planned aggressive action, [refs] and the riot led to the evacuation and lockdown of the Capitol, and five deaths". with the edit summary necessary link in the abbreviated sequence of events. [44]This is still open for discussion. Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1002760949"