talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack
{{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{American English}}
{{ITN talk|6 January|2021|oldid=998739939}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|American=yes|American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|DC=yes|DC-importance=High|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=Mid|UShistory=y|UShistory-importance=high|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Top|subject=Events}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Dhtwiki|date=February 15–17, 2024}}
}}
{{Press|collapsed=yes
| title = As a mob attacked the Capitol, Wikipedia struggled to find the right words
| author = Alex Pasternack
| date = 2021-01-14
| url = https://www.fastcompany.com/90593176/wikipedia-capitol-attack-name
| org = Fast Company
| accessdate = 2021-01-15
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20210115160128/https://www.fastcompany.com/90593176/wikipedia-capitol-attack-name
| archivedate = 2021-01-15
| urlstatus = live
| title2 = Wikipedia at 20: last gasp of an internet vision, or a beacon to a better future?
| author2 = Alex Hern
| date2 = 2021-01-15
| quote2 = At 6.34pm UK time on 6 January this year, one Wikipedia editor, with the username Another Believer, decided that events in Washington looked important enough to warrant an article. Tentatively titled “January 2021 Donald Trump rally”, the initial entry was brief: “On 6 January 2021, thousands of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Washington DC to reject results of the November 2020 presidential election.”
| url2 = https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/15/wikipedia-at-20-last-gasp-of-an-internet-vision-or-a-beacon-to-a-better-future
| org2 = The Guardian
| accessdate2 = 2020-01-15
| archiveurl2 = https://web.archive.org/web/20210115133241/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/15/wikipedia-at-20-last-gasp-of-an-internet-vision-or-a-beacon-to-a-better-future
| archivedate2 = 2020-01-15
| urlstatus2 = live
| title3 = On its 20th birthday, Wikipedia might be safest place online
| author3 = Heather Kelly
| date3 = 2021-01-15
| quote3 = This month, the online encyclopedia‘s strengths and quirks were on full display as hundreds of volunteers furiously worked to create a page for the Capitol riots as events unfolded Jan. 6. As it transitioned from a protest to something more violent, Wikipedia’s volunteer editors added key details while debating the article title, as shared by editor Molly White. Was it a protest, an insurrection or a riot? It ended up the “2021 storming of the United States Capitol.” Hundreds of people were working on the ballooning document at a time, which has now been touched by nearly 1,000 editors, is more than 10,000 words long and has been viewed nearly 2 million times.
| url3 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/wikipedia-20-year-anniversary/
| org3 = The Washington Post
| accessdate3 = 2021-01-15
| archiveurl3 = https://web.archive.org/web/20210115185452/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/wikipedia-20-year-anniversary/
| archivedate3 = 2021-01-15
| urlstatus3 = live
| title4 = To Celebrate Wikipedia’s 20th Birthday, Try Editing It
| author4 = Stephen Harrison
| date4 = 2021-01-15
| quote4 = Take the recent debate over the nomenclature that Wikipedia should use to describe last week’s frightening events. Should that destruction and violence be described as President Donald Trump’s supporters “storming” the United States Capitol, an “insurrection,” or a “coup attempt”? Is it “terrorism”? “The long-standing consensus is that article titles on events, such as this, should reflect how reliable sources have described the event,” said Chet Long, one of Wikipedia’s long-term volunteer administrators, who edits under the username Coffee. The issue here was that reliable sources have covered the event using all of that nomenclature. At publication time, the Wikipedia article is named “2021 storming of the United States Capitol” based on the consensus of editors that the majority of media sources have also characterized it as a “storming.” Of course, reasonable minds can disagree on that decision, which developed after spirited, reasoned debate. One thing is clear: That’s not a boring issue. The language that the world’s most popular internet encyclopedia uses to describe the events of Jan. 6, 2021, will affect how that day will be perceived by the public in both the short and long term.
| url4 = https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/wikipedia-20th-annivesary-edit.html
| org4 = Slate
| accessdate4 = 2021-01-15
| archiveurl4 = https://web.archive.org/web/20210116114631/https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/wikipedia-20th-annivesary-edit.html
| archivedate4 = 2021-01-16
| urlstatus4 = live
| title5 = When the Capitol Was Attacked, Wikipedia Went to Work
| author5 = Grace Gedye
| date5 = 2021-02-04
| quote5 = As protestors at the Capitol turned violent, one major debate among Wikipedia editors was how to describe the event in the page’s title. Was it a protest? A riot? An insurrection? A coup attempt?
| url5 = https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/02/04/when-the-capitol-was-attacked-wikipedia-went-to-work/
| org5 = Washington Monthly
| accessdate5 = 2021-02-04
| archiveurl5 =
| archivedate5 =
| urlstatus5 =
| title6 = Are We in a Recession? Don’t Ask Wikipedia
| author6 = Stephen L. Carter
| date6 = 2022-08-02
| quote6 = And nobody will be surprised to learn that the page designated “2021 United States Capitol Attack” is also partly locked. Fierce argument rages even over what the page should be called.
| url6 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/are-we-in-a-recession-dont-ask-wikipedia/2022/08/02/39664896-126c-11ed-8482-06c1c84ce8f2_story.html
| org6 = The Washington Post
| accessdate6 = 2022-09-02
| archiveurl6 =
| archivedate6 =
| urlstatus6 =
}}
{{Copied|from=2021 storming of the United States Capitol|from_oldid=1000090312|to=Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol|to_diff=1000091053
|from2=2021 storming of the United States Capitol|from_oldid2=998821212|to2=International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol|to_diff2=998823847
|from3=2021 storming of the United States Capitol|from_oldid3=1028972352|to3=Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol|to_diff3=1029898519
|from4=2021 storming of the United States Capitol|from_oldid4=1030415665|to4=Death of Brian Sicknick|to_diff4=1030534474
|from5=2021 storming of the United States Capitol|from_oldid5=1023722041|to5=Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack|to_diff5=1023722251}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{Warning RS and OR}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}}
{{Consensus|Current consensus on size and organization:
- The specific subjects of international and domestic reactions, the aftermath, the death of Brian Sicknick, the law enforcement response, and the events at state capitols and other cities, are not covered in full detail here but in the linked articles. Portions of those articles are transcluded here, if opportune, per WP:SYNC.
- As long as the article is too long (true as of Nov 5) it should be shortened, but the Very long tag should not be used (for the whole article); instead, Very long section tags could be used. An idea to use more refined methods of managing length (copyediting, moving information to notes, refining/trimming transcluded sections, etc.), instead of further splitting and more routine removal was agreed on here and here.
Current consensus on naming and terminology:
- The page's title was moved to 'January 6 United States Capitol attack' after this move request.
- The decision to not use the word "urge" in the lead, in reference to Trump's actions, was agreed in this subsection.
- There is no consensus to call this event Terrorism as per this RFC
WP:ACDS actions:
Under ACDS, starting Jan 16, a move request cannot be opened nor be closed to move to a title using the word "insurrection" for a month. See the Arbitration enforcement log (diff) for details.Expired since Feb 16, 2021- Under ACDS, only users who possess the extended-confirmed user right may close discussions for this page. See the Arbitration enforcement log (diff) for details.
}}
{{Old moves
| collapse = true
| list =
- RM, 2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt, Not moved, 6 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, Moved, 6 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → United States Capitol insurrection, Procedural close, 7 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 breach of the United States Capitol, Procedural close, 8 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → The Trump insurrection, Procedural close, 9 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 breach of US Capitol, Not moved, 15 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol, Procedural close, 16 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Insurrection at the United States Capitol, Not moved, 16 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 Terrorist Attack on the United States Capitol, Not moved, 21 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol riot, Not moved, 23 January 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack, Not moved, 4 February 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol, Procedural close, 16 February 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → January 6 United States Capitol attack, Moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack, 31 May 2021, discussion
- Move Review initiated 1 June 2021. Overturned, moved to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, 1 August 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol → 2021 United States Capitol attack, Moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack, 2 August 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 United States Capitol attack → January 6 attack, Not moved, 7 November 2021, discussion
- RM, 2021 United States Capitol attack → January 6 United States Capitol attack, No consensus, 8 January 2022, discussion
- RM, 2021 United States Capitol attack → January 6 United States Capitol attack, Moved, 28 July 2022, discussion
- RM, January 6 United States Capitol attack → 2021 United States Capitol attack, Not moved, 9 January 2023, discussion
- RM, January 6 United States Capitol attack → 2021 United States coup d'état attempt, Not moved, 31 January 2023, discussion
- RM, January 6 United States Capitol attack → January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack, No consensus, 21 January 2024, discussion
- RM, January 6 United States Capitol attack → January 6 insurrection, No consensus, 26 January 2024, discussion
}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{Merged-from|Save America March|6 January 2021}}
{{not a vote}}
{{Top 25 Report|Jan 3 2021 (5th)|Jan 10 2021 (7th)}}
{{info|A special subpage has been created to develop supporting materials for any current or future article naming discussions, on a collaborative basis: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Ongoing analysis of naming trends. Please hold a discussion on which evidence is relevant for naming purposes there (particularly pertaining to search engine results).}}
{{annual readership}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 22
| maxarchivesize = 300K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{section sizes}}
__TOC__
Reclassification of the attack as an act of terrorism
I believe that the actions of the individuals involved in the attack arise to the standard of terrorism as they meet the requirement of using violence to attempt to achieve a political result, notably the overturning of the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.
Therefore I propose that the Wikipedia page be edited to describe the attack and attackers as an act of terrorism and as terrorists respectively Transport enthusiast21 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
:It's not necessarily your conclusion I take issue with, but the reasoning by which you arrived at it. In order to lessen disputes and increase verifiability, we tend to bar the addition of personal opinions to Wikipedia articlespace{{hsp}}—{{hsp}}even if those opinions are correct. In order to call it a terrorist attack, you will need reliable sources. In my experience, it's usually referred to as an "attack", "riot", or "insurrection". But it's not typically called terrorism. Those participating may be known as attackers, rioters, or insurrectionists, but not as terrorists (correct me if I'm wrong). 1101 (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
:please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
split Attack on the Capitol section
request to split Attack on the Capitol section (with the Bombs discovered near Capitol section left out) into January 6 Capitol breach to aid in reducing length which is 14788 words
many of the subsections in this section already refer to this event as a "breach", so i don't think i will run into naming issues Cognsci (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
:You want to split out the Capitol attack section from the article on the Capitol attack? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
::the capitol breach, you know the smashing of the reinforced windows, the police officer getting crushed by the tunnel breachers
::{{strikethrough|maybe}} on second thoughts, the Bombs discovered near Capitol Complex section should be left out Cognsci (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
:In agreement with {{u|Muboshgu}}, I think that it makes more sense to split out side attacks like the pipe bombings than the main subject. Per the prior move discussions rejecting names with "breach" in them, this descriptor neutralizes the violent nature of the breach. The greatest opportunity for shrinking the prose size seems to be further shrinking portions of the final third of the article that are redundant with the existing aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack article. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
::ok i'll trim the Political, legal, and social repercussions section, merge some subsections of the aftermath section and revisit this discussion Cognsci (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
:::To be clear, I do prefer trimming than splitting this article. I think the entire thing needs to be in one page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I reverted the large number of trims. Per BRD. I think that we should discuss whether it is for example important what Congress, the Biden admin, and Smith did. I think it is. Andre🚐 23:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::ok I'll close this split discussion and start another discussion for trimming the aftermath section, I'll see you in 12 hours because I need to sleep Cognsci (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::No rush, no deadline. Andre🚐 00:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::oh yeah right forgot about that Cognsci (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Reverted. Do not close your own discussion Andre🚐 00:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::why? i'm not aware of any policy or guideline against this and since i was the only one in favor of this proposal and changed my mind, it should be closed
:::::::::if someone does want to go through with the proposal they can just reopen it like you did Cognsci (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::nevermind i saw bullet point 4 of wp:WHENCLOSE
:::::::::seems like the point of closing a discussion is to provide closure and summary of long and controversial debate, and closing in other circumstances is either unhelpful or unnecessary Cognsci (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
trimming aftermath section
proposal 1 revision 1
remove Domestic reactions section
proposal 2 revision 1
remove International reactions secton
proposal 3 revision 1
remove 14th Amendment disqualification section
proposal 4 revision 1
remove Sarbanes–Oxley Act prosecutions section
proposal 5 revision 1
remove 2025 pardons and commutations section
proposal 6 revision 1
remove non excerpt text in Political, legal, and social repercussions section
pre-discussion objections
user:AndreJustAndre obejected to proposal 6, specificallv the removal of these sections (paragraphs):
The 117th Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed legislation related to the Capitol attack, including the Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act of 2021, the Electoral Reform Act, and a bill granting awards to Capitol Police officers for their bravery during the insurrection.{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Jordan |date=December 22, 2021 |title=Biden signs bill streamlining emergency support for Capitol Police |url=https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/586973-biden-signs-bill-allowing-capitol-police-chief-to-request-emergency/ |website=The Hill}}
On July 16, 2023, Trump was notified that he was officially a target in the Smith special counsel investigation.{{#invoke:cite web||last1=Shabad|first1=Rebecca|last2=Reilly|first2=Ryan J.|date=July 18, 2023|title=Trump says he's received target letter from special counsel Jack Smith in Jan. 6 probe|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-says-s-received-target-letter-special-counsel-jack-smith-rcna92691|access-date=July 18, 2023|website=NBC News|language=en|archive-date=July 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230718150213/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-says-s-received-target-letter-special-counsel-jack-smith-rcna92691|url-status=live}} On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted on four charges. These were conspiracy to defraud the United States under Title 18 of the United States Code, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and conspiracy against rights under the Enforcement Act of 1870. Trump pleaded not guilty,{{cite news |last1=Kunzelman |first1=Michael |last2=Tucker |first2=Eric |last3=Merchant |first3=Nomaan |date=August 3, 2023 |title=Trump pleads not guilty to federal felonies related to the 2020 election |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-pleads-not-guilty-to-federal-felonies-related-to-the-2020-election |access-date=August 4, 2023 |work=PBS NewsHour |publisher=WETA}} while his attorney Sidney Powell later pleaded guilty to conspiring to interfere with the election.{{cite news |last=Lowell |first=Hugo |date=October 19, 2023 |title=Trump's ex-lawyer Sidney Powell pleads guilty in Georgia election case |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/19/sidney-powell-guilty-plea-trump-georgia-elections |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231020063659/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/19/sidney-powell-guilty-plea-trump-georgia-elections |archive-date=October 20, 2023 |access-date=October 20, 2023 |work=The Guardian}} Following Trump's reelection to the presidency in November 2024, Smith filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, citing the DOJ's policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. Judge Chutkan approved the request and dismissed all charges. Smith submitted his final 137-page report to the Justice Department on January 7, 2025 and resigned three days later.{{Cite web |last=Heuer |first=Mike |date=2025-01-11 |title=Federal prosecutor Jack Smith resigns ahead of Trump's inauguration |url=https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/01/11/jack-smith-resignation/4401736633752 |access-date=2025-01-11 |website=United Press International |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Cheney |first1=Kyle |last2=Gerstein |first2=Josh |date=January 11, 2025 |title=Jack Smith resigns from DOJ |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/11/jack-smith-resigns-justice-department-trump-criminal-investigation-00197694 |work=Politico}} The part of the report about election obstruction was made public on January 14. The part about the mishandling of government records was not released at the same time because it was related to an ongoing criminal case.{{Cite news |last=Wendling |first=Mike |date=January 14, 2025 |title=Trump would have been convicted of election interference, DoJ report says |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqld79pxeqo |access-date=January 14, 2025 |work=BBC}}
Cognsci (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
proposal 7 revision 1
split Evacuation of leadership amid Capitol lockdown section into Evacuation of Senate leadership amid Capitol lockdown and Evacuation of House leadership amid Capitol lockdown sections (it's way too long) Cognsci (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, trim does not mean wholesale removal. It should mean removing excessive details. Andre🚐 20:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:And yes I object to all of your poorly discussed wholesale removals of sourced material. And my revert means that, but to make it explicit, please trim as in remove excessive detail, and when you wholesale remove sourced material you are not improving the article. Andre🚐 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::what do you mean "wholesale" i didn't remove the entire aftermath section? Cognsci (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::is there any unsourced material in the aftermath section i should be removing? because it's pretty well sourced... Cognsci (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::You can trim excessive details that are better handled at a sub article about that topic. And summarize key facts. Deleting a whole section at once about the pardons for example I object to. Andre🚐 21:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::well i would argue that the pardons are pretty excessive detail but i guess i'll just wait for a 3rd opinion to prevent an edit war Cognsci (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::The pardons are a pretty important part of this. Andre🚐 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::well actually i meant the 2025 pardons and commutations section Cognsci (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::including the pardons in passing is fine but a whole section with the commutations, i disagree Cognsci (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::For what reason? Andre🚐 21:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::for the reason that they are one of the least related parts of the article to the the topic of the article Cognsci (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Why? It seems directly relevant to the aftermath. Andre🚐 22:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::we can't include every little detail that is somewhat relevant to the aftermath, that's what the subarticle is for Cognsci (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::this conversation is ultimately just a tug of war between relevancy and article size Cognsci (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You can summarize the main points and then link to the main article. Not removing all of it Andre🚐 22:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)