Page semi-protected

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brian Kendig (talk | contribs) at 04:40, 2 February 2024 (add {{Old move}} for prior move attempt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

    Second bomb location suggestion

    The second bomb placed on January 5 was certainly near the RNC headquarters, but its exact location was at the Capitol Hill Club, a private Republican club across an alley from the RNC. This might be worth mentioning. Here’s a map from the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/map-of-jan-5-pipe-bomb-route-090821.mp4/view. Atubofsilverware (talk) And a mention in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/january-6-capitol-hill-pipe-bomb/621178/ 12:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

    Please update criminal charges and how many found guilty

    The "Aftermath" section contains this outdated paragraph:

    • A large-scale criminal investigation was undertaken, with the FBI opening more than 400 case files. Federal law enforcement undertook a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators, with arrests and indictments following within days. More than 615 people have been charged with federal crimes.

    Can someone please update it with the info from Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack? Something like this, perhaps.

    • A large-scale criminal investigation was undertaken, with the FBI opening more than 1,200 case files. Federal law enforcement undertook a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators, with arrests and indictments following within days. Over 890 people had been found guilty of federal crimes. 
    ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thanks for the suggestion! Feoffer (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashli Babbitt killing subheader

    The subheader for the killing of Ashli Babbitt, "QAnon follower killed by police while attempting to breach Speaker's Lobby," seems very anti-NPOV. Wouldn't something less derisive/controversial, like replacing "QAnon follower" with "Rioter" be more appropriate? Loltardo (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not "derisive", her ties to QAnon are routinely discussed in RSes as what led her to the Capitol. Feoffer (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like an assumption based on tenuous evidence. What led her to the capital was Donald Trump and the election, not QAnon. I agree it should be changed to rioter. Sounds too conspiracy/tin-foil hatty to call her some "QAnon follower". MutedL (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Facts, not feelings. There is nothing incorrect in the text. Zaathras (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to the posts above... We have to rely on what the reliable sources characterize Babbitt as. Was she described as a QAnon follower? Yes. Was she also described as a "rioter"? or as a member of a "mob" of people? Yes. In the RS surrounding the time of the event it seems to me that she & the people in that group were mostly described as "rioters", "a mob" and "members of a mob". Babbitt's political beliefs & her internet history seem to have not appeared until later, when journalists went over her Twitter history, when her family members were interviewed. I don't think choosing to use any of the following - "QAnon follower" or "Rioter" or maybe even "Stop the Steal participant" - isn't necessarily incorrect, it's a matter of editorial consensus and relying on what the RSs say and if editorial consensus is relying on the news dated on that actual day, in that actual month or if the editorial consensus relies on the research & writing that came much later. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's simply too detailed of a subheader, regardless of whether it's an accurate way to describe her personal beliefs or motivations. "Rioter" or "Participant" is a much more concise description. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Politico Cite by Joshua Zeitz for consideration in the Analysis and terminology section - Historians' perspectives

    Joshua Zeitz via Politico

    "The political wisdom of using a constitutional provision to bar Trump from the presidential race, and thereby deny voters a free choice as to whether he should return to the White House, is debatable. So is the question of whether Section 3 is “self-enacting” in his case. Is he disqualified because he did what he did, or does he need to be convicted?"

    "The history behind the 14th Amendment proves its general applicability. Conspiring, whether by violence or coercion, to overturn the outcome of an election is precisely what Confederate officers and officeholders did. They didn’t like the outcome of the 1860 election, so they tried to dismantle the United States, first by walking away, then by force.That was what Section 3 called “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States government."

    "It’s hard to argue that the same thing didn’t happen in the aftermath of the 2020 election. For symbolic measure, insurrectionists carried the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol on Jan. 6, marching in lock step with an earlier generation of Americans who aspired to end our system of government. That it was a bungled attempt, and that it didn’t work, doesn’t make it different."

    In this same vein of thought, is the consensus here that only if Trump is convicted would the term "insurrection" apply in terms of the article's title or otherwise? Feel free to direct me to previous archives and or RfCs.

    Cheers. DN (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add year to article title.

    No consensus for the change. Acroterion (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2024 (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.

    Change from January 6 United States Capitol attack to January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is a redirect there now.

    Believe it or not, English Wikipedia is read around the world, and not everybody knows this happened in 2021. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    September 11 attacks do not include a year. Is there a Wikipedia policy that supports this? Feel free to make a requested move! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I often forget years for events, even 9/11. I am just pointing out the obvious. As a longtime editor, I expect nothing. Others can fight it out over such a trivial matter. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not, other languages have their own wiki's. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have the right to miss my point. News flash: Other countries are majority English. Many countries have populations where large percentages read English. European countries for example. Readers in many other countries prefer English Wikipedia over the other-language Wikipedias. Feel free to continue living in your bubble. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the WP:COMMONNAME for this event is "January 6", much as the COMMONNAME for September 11 is, well, "September 11". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the redirect is being kept: January 6, 2021. See discussion.
    WP:COMMONNAME: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." And: "For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below."
    Again, people outside the US bubble.
    On the Commons we try to put more, not less, info in the file names. To aid search engines on and off the Commons in finding images, etc..
    In other countries there have been various attacks on capitols. Dates galore.
    But I can see that this may well be a case where obedience to inadequate US-centric policies will prevail. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone objects to January 6, 2021 redirecting to this article - I still don't see why you are so upset that the page title is Jan 6 US Capitol Attack - the year is mentioned in the article, it is the only attack to happen on the US Capitol on any Jan 6, etc etc. Take a breather as WP:COMMONNAME applies, you are only one English speaker of over a billion, and I haven't seen an outcry from others objecting to this as the common name. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone tried to eliminate the redirect solely because it had the year in the redirect. It is as illogical there as it is here. What is wrong with providing more info in the title? And let's say someone creates a list of capitol attacks around the world. All without years. Just month and day. What a poor list that would be. It is a dumb US-based policy. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    google the difference between Capitol and capital LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that before I first used it here. Proves my point about US-centrism. To think that there haven't been many other capitol buildings attacked around the world. Gotcha. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of falls under crystalball adding the year in title. Cwater1 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the English-language Wikipedia, we prefer WP:CONCISE titles, and that applies to non-American topics. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems obviously significant enough that WP:NOYEAR applies. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have
    whereas, in my scan, I came across only four or five similarly composed titles for US topics, so kindly dispense with your unwarranted, unprovoked leap to US-bashing as your go-to rationale for requesting a title change. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the list. It illustrates my point perfectly. I have no idea what most of those events are, nor what year they occurred. And WP:NOYEAR says most events should have a year. At least in their examples. Scroll up.--Timeshifter (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure that list debunks your point. You not knowing what year an event happened does not justify adding years back to all titles that don't have them. Your response reads to me as WP:IDHT so it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Zaathras made a good non-admin close and as an WP:INVOLVED admin, I welcome them to reinstate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On whose end is the "Failure or refusal to "get the point" "?
    The guideline actually says I am correct: WP:NCWWW. At least concerning most items in the above list. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're disregarding all of the examples at WP:NOYEAR and down, but okay then. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think given the OP's insistence to expire on this the mounded protrusion, we may as well let them, a reinstatement by little old me won't stick. As for the topic, J6 is near-universally recognized for what it is. Adding a year would not be helpful. Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw my request. Far be it from me to try to stop American systemic bias on English Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am dying to know how a list that shows that year-less titling bears no correlation to US topics justifies your turning this title into an opportunity for US-bashing. Largoplazo (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you asked. Your list is from countries around the world. Unless you live in that country many people have little or no idea what that article concerning that country is about. At least not from the way-too-short titles. Wikipedia is not paper. WP:NOTPAPER. We can afford a few more words in article titles. This phobia against having a few more words in article titles (when they serve a purpose) is just silly. But who am I to fight the herd instinct here. It is funny that after all the wikilawyering, I found the better guideline: WP:NCWWW.
    And a few years from now "January 6" will be even more meaningless to many people outside the US. The most ridiculous titles in your list are the ones with month + day + "Incident". --Timeshifter (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you're bothering to respond to me at all if you're only going to address points I didn't make while ignoring the point I did make. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NCWWW: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions
    In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors:
    • When the incident happened.
    • Where the incident happened.
    • What happened.

    For their examples they add years. You added countries to your list. As years go by more people outside the US will not know of the US Capitol attack. So we have what and where it is in the title. A year in the title would help others outside (and even inside the US for kids) remember it better, and in context of what else they remember happened that year in the world, and in the US. Why not add the year now? But as I said I have withdrawn my request for this article title. But your list shows a great need. I will probably be posting it on the relevant guideline talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget to keep reading the page, past where it says Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already pointed out that the guideline did not require the year for all articles. I am going to propose that for all the reasons listed above. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not needed; there's only one January 6 Attack. Go look in the archive to see the consensus to exclude the year. Feoffer (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget the Glorious October Revolution! (Quick...what year was that, again?) Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah yes. That thing that happened in November! Dumuzid (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The first words in this article are "On January 6, 2021..."; I don't know why the year needs to be in the article title when anyone who doesn't know what year it took place just has to read the first few words of the article to find out. Indeed, I'm not sure what even hypothetical benefit putting a year in the article's title would give to any reader: if the year is included in the title, then someone who doesn't know what year it took place in definitionally can't go directly to the article. If anything, including the year would make it less accessible to someone who doesn't know what year it took place in. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. You don't need to know the year to find the article. You need to be able to find "January 6 attack" when you see a reference to it somewhere. Additional information is in the article. Whether somebody knows in advance that the attack happened in 2021 doesn't need to be dealt with in the title any more than the nature of the attack has to be. The title doesn't need to be January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by people who were convinced that the 2021 election had been stolen. Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that OP's question has been responded to by *nine* unique editors (sometimes more than once) all of whom are in agreement that OP's proposition is not gonna fly, It is obvious that WP:CONSENSUS is now more than apparent, and that WP:SATISFY applies in spades. Further replies to this thread seems like a waste of everyone's time. If an uninvolved editor would like to {{atop}} or {{hat}} it, you'll probably get a big round of applause. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2024 (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.

    Requested move 26 January 2024

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

    The result of the move request was: No consensus. Common opinions in this discussion are that an insurrection (as "deliberately planned") is what took place, but also that it's a politically-charged term which could appear to convey bias. Reliable sources use the words 'insurrection,' 'attack,' 'siege,' and 'riot' without clear preference, so our current title appears to be adequate and there does not appear to be a compelling argument for changing it at this time. Brian Kendig (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    January 6 United States Capitol attack → January 6 insurrection – The events of January 6 are commonly referred to as an “insurrection”. When people talk about January 6, they are very likely to call it an “insurrection”. Most media and news outlets refer to it as “the insurrection”. I am not sure about the exact title I have proposed, but the title should at least include “insurrection”. MountainDew20 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Most media and news outlets refer to it as "the insurrection": But do they? Which ones? Do Fox News, OAN, and Breitbart call it that? Or only media within a particular range of political leanings? I think of the event as an insurrection, so I'm not basing my lack of support on my own convictions. But I don't know that it's primarily or properly called that, or whether we should repeat media that do call it that without a neutral, formal finding that it was one. Have any of the many people who've been convicted for their role in the event thus far been convicted of insurrection? Largoplazo (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sedition is the more serious charge -- insurrection is only 10 years, sedition is 20. Feoffer (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Whether this constitutes an insurrection depends on who you ask. If I were to ask you if it did, you would say yes, but this isn't about out personal convictions. Conservative outlets, from what I've seen, tend to call it a riot. Also, from what I've seen (and I'm not going to call anyone out specifically), the majority of people who lean left call it an insurrection, and the majority of people who lean right call it a riot. To answer your last question, nobody has been charged with or convicted of insurrection. The closest thing would probably be the conviction of Stewart Rhodes and other Oath Keepers on charges of seditious conspiracy. Unknown0124 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RSP, Fox News, OAN, and Breitbart are not considered reliable sources for information about politics in the United States, so they don't count here. (This is not an expression of support for the proposed renaming.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when does anyone care about what OAN or Breitbart say? GMGtalk 02:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment We do have multiple seditious conspiracy convictions and at least two states have ruled it was an insurrection. Maybe it's time. Feoffer (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason for the change. The current title is accurate and uncontroversial. Riposte97 (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - The current title accurately represents overall what happened, which was an attack on the United States Capitol on January 6 [2021]. Insurrection is accurate, but in general, I see absolutely no need to be changing the title whatsoever, although if there is anyone who can think of good reasons, I would be happy to rethink that position. Lawrence 979 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as a bad descriptive title. Best title yet was the old one, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I would support a return to that title. Srnec (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the current one over the one you propose, as “January 6” or “January 6th” should be in the title in some form as that is the common name. MountainDew20 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to put “storming of the United States Capitol” in the title, then it should be “January 6 storming of the United States Capitol”. MountainDew20 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a move to January 6 riot. The term "insurrection" may be interpreted as politically biased. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is so weird. The month and day are completely incidental to the event. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral at this moment. Although I think "insurrection" is a good descriptor, I am taking into account the above comments. Maybe "insurrection" is a biased POV. Also, the current title does represent the events described in the article well enough. However, I am open to seeing if "insurrection" is a good fit per this discussion. I think "riot" would not be as good a descriptor as what we have now. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All choices involve bias. “Riot” is biased towards it being unplanned and spontaneous by those present. “Insurrection” is biased to it being deliberately planned. “Storming” is factual without motive. “Attack” implies intent without necessarily implying premeditation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The attack was planned, at least in part. See Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Insurrection” is ... deliberately planned. Good argument for using that terminology. Feoffer (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources are conducive, this could help us eliminate some overlap and trim the respective articles down, with the "attack" referring to the insurrection, and the "protest" referring to the Attempts to overturn. DN (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly looks like an insurrection. However, “was jan 6 insurrection?” is clearly a contested question, and Wikipedia should not lead the commentary by declaring, in the Voice of Wikipedia, that it was. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “was jan 6 insurrection?” is clearly a contested question But is it? Looks like the only debate is about Trump's participation in the insurrection. 15+ people have been convicted not just of a spontaneous insurrection but of a planned full-blown seditious conspiracy to incite an insurrection. It's not 2020 anymore; All sources agree two militias came to interfere with the constitutional power transfer. I'm not fully convinced we should retitle the article yet (WP:COMMON?), but the literal factual thresholed is def met. Feoffer (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Reading the article again, it does not include the word “insurrection”, let alone well sourced. While the article doesn’t substantiate “insurrection”, the word has no place in the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I have to agree that 2021 storming of the United States Capitol sums up the events chronicled in this article fairly well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The storming of the capital is the event. The year is highly relevant. Astronomical alignments at the time are not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support A previous user suggested that the title should not be changed to insurrection because "Fox News, OAN, and Breitbart [do not] call it that," therefore there was not a consensus among the media. I would like to point out that according to Wikipedia's own Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, OAN is considered a depreciated source and that editors "noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability." Breitbart is also on the spam blacklist and depreciated for publishing "a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact." Fox News for politics and science is listed as "generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards." So yes, I support calling it an insurrection, because sources that are actually reliable call it that. BootsED (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that I picked those prominent conservative news sources in the United States doesn't mean that there aren't others that aren't considered unreliable. My point is not dismantled by disqualifying those specific three. The point is that "insurrection" is a matter of opinion; it's unlikely that most Trump-supporting or ultra-conservative news sources are calling it that; and, therefore, the claim that Most media and news outlets refer to it as "the insurrection" is not likely valid. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really irrelevant. What matters is what most media and news sources that are considered reliable call it. "Ultra-conservative" and "ultra-liberal" sources have an extremely low correlation with reliability. I would trust more neutral sources like Associated Press and BBC, more than MSNBC and Fox. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: Please see my comment below. YoPienso (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yopienso: You left several comments below. I don't know which you are referring to, unless it's the one about BBC. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I did. It's this one. YoPienso (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I checked three fact-checking sites with the question. Politifact.com argues that it was an insurrection. Neither FactCheck.org nor Snopes.com directly addressed this question as far as I can see, although they did refer to it as an insurrection in other checks. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent a request to Snopes to address the question. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Many experts and historians seem to lean this way, however a complete scholarly consensus will probably take more time since many seem to be waiting on the verdict, per the recent talk page discussion I started earlier, above. DN (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose by SmokeyJoe's rationale. — Goszei (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning oppose. Such a move would suggest that the events of January 6 encompass the whole of the insurrection, when in fact it began well in advance of the election, whenever the decision was made that a loss in the election would be met with a claim that it was rigged and an effort to overturn it. BD2412 T 16:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose but not ferociously so. I agree with others who have noted that we may have clear call to use the term insurrection in the future as historians fully come to a very clear consensus that it is the correct term and/or the legal case against Trump is convicted. For now it is worth noting, for example, that Trump's second impeachment did not yield a conviction (albeit because it required a supermajority rather than a mere majority. Secondly, insurrection implies a substantial amount of intent, but there was many historically significant aspects of this that didn't quite fit under that sam intent. Several involved were there for everything from peaceful protest to promoting violence and chaos for the sake of violence and chaos (as opposed to a direct plan for insurrection). The fact that there was an attack of the US Capitol seems sufficient at this point in history rather than narrowing the scope of the title to indicate why that attack was occurring (which is addressed in more detail in the article). I suspect history will eventually come to the conclusion that "insurrection" is the correct wording; I just don't think we are at a broad consensus on that point yet. Aranae (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per rationale of SmokeyJoe, BD2412, and Aranae. Current title is compliant with WP:AT, and I see no compelling reason to change it at this time. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Very recently, The Guardian posted an article in regard to Trump v. Anderson, which reports: "Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office." DN (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, in lieu of a full title change, we could prominently mention the scholars and the court rulings that conclude it was an insurrection in lead, without necessarily getting into the disqualification of any individual candidate until later? Some middle ground short of a full wikivoiced titled change? Feoffer (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The phrasing is misleading. The scholars made two points. (1) The presidency is an office of the United States and therefore the prohibition against people having engaged in insurrection applies. (2) The amendment is in force without requiring additional legislation by Congress.
      The scholars were replying to arguments that Trump's lawyers had presented. I imagine their view would have broad support because these arguments appear extremely weak.
      However, the brief does not address whether an insurrection occurred. TFD (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It may seem misleading in your view, except it repeatedly refers to future insurrection(ists)...If you wish to conclude they are talking about some event other than January 6th, or some type of crime other than insurrection, I simply and respectfully disagree.
      • Page 18. "Contrary to many laws that targeted former Confederates in southern states, Section 3 enshrined disqualification in the Constitution with generic language that does not reference the rebellion or former rebels. Unlike statutes, as part of the Constitution, Section 3 endures indefinitely, free of tampering by future Congresses. Republican Senator Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said during debates over the 14 th Amendment, “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood.”17 (emphases added)" (emphases not mine)
      • Page 19. "They pardoned persons previously disqualified under Section 3 but did not vitiate this provision of the Constitution by exempting future insurrectionists or rebels from its coverage.
      • Page 20. "Our study of the records of Congress demonstrates that debates centered on amnesty for those involved in the Southern Rebellion, not on amnesty for future insurrectionists.
      • Page 26. "Justice Chase recognized that “The amendment applies to all the states of the Union, to all offices under the United States or under any state, and to all persons in the category of prohibition, and for all time present and future.”32 (emphasis added)" (emphases not mine)
      • Conclusion. "For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should take cognizance that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment covers the present, is forward-looking, and requires no additional acts of Congress for implementation
      DN (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The linked brief is just one small piece of a larger puzzle; So far as I am aware, all sides in that case agree an insurrection did occur, they're just arguing over Trump's potential involvement and disqualification, a very different question than the one we're faced with. Feoffer (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we are on the same page or close to it in certain regards. There will be editors that refuse to acknowledge certain sources no matter the quality or how respected they are academically or otherwise. Just AGF, ignore and move on. Wikipedia is not a democracy for very good reasons. DN (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your comments are misleading. The historians do not argue that Trump committed insurrection, merely that if he did he would be excluded from the office of the presidency. Most experts would agree with them. But if I said if you committed insurrection, you could not become president, it would not mean I was accusing you of insurrection. TFD (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly, you have no sources to back up your statements, and it is a waste of time engaging with you on this subject. Good luck with all the original research. DN (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose We would need to show that there is a legal and academic consensus for this. IMHO that is unlikely since the term is poorly defined. Essentially it is legislation that allows the president to suspend constitutional rights when civil order has broken down. TFD (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TFD, that's clearly not the standard Wikipedia uses for page titles. See [2] and WP:COMMONNAME. And "insurrection" has a plain English meaning that dates back far longer than you seem to suggest. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Insurrection is not the commonly used name except among a tiny group of highly partisan supporters of the Democratic establishment.
      The term insurrection as you know was not a concept in common law but was first introduced into the American colonies as a method of controlling slave revolts. Insurrection acts allowed colonial governors to suspend habeas corpus and other civil rights, use the military against the population and suspend local legislatures. Since the acts left it to the discretion of the governors to determine whether there was an insurrection, there was no need to define it. In fact, in at least one case, the law said that the fact the governor had determined an insurrection was underway was conclusive proof of insurrection.
      In the United States, lawyers look to definitions sections in legislation, precedents, or common law definitions written by such writers as Coke, Blackstone, Story or Dicey. But there's nothing there. Bear in mind that legal definitions do not necessarily reflect current usage. For example laws on bastards are about children of unwed mothers, not nasty people. TFD (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Moving to "insurrection" would introduce bias. Here's what I found in response to Anachronist's query about what the Associated Press and the BBC call it:
    • Illinois just weighed in; RSes disagree about whether Trump participated or will be disqualified, but RSes seem to agree an insurrection did occur. Feoffer (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't you think it's rather hyperbolic to say "Illinois just weighed in" when all that happened was that a hearing officer in Illinois gave a nonbinding opinion that he himself thinks has no authority?
      To which other RSes do you refer? YoPienso (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't you think it's rather hyperbolic to say "Illinois just weighed in" No, because we're not talking about Trump's role or disqualification, we're talking about whether an insurrection existed at all. I don't there are any RSes that deny an insurrection occurred -- many juries have found defendants guilty, people have sentenced to decades in prison for seditious conspiracy. Feoffer (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Illinois just weighed in" means the people and government of Illinois have called it an insurrection. They haven't. One official did, in a non-binding opinion. For my part, I think your statement is considerably exaggerated. Please provide links to RSes that, in their own voices, call Jan. 6 an insurrection. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've decided to list some RSes that do not call it an insurrection. All of these were published this month.
    • The AP used "Capitol riot" in a headline, the word "stormed" in a caption and the lead, and further down called Marc Bru (the subject of the article) a "rioter." "Insurrection" is used 3 times, always about a more violent event Bru hoped to execute but did not.
    • In their own article about Bru, CBS News wrote virtually the same thing as the AP.
    • The Guardian's article was also similar, with the notable exception of a caption: Insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump breach the Capitol in Washington, 6 January 2021.
    • NBC News used exclusively "riot" and "breach" (including declensions.)
    • The US Attorney's Office used only "breach" and "riot" (with declensions); "insurrection" is used only for the event Bru planned in Portland but did not carry out.
    • Now, here are 2 sources that do use "insurrection" (along with "breach" and "riot"): the left-leaning My Bellingham Now that's so minor it's not mentioned in Wikipedia, even in the Bellingham, WA, article, and the weekly Atlanta Black Star. YoPienso (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not convinced we should change the title to "insurrection", but the existence of a "riot" and an "attack" do nothing to disprove the existence of an "insurrection". Feoffer (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no reason to try to prove or disprove the existence of an insurrection. We're talking about the title of this article. Per WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:NPOVNAME, we use a title that is as neutral as possible while at the same is what the majority of readers expect. We go by what most RSs use. That's why I took the time to search out the most common usages in the MSM.* Of course parties to a lawsuit and extremists will use more dramatic terms. I think it would be wrong to change the title to "January 6 . . . insurrection."
      *(Which don't seem to be "attack," but I'm not suggesting renaming it "riot." I wouldn't mind if it were restored to "Storming. . .") YoPienso (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A definition of a word and it's abilities to define, is enlightenment. Only truth is provided by a word. True testimony can only be accurate if it can be defined by all of mankind. Glory is grace and truth. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Except very few if any reliable sources refer to it as an insurrection. The term almost only occurs in articles by Democrats disparaging Republicans. TFD (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Encyclopedia Britannica DN (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per SmokeyJoe. The current title "January 6 United States Capitol attack" is acceptable, in common use in the MSM (e.g. [3], [4], [5] for some random examples), and better reflects WP:NPOV. The proposed titled is not acceptable due to NPOV issues. Specifically, the term "insurrection" is far more likely to be used for these events in the context of left-leaning opinion articles and partisan positioning regarding a current political/legal controversy due to its legal implications, and frankly it is not acceptable for Wikipedia to take up partisan framing like this. Also, I think trying to cite some recent state court decision or or legal briefs to support this name change question is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. GretLomborg (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thumbs up icon Exactly! YoPienso (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what I thought. Unknown0124 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you consider William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, of the Federalist Society "left-leaning"? MSM is usually reliable but there are mixed opinions. Some reports say insurrection while others do not. This is why we turn to academics and authorities on the subject. "Journalists" aren't required to be experts or scholars in political science or history. See NYT Aug 2023.
      • Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office...The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.
      • Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office.
      • He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
      Here is a non pay-wall article from The Daily Pennsylvanian
      Cheers. DN (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We're supposed to rely more heavily on secondary, not primary, sources. See WP:PST.
      Yay for Baude and Paulsen! I appreciate their scholarly opinions about Trump being ineligible for the presidency. But as Feoffer has repeatedly pointed out, that's not the point of this discussion. The question we're examining is whether the most common mainstream term for the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is insurrection. Later, it may be, but I don't see a preponderance of sources calling it that right now.
      (We could also cite the more recent opinions of GOP judges Luttig, Lamberth, and Erickson. It's the MAGAs and the people in Congress who want to be reelected that are refusing to call a spade a spade.) YoPienso (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This misses my original point that we have conflicting articles from secondary sources, which is why we need to also rely on tertiary sources like Encyclopedia Britanica which says..."Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état."...As well as experts and scholars like Baude and Paulsen.
      An obvious issue here is some want to discard "certain" secondary source articles that call it an insurrection, like WaPo or APNews or the The Atlantic because they are "left-leaning" or for whatever reason...But it's not because there aren't any.
      Cheers. DN (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      '"We could also cite the more recent opinions of GOP judges Luttig, Lamberth, and Erickson. It's the MAGAs and the people in Congress who want to be reelected that are refusing to call a spade a spade.)"
      Agreed, we absolutely should.
      Cheers. DN (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed we need some tertiary sources. It's normal and logical that secondary sources disagree.
      I'm not aware of anyone on this thread wanting to "discard 'certain' secondary source articles." GretLomborg made the valid point that left-leaning sources tend to use the word "insurrection" more than centrist and right-leaning sources. Certainly the MAGA voice doesn't call Jan. 6 an insurrection!
      • The WaPo article you linked to is comprehensive and strongly opposed to Trump's behavior, beginning with "President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020. . ." Its large, bold title is THE ATTACK. It uses "attack" as a singular noun naming the Jan. 6 violence 27 times. It uses "riot" as a singular noun naming the Jan. 6 violence 5 times. Just below the headline, before the article itself begins, is the phrase, "The Jan. 6 siege." In all, the article uses "siege" and "insurrection" about 20 times each.
      • The AP article isn't really pertinent to this one since it's about the FBI's alleged rule-breaking. The headline calls Jan. 6 a riot. A caption and the lead sentence call it an insurrection. Tally: riot, 1; insurrection, 2; attack, 0; siege, 0.
      • I would need a subscription to read the article from The Atlantic. It's title is "The January 6 Attack Is Not Over," and the lead sentence reads, "On the second anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, . ."
      My conclusion is that the sources you provided confirm we should keep the present title, at least for now.
      I think I've used enough of my time and Wikipedia's bandwith on this. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I see your point, I would say though, that the lack of mention of insurrection in the lead seems like an NPOV violation. DN (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You should read WP:HEADLINES DN (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The WaPo citation reads "The consequences of that day are still coming into focus, but what is already clear is that the insurrection was not a spontaneous act nor an isolated event."
      The Atlantic states in the very first paragraph (so you don't need a subsctiption) "On the second anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, Joe Biden decorated Americans for courage during the unrest, while on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives remained in limbo as many of the same people who tried to overturn the 2020 election bickered over electing a speaker." DN (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I'm keenly aware of WP:HEADLINES, I identified them in my tallies. (Also captions and sentences just below the title to distinguish them from what the journalists themselves wrote.)
      If you read my comment in its entirety, you'll know that WaPo article used the word insurrection about 20 times. It references the Jan. 6 event about 71 times, variously using attack, riot, siege, and insurrection. (I could have made slight miscounts; it was a tedious job.) So "insurrection" was used 20/71 times, or 28% of the time in that particular article/journalistic project.
      It doesn't help to know The Atlantic used the word once. We have to see which words are used most commonly. YoPienso (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you consider William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, of the Federalist Society "left-leaning"?. You're misreading my comment. The language I used was "far more likely," not something so unreasonably black and white that a counter example would be significant. My point stands that using the term "insurrection" in this case is typically partisan positioning regarding a current political/legal controversy due to its legal implications. Though it's probably somewhat more correct to say it's political positioning--still biased but usually but not exactly mapping to party or broad ideological grouping. In any case "insurrection" fails NPOV at this point, and "attack" is objectively far, far better on the NPOV front. Wikpedia should not engage in this dispute by adopting the term insurrection at this time. We can re-evaluate in a decade, when the active controversy is over and the events have receded into actual history. GretLomborg (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can re-evaluate in a decade Why not a century? Nah, we'll keep re-evaluating on an ongoing basis, but I agree we shouldn't change the title Feoffer (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    "My point stands that using the term "insurrection" in this case is typically partisan positioning regarding a current political/legal controversy due to its legal implications.
    Conversely, not calling it insurrection, as many experts on both sides of the political spectrum seem to do, is also partisan, except it finds a loophole in the policy of COMMONNAME.
    From an academic standpoint (storm, siege, riot etc...) is the wrong choice since it ignores expertise, and it still fails NPOV WP:FALSEBALANCE. DN (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would clarify that while "attack" isn't necessarily incorrect, it does seem to ignore a growing consensus among legal, political, and historical scholars. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you are presenting opinion pieces and commentaries as evidence when as you know they are not reliable sources. Also, I find it ironic that you would quote the opinions of members of the Federalist Society when you know that their views are fairly fringe. Heaven help American democracy when members of the Federalist Society get to decide what is an insurrection. TFD (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments leaves out the point of reference, and seems simply antagonistic in nature. As a longtime editor, this should be beneath you. DN (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This article seems to be most focused on the actual physical event of the storming of the Capitol, with the attacks, protests, etc. that went along with it. "Attack" is a clearer, unambiguous term. "Insurrection" opens questions: was the insurrection successful, was anything overthrown? Meanwhile, "attack" specifically defines it as referring to one event, without the weight and implications of "insurrection." Attack is also already a suitable word for the title; reliable sources uses it to describe this event as much, if not more so, than insurrection. Whether you agree or not, calling the event an insurrection has unfortunately become a political topic of its own, and at this moment is also undecided by the courts, from a legal standpoint. Kafoxe (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I totally agree with you.
      The insurrection started long before Jan. 6. YoPienso (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a bold statement that would require a source. DN (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposition is abundantly well sourced in the background section of this article, particularly January 6 United States Capitol attack#Seditious conspiracy by Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Plans to initiate a civil war against the U.S. were entered into and moved forward almost immediately after the election. BD2412 T 23:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Except the insurrection they planned was never carried out. Their plan was for armed patriots to come to the defense of U.S. soldiers fighting antifa after martial law had been declared. They would then be invited to help form a military junta. TFD (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I ivoted neutral in the above. Since someone replied, I'll just leave it there.
    After reviewing the ivotes, related commentary and some of the RS, I think using 'insurrection' at this point is nebulous wording. Who exactly determines the set of delineated actions that amount to an insurrection? There is no such single authority. Yes, a few of the courts and state governments define Trump's actions as insurrection, along with some media commentators.
    But I think we need this to be a slam dunk as determined by the courts before we use 'insurrection' in the title. If for example, a significant majority of offenders are charged with and convicted of insurrection, then we can say that's what it is. If a plethora of courts weigh in and a consensus develops, then we can again say that's what it is. Otherwise, we are leading rather than following the RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If for example, a significant majority of offenders are charged with and convicted of insurrection "Insurrection" is definitely appropriate when discussing the actions of the 15 or so people convicted of seditious conspiracy, but I think that's as far as we can go right now. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the term belongs in the lead at the very least, as there are tertiary sources and authoritative figures on both sides of the aisle that agree with it. To leave it out seems more and more like an NPOV violation. DN (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agree with others who have commented here. From my point of view the insurrection started long before January 6th. But that is my opinion and not RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused by your definition of the term insurrection. DN (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I guess you're right. I always thought the planning and organizing were part of an insurrection, but numerous dictionaries and encyclopedias say an insurrection is the actual violence itself. Here's a link to good old Webster and another to the no-longer-venerable EB. This means, since Trump engaged in no physical violence, he's technically not an insurrectionist. (I'm saying many informed people--judges, even--use the term like I always have.) Trump did conspire to insurrection, though. YoPienso (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (Came back to strike off-topic musings.) YoPienso (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yopienso I simply requested a source, that doesn't mean I found your claim implausible, just bold. Apologies if you find my responses uncalled for. DN (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no problem at all. I admire and try to use precise language. It's inappropriate for me to discuss on this page whether Trump's an insurrectionist, but after more thought, by the strictest definition, I've concluded he didn't even conspire to insurrection; his behavior (words and demeanor) incited others to. He conspired to pull off a self-coup. And now I need to drop this like a hot potato. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment I myself have tried to play Devil's Advocate on this topic, but we've got like 12 opposes. If someone UNINVOLVED wants to call it, it's probably time. Feoffer (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not overly concerned with the result, I think the discussion itself is healthy and shows where the community's mind is on the topic. When Trump's trial is over I think that would be a good time to revisit the issue, whether he is convicted or not, I think consensus will be stronger one way or the other. DN (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Feoffer I agree, and it would be best if it was an uninvolved editor. DN (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Feoffer I just checked the time on this, it might be a bit early? only a week or so? An early close might be cause for a do-over, best to avoid those. DN (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as the requirements for an insurrection are clearly met, as described in the contents of this article and because various reliable sources (as per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources) refer to this as an insurrection. CrazyPredictor (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2024 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1202157586"