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

Template:Vital article

Ashli Babbitt

{{adminstats|Yamla}} Will you please add information regarding the unarmed female air force veteran citizen Ashli Babbit they shot and killed in the 2021 Capital siege page.She was not a terrorist or insurgent she was veteran protestant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.253.138 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Babbitt is already mentioned at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Deaths and injuries. As an aside, I think you mean she was a "protester", not a protestant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Gorillawarefare, you think they're implying a christian sect by not capitalizing protestant. Check merriam webster's. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Protestant (noun): one who makes or enters a protest. Terjen (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh, today I learned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

It seems pretty clear to me that the first sentence should include "insurrection" as along the lines of the following:

was a riot, insurrection, and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

References

The word was removed with an edit summary that asserted this was "unconfirmed" but that's simply not accurate; all the high-quality sources use insurrection (often in conjunction with "riot"). See, for a few: PolitiFact ("Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'); NPR public editor Kelly McBride ("insurrection" is word used "most often" in NPR reporting; "By definition, 'insurrection,' ... [is] accurate. "Riot" and "mob" are equally correct. While these words are not interchangeable, they are all suitable when describing Jan. 6."). Neutrality^talk 16:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and is “the 117th United States Congress” specifically supported by sources? soibangla (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. It's correct but probably needs specific sources, e.g., [1] ("Just weeks into the 117th Congress..."). I would support moving the 117th Congress detail to the body of the article, if that works for you. Neutrality^talk 20:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The word has been used by some in connection with this event, but that looks more like overstatement, not warranting undue prominence in the first sentences of the lead. Some of the malefactors may have manifested insurrectionist intent or aspiration, but that does not make the event an insurrection. It seems unlikely that such an event would be described as insurrection in any other country except by a repressive regime when crushing anti-government protesters, or where unstable governments have suffered uprisings of real potency. Could this be an example of a less robust 'American exceptionalism', or simply confusion or hyperbolic usage for sensational or alarmist effect, with a literary or political or commercial motive? Historic examples would be the civil war in seventeenth century Britain, the thirteen colonies rebelling against the British Crown, the civil war among the states of USA. Note that the Insurrection Act of 1807 "was invoked during conflicts with Native Americans [and].... during labor conflicts... [and] used to enforce federally mandated desegregation, with Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoking the Act in opposition to the affected states' political leaders to enforce court-ordered desegregation". Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)long overdue correction 11:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• We follow what the sources say, not editors' interpretations of history or linguistics. I understand you personally may not believe that it meets the definition, but we go by the reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For perspective, see media critic Glenn Greenwald on The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot, including:

"Then, perhaps most importantly, is the ongoing insistence on calling the Capitol riot an armed insurrection. Under the law, an insurrection is one of the most serious crises that can arise. It allows virtually unlimited presidential powers ... Insurrection even allows for the suspension by the president of habeas corpus: the right to be heard in court if you are detained. So it matters a great deal legally, but also politically, if the U.S. really did suffer an armed insurrection and continues to face one. Though there is no controlling, clear definition, that term usually connotes not a three-hour riot but an ongoing, serious plot by a faction of the citizenry to overthrow or otherwise subvert the government." Terjen (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If sources were near unanimous, or even a majority, in calling it an "insurrection", maybe this should be considered. A majority of non-opinion sources (i.e. those which are written by staff writers as news, not "analysis" and the like) don't do so. "Riot" and "(violent) attack" are both much more common than insurrection, thus that being in the lead sentence (or in the lead at all, outside the limited uses it has now) is very undue. One's personal opinion as to whether the sources are right to not use the word insurrection exclusively does not mean we simply ignore uses in sources. Please feel free to look at the plethora of RMs that failed to find any consensus for insurrection being a common name for the event - while this isn't about the article name, one must seriously consider that if such a strong and charged word isn't common enough to be the title of the article, it also likely doesn't have any place in describing it in WP voice in the lead/body either. To be quite honest, I think there needs to be a 6 month ban on any addition of the word "insurrection" outside of direct quotes that are discussed beforehand on this article. This now makes over a dozen unique discussions in which "insurrection" has been proposed for the title of this article and/or a prominent place in the article (infobox, lead, section header, etc). It's clear that some will simply not rest until that word is given extreme prominence in this article - even when consensus has been time and time again that it's not due weight. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• A page title is very different from the a section. While an article can have only a single title, a topic often can be described in multiple ways. As to the recent sources, there is a strong number the use the term expressly (PolitiFact: "Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'"; Reuters: ("the Capitol, the scene of a deadly insurrection by Trump supporters"). There is, of course, no consensus to ban use of a term. Neutrality^talk 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  There is not some "strong number", and in fact, as I pointed out in the past (few? at least two) RM discussions, more sources don't use the term "insurrection" (outside direct quotes or individual opinion) than do use it. Finding a few links (and cherry-picking quotes from them) does not make it a good argument. Note that the Reuters piece calls it an "attack" just as often as an "insurrection" - so it can hardly be argued that source is "strong" given it doesn't even agree with itself what to call it. I'm happy to change my opinion and admit I'm wrong.. if I am, but it's going to take a much more thorough analysis of sources than simply providing a few links from cherry-picked sources to convince me (and I presume others) that your argument is correct. I encourage you to do something similar to what was done for some of the RMs and pull dozens of recent sources without discriminating against ones that don't ever say "insurrection", count how many times each word is used to refer to the events in that source, and post that compilation here with the dates of each source. That's what was done for the RMs to argue against the use of the word "insurrection", and that is what should be done to counter such an argument here - otherwise, it's perfectly valid for people to opine "I feel the same arguments that applied in the RMs apply to this discussion", which is in fact what I'm arguing - not that it's not different, but that the same arguments are valid for a reason not to include it here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What is an insurrection? I can only find two uses of the term in legislation. The British used it to describe resistance by Irish republicans and the U.S. uses the term in legislation authorizing the use of government force. But there's no crime as such. It apparently means resisting authority, but that's true of any illegal activity or even nonviolent protest. We should choose words with clear definitions rather than emotive terms if we wish to accurately convey what happened as opposed to editorializing. TFD (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The (non-opinion, straight-news) sources frequently use this term (PolitiFact: "Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an 'armed insurrection'"), so I don't think it would be accurate to call this "editorializing." One could say that the term riot is equally unclear and emotive. Both terms are sometimes hazy descriptors, but they are what we have, and what the sources use. Neutrality^talk 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would also point out that, unlike the cases with "Coup" and "Terrorism", we don't have multiple high quality sources specifically saying that "Insurrection" is the wrong word. "Sedition" (which is a specific kind of insurrection) is still the right word, but few sources use it and it may be unfamiliar to the reader, so insurrection is most likely a better choice for us, even if less precise. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• That's an excellent point, Guy Macon. And I would add that in addition to being routinely used by a multitude of high-quality news sources (without attribution), many experts have expressly used the insurrection. To take just two examples, Naunihal Singh of the U.S. Naval War College, for example, wrote that the attack on the Capitol was "an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government" (but not a coup) [2] [3]); Benjamin Wittes and many others have also described it frequently as such (see here, for example). Neutrality^talk 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The full quote by Singh is "What we’re seeing here is better described as an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government. It’s sedition but it’s not a coup". (Emphasis added) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Alalch Emis compiled this list of recent public discussions about the event in universities and other forums:

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event.

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Organizer Word used Event date Event title and references Chicago Council on Global Affairs insurrection 8 January 2021 World Review: Global Reaction to US Capitol Insurrection[4] Josef Korbel School of International Studies insurrection 8 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[5][6] Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters assault 8 January 2021 Assault on the Capitol: What Just Happened?[7] Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University chaos 11 January 2021 On Freedom: Capitol Chaos and Its Impact on Democracy[8] Johns Hopkins University SNF Agora Institute insurrection 13 January 2021 Public discussion of capital insurrection[9] UC Davis School of Law insurrection 13 January 2021 Insurrection and the Rule of Law.[10] Hammer Museum insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s next[11] Carr Center for Human Rights Policy insurrection 14 January 2021 (postponed) Democracy at Risk: Reckoning with the Capitol Insurrection[12] George Washington University Law School insurrection 14 January 2021 The Insurrection at the Capitol: A Discussion by Legal Scholars[13] First Amendment Coalition riot 14 January 2021 Erwin Chemerinsky On The First Amendment And The Capitol Riot[14] Northern Illinois University insurrection 14 January 2021 Ask an Expert: The January 6 Insurrection, Constitutional Processes, and the Peaceful Transition of Power[15] Central Michigan University chaos 14 January 2021 Unpacking the Chaos at the Capitol[16] North Carolina State University insurrection 14 January 2021 Responding to Insurrection: How Do We Talk With Students?[17] Interfaith Alliance insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection and Religious Extremism: How Did We Get Here and Where Do We Go?[18] University of Massachusetts Amherst siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Siege: Making Sense of What Happened[19] University of Connecticut siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Under Siege: Community Reflections on the Lawless and Violent Attack on Democracy[] Elon University insurrection 15 January 2021 Reacting to the Insurrection at the Capitol[20] University of Pittsburgh siege 18 January 2021 What Just Happened? Race, Justice and Politics after the Capitol Siege[21] Alma College insurrection 18 January 2021 Lunch & Learn: Community Conversation on the Capitol Insurrection[22] The National Press Club insurrection 19 January 2021 Getting it right: Breaking news, the Inauguration, and the Capitol insurrection[23] International Institute for Strategic Studies storming 19 January 2021 Crisis in America: the storming of the Capitol and Biden’s challenge[24] University of Washington attack 19 January 2021 Attack on the Capitol--What Does It Mean for Democracy?[25] Brookings Institution insurrection 19 January 2021 Truth and accountability post-insurrection: Where does the country go from here?[26] Oregon State University’s School of History, Philosophy and Religion  sedition 21 January 2021 Divided States of America: Sedition, the Inauguration, and the Unfolding Crisis in American Democracy[27] Schenectady, Albany and Troy chapters of the NAACP insurrection 21 January 2021 Aftermath of the Insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.[28] George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs riot 21 January 2021 The Capitol Riots, QAnon, and the Internet[] University of Missouri–St. Louis riot 21 January 2021 What Just Happened? Putting the Presidential Election and the Riot in the Capitol in Context[29] William & Mary Law School insurrection 22 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[30] Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies storming 22 January 2021 The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Free Speech Online[31][32] Fordham University School of Law attack 25 January 2021 The Attack on the Capitol: an on the Ground Report and What's Next[33] Washington University in St. Louis insurrection 25 January 2021 U.S. Presidential Transition & Insurrection at the Capitol[34] Munk School of Global Affairs insurrection 25 January 2021 Insurrection and Accountability in the United States: What Just Happened? And What Happens Next?[35] DeSales University insurrection 27 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: A Special DeSales University Panel Discussion[36] United States Capitol Historical Society insurrection 27 January 2021 How Do We Move Forward? Contextualizing the January 6th Capitol Insurrection[37] Harvard Institute of Politics insurrection 28 January 2021 What Just Happened? Insurrection, Impeachment, and Inauguration [38] Johns Hopkins University insurrection 28 January 2021 U.S. Democracy Post-Insurrection: What’s Next? (Part I)[39] Carleton College chaos, insurrection 28 January 2021 Carleton Talks: Capitol Chaos: Reflections on the Insurrection[40] American Academy of Religion insurrection 29 January 2021 Insurrection, White Supremacy, and Religion[41] Department of Communication and Theatre Arts, Old Dominion University insurrection 1 February 2021 Insurrection: The Critical Reflection Forums[42] Ponars Eurasia, George Washington University storming 4 February 2021 The Storming of the US Capitol: Views from Eurasia[43] The Utica College Center for Historical Research insurrection 11 February 2021 The Impact of the Capitol Insurrection on the Modern Presidency & U.S. Elections [44] Texas A&M University School of Law insurrection 11 February 2021 [45] Arizona State University insurrection 11 February 2021 Roundtable: The Rise in Anti-Democratic Violence in the U.S.: Perspectives on the Capitol Insurrection[46]

• insurrection: 28 events
• storming: 3 events
• riot: 3 events
• chaos: 3 events
• siege: 3 events
• attack: 2 events
• assault: 1 event
• sedition 1 event

This usage in academic discourse confirms what we know from press reporting: "insurrection" is frequently used alongside "riot" or the other terms, at similar rates. This seems to me to be overwhelming evidence that we should use it alongside the other terms in the first sentence of the article. I would like to know whether this changes anyone's mind. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. My answer is No, for reasons stated above. Basic WP guidance is that robotic number counting is not enough without regard to context, both of any given source and of any given article and the place in the article. For an immediate instance, the words 'academic discourse' with reference to the items listed in the table would not be well-chosen in a more exacting context, but knowing what is here being loosely referenced as such in the course of our present discussion, it is needless to point out that, of the range of meaning, it makes no distinction between the excited chatter of students and a carrefully considered discussion among respected academics with the kind of discernment and expertise that could be more worthy of attention for the purpose of improving the article in question. My supposition is that this comment of mine will not be mistaken as an Argument from authority --Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look at all the links that use the term insurrection, but they appear to be for planned discussions involving academics, journalists and others about the Jan 6 events. It might be prudent to see how these people describe the events and whether they use the term insurrection. In the meantime, we should avoid it per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which cautions us in using terms that are not clearly defined, especially when they are emotive.

The term insurrection in the laws of the U.S., Britain and other countries is left to the government to define. If they declare something to be an insurrection, it allows them to suspend civil liberties. In this case, the authorities did not do that, although one officer said that a riot was in progress. Although the U.S. Insurrection Act of 1807 does not define the term, Canada's notorious War Measures Act provided a great definition: "The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that...insurrection, real or apprehended, exists." In other words, an insurrection is whatever the chief executive (which ironically would have been Donald Trump) says it is.

18:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Bolding in the lead sentence

An edit was made today to capitalize the word "storming" in the lead sentence, which I undid per standard case in Wikipedia for non-proper nouns. That being said, the title of the article includes the year, but the bolded term in the lead sentence does not, and the year doesn't appear until the end of the sentence. This makes it seem that either the title should not contain the year (as if the year is important, it should be more prominent in the lead sentence), or that the lead may need to be reworded. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, I feel that the current title with the year does not does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, and thus we should eliminate the bolding and restructure the sentence to eliminate the desire to bold a term that isn't the title of the article. I propose simply removing the bold and allowing the term to stand in the sentence on its own, but I could also see an argument that the entire sentence should be reorganized to start with the date of the event (such as "On January 6, 2021, a riot and violent attack..." or similar). Thoughts? Proposals? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reorganizing the sentence is certainly a viable option. Compare similar articles such as Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot or Christchurch mosque shootings, neither of which use bolding. feminist (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing unacceptable about the current version, beyond an unimportant point of pedantry, but I would say that a minor re-wording as follows would also be acceptable, and may be also an improvement:

The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on 6 January. It was carried out by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th U.S. president, in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the November 2020 presidential election, and was part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests,

Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The current title is for disambiguation, really - calling it the "storming of the United States Capitol" and bolding that is fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've made somewhat of a bold change, and implemented a non-bolded version. I raised some of the same points about WP:BOLDLEAD and WP:LEADSENTENCE in the last archive (link).

On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, the riot and violent attack disrupted the joint session of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes to formalize the victory of Joe Biden. The District of Columbia was placed under curfew, and lawmakers were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. Five people died and more than 140 were injured.

[This passage was later edited by others to look like this.] — Goszei (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Revised version: On January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th president, stormed the United States Capitol Building in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, the riot and violent attack disrupted the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Joe Biden's victory. The Capitol complex was placed under lockdown, and lawmakers and staff were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. Five people died and more than 140 were injured. — Goszei (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I also removed some references that were only used once. They seemingly were meant to support the "riot" and "violent attack" labels, but were rather weak for that purpose. I don't think those characterizations need specific citations, because they are accepted by virtually all sources. — Goszei (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

My un-bolded version has been reverted by User:Qexigator. I continue to think we should not have a bolded title, particularly for this article, where past RM discussions and analysis have made clear that there is no common name. It is (1) redundant, and (2) creates a false impression of a common name. This is the rationale behind MOS:AVOIDBOLD. — Goszei (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: not sure about that - would that rationale apply to something like February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm? (just curious for your thoughts here) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It reduces redundancy, and doesn't falsely imply a common name. A major winter and ice storm affected large swathes of the United States, Northern Mexico, and parts of Canada from February 13 to 17, 2021. It should be made clear to the reader that there is no "set name" for a topic, and that we are using a descriptive/unique title of our own conception. — Goszei (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Goszei fair enough, feel free to change it to something like that (though the name Winter Storm Uri should still be mentioned in the lead).

Going back to this article, I wouldn't oppose a rephrase that removes "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" from the lead as long as it flowed better. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The bolding stems from 11 January.[47] Given the article name, there is no good reason for departing from it, and the two opening sentences and what follows read no less fluently and concisely. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree; the significant volume of RM discussions (as indicated at the top of this talk page) indicates that the article name is far from settled. Goszei's change avoids redundancy and is visibly more concise. In this version, the first paragraph (excluding footnotes) is 612 characters long, whereas under the current version with the bolding, the first paragraph (again excluding footnotes) is 693 characters long. This means the version without the bolding is much more concise. feminist (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a good reason - including the long article name (even without the year) in the first sentence is unnatural - even if this is considered to be the common name for the event, it is more concise to simply describe the event rather than try and shove all of these words next to each other in the first sentence. I support Goszei's edit, and I encourage anyone opposing it to attempt to explain how this isn't more similar to the examples of when not to bold presented in MOS:AVOIDBOLD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note that my comment expressly states " Given the article name ". Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon - If you cannot explain your edit of 08:15, 18 March 2021[48] I can only suppose it was a good faith error so far as concerns the lead, and I will undo. Qexigator (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Try asking me if I made an error (I didn't) instead of assuming that I did and edit warring. Try asking what my reason was instead of assuming that I have no explanation. The reason is that I believe that there is a stronger consensus for User:Slatersteven's version than there is for yours, and I ask you to not edit war but instead to discuss why you think your version is better than Slatersteven's and see what the consensus is. BTW, repeating the phrase "given the article name" as if it was a magic word allowing you to add "riot" makes no sense at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I am prepared to AGF on your part, not an intent to engage in edit warfare. You believe 'that there is a stronger consensus for User:Slatersteven's version than there is for' mine. Your opinion about that is not sufficient to remove my edit which restored long-standing bolding as stated above. There is nothing to show the 'stronger consensus' you assert.Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Editors who appear to disagree with you (ranging from mild to strong disagreement):

• User:Slatersteven
• User:Berchanhimez
• User:Feminist
• User:Goszei
• User:Guy Macon

(If your name is listed above, please review [49] and let me know if I got it wrong and you prefer Qexigator's version to Slatersteven's version.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure I have ever said anything more than it was not a storming it was a riot (and that was about the page title, not the lede). So yes, I would say I would prefer riot to storm.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Thousands"

If this article purports to be encyclopedic, can't we show better specificity than an estimate of "thousands"? Weren't there up to 40,000 protesters outside the Capitol, and 3,000 to 5,000 who broke into the Capitol building itself? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

To be encyclopedic, we can only use what is reported by reliable sources, whose numbers vary themselves. If you can find a source for your numbers, please provide it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems RS agree there were approximately 800 who were on Capitol grounds (given that "rioting" is a crime, I'd question whether calling innocent people "rioters" is a WP:BLP violation). One of the currently cited sources says an official claimed "more than 800" (which is the phrase used in the Wiki article) but the other says between 700-900 and more sources here and here both say c. 800. It seems to me that "approximately 800" is preferable to "more than 800", a figure only ascribed to a single individual by a single RS. The BBC says there are some 540 "suspects" of whom some 275 have actually been arrested. Hope that's helpful! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue with "Deaths and injuries" section

There's not enough clarity in terms of the differing level of involvement of the individuals who died: three are grouped together, even though the first died in the midst of the riot, the second died on Capitol grounds but prior to and not as part of any "storming" (from what I can tell), and the third died during protests and was never even on Capitol grounds. Given WP:BLP considerations, don't we have a duty to make it more clear, at the very least, that the latter two individuals weren't involved in "rioting"? It seems this could be accomplished by separate paragraphs for each, perhaps? Would love to hear practical solutions to help clarify and avoid in any way insinuating that entirely peaceful protestors were "rioters". Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There should be separate sections. One for unarmed protestors killed by police and another for people who later died who may have been involved in the protest at an earlier date. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You'll need good sourcing making that distinction, WP:SYN isn't acceptable. It's also dubious describing as "unarmed protester" someone breaking and entering, climbing through a broken window to confront the outnumbered police who were focussed on protecting the escape of congresspeople from an angry and violent mob. Think in much less threatening circumstances people failing to obey every whim of the police are shot in sometimes gets described as "suicide by cop", though that depends on unknowable intent, so beware of martyrology promoted by those backing the rioters. . . dave souza, talk 10:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with separating out those who died during and those who dies after. But we should not be separating based upon value judgments as to (for example) being unarmed when we do not know for sure anyone was.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well we do know that only one person died during the protest. That was an unarmed protestor. The rest of the people that passed away did so at a later date by either suicide or natural causes. It seems rather careless to lump the killing and the suicides/medical issues together. Innican Soufou (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)