Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 5

214:– This was not a "storming", or a "protest" or even a "riot", but an armed insurrection. Several news outlets are now referring to this incident as "The Trump insurrection". I think it's a more descriptive and historical title to the event, for historys sake. This is particularly true given that the participants erected a gallows outside the capital with clear intent to lynch someone. Several of the participants carried zip cuffs with clear intent to take hostages, possibly with the intent to lynch someone outside the building. The proposed title is more accurate of the event and is more concise and historical of this event 325:(7:48) "Multiple individuals forced entry into the Capitol building and attempted to gain access to the House- and attempted to gain access to the House Room, which was still in Session. They were confronted by plainclothes US Capitol police officers, at which time one Capitol police officer discharged their service weapon striking an adult female. She was transported to a local hospital where, after all life-saving efforts failed, she was pronounced deceased." 31: 4394:, thanks. "Sacking" isn't accurate (and I removed that), but the sources cited are pretty clear that this is the first time that the Capitol itself has been "overrun" or "breached" in this way. The other attacks (shootings, bombings) etc. didn't involve this kind of mob attack. If we wanted to include the "first time since 1814" fact but also wanted to put in a footnote about previous incidents of violence, that would be fine by me. 414:

facts, if "coup" or "attempted coup" and "insurrection" are proper terms, we can only assume the "treason" and "sedition" may equally work as well. I'm not saying this because the words are used heavily (or at all) in the main article; I'm saying this because I want WP to simply "be careful, and let calmer editors prevail." The dust must settle, fuller perspectives will shine through like a beacon, and the truth will win the day.

2111: 942: 3602:. Also includes stuff like claiming Pence was a child molester. Clearly a larger theme of extreme Pro-Trumpers turning against Pence as part of the perceived establishment. Ive seen messages circulating of conspiracy theorists claiming Pence was replaced by a clone around 2018, though Im not sure that has been reported on by any reputable outlet beyond some verified journalists on Twitter. 3489: 2523: 115: 924: 3538: 2580: 907:

summary, per the popular 90s song. I'm not "after you". But you are clearly unable to abide by a topic ban in this area, and it should either be extended to an indefinite ban, and/or other sanctions taken. Dude, it's easy. Just stay away from AP pages. Don't respond to this. 12:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

4732:

Every one of those sources listed refer to the Capitol being stormed (mostly in the first paragraph). Several of them only use the term ‘insurrection’ in the article title and not in the body of the article, often within quotes i.e. not in the voice of the source. Insurrection appears to be used as a

1786:

One thing that feels missing to me from this article is an explanation of the very visible iconography used by rioters to help explain who they were, which groups they belong to and speak to their motivations. E.g blue lives matter flags, people dressed as vikings (white supremacists who want 'racial

770:

a BLP violation, though neither killer is identified in the lead sentence. But it is very obviously wronger to state two or more officers at the scene shot the same woman than it is to discuss anatomy and arithmetic in an apolitical section of an otherwise largely politicized talk page. I will defend

640:

As I can't touch modern American political articles, I ask someone else correct this purely physical error. Article says she was shot by "law enforcement officers" (those who drew handguns are also called "guards"), later died of "injuries". Sources generally say she was only injured once by a single

454:

IP, I think the majority of regular editors have this in mind, if you've read the talk page. I've not seen anyone mention "treason" or "sedition", for that matter. But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places. "Insurrection" is widely used, and in probably dozens upon dozens of reliable sources at

2554:

Trump is a very bad man but in an encyclopedia we have to be entirely factual. No court judgment have been made stating claims were false. Instead, they were sometimes deemed unsubstantiated and sometimes dismissed without judicial comment. A false claim would be if the judge heard a case then Trump

1256:

Was there a Black Lives Matter protest occuring at the same time as the events described in this article? Can someone tell me why the Black Lives Matter image and caption have been included? It's incongruous and genuinely confusing; it gives the impression the storming of the Capitol and Black Lives

4923:

while words such as 'insurrection' and 'coup' are politically loaded. On the day, the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was an act or event of civil disorder not amounting to an insurrection. It could be described as a mob invading the Capitol. While President Trump's speech-making, videos

4890:

The insurrection act article doesn't seem to suggest any such major incidents at the Capitol that would warrant a pre-emptive disambiguation by adding a year to the title, and specific incidents rather than generalised titles (eg the nat turner slave rebellion, the selma to montgomery march and the

3876:

Roy Blunt, the Republican senator who chairs the congressional committee preparing for the inaugural ceremonies, has estimated that the number of participants who will be allowed into secure perimeter areas at the inauguration will be dramatically reduced to below 3,000, down from the 200,000 or so

4995:

because: Insurrection is a situation that people revolt violently against an authority. Some times people that rebel are completely right and they are fighting for their freedom. With the term invasion, it's clear that a crowd invaded the sanctum of democracy. Because the actions need to be judged

4191:

Like I said previously, it's absolutely important to the story that a woman was shot while she and a mob of armed protesters attempted to force their way through a broken window into a chamber of evacuated congresspeople. This woman's identity MIGHT be notable if she receives sustained coverage in

3052:

The six sources are being used to support the use of three very specific and politically charged terms (insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism). The use of each of those terms needs to be sourced, so more sources makes sense. (Essentially, instead of putting 2-3 sources next to each of the

946: 945: 943: 4972:

stop the lawful proceedings of Congress at the time or any later lawmaking of Congress. The proceedings were suspended, and when order was restored continued and completed after a few hours. The proceedings were affected by some lawmakers deciding to withdraw their objections, which the objectors

372:

hello, I'm not good at editing the page or I would try. I hav an issue with the "tally marks" section. the death is listed under United States government. it is noted that the loss is a former U.S.A.F. member, which would make her part of the us government, BUT she was also shot because she was

3714:

Speculative sentences make sense, IF they're properly sourced to reliable sources, and there is no better information available to make the sentences non-speculative; however, your quoted example, "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration", is not speculative - it

947: 752:

The video of her being shot shows a plainclothes capitol police officer stepping out of an alcove, firing one shot at her from a distance of 6 - 8 feet as she is climbing through a window into the Speakers Lobby". No Additional shots are fired in this area by Law Enforcement or rioters. Sources

413:

WP needs to (for obvious reasons) be superhumanly careful with these three words. They may fit, but they could quickly be editorialized and get out of hand. Whereas, I, a regular "dude" may find them appropriate; WP may (and some users) take odds or offense with their inclusion. But, let's face

4953:

The Bastille storming was the first act of a revolution as they attacked a symbol of power, and the Embassy was just a violent protest against an invader who had been at war in their country for 20 years. They are both on the other ends from the 'middle ground' of what was an Insurrection that

1548:

Being in the UK, I don't plan to edit this article directly, but I'd like to raise a key omissions as I see it. It relates to Trump's clear encouragement of the rally-goers (rioters-to-be) to march on the Capitol buildings, and was in videos of his speech in the earlier rally that day. The key

1217:

Yes, some rioters were neo-nazis. Some were also neo-confederates. Some were "proud boys". Some were neither of those three and just generic Trump supporters. The fact that neo-nazis were present should be in the article, but in a list of the types of participants, rather than as an adjective

906:

I was referring to your edit on Jimbo Wales' talk page, as I noted in my reply on EvergreenFir's talk page. However, I've seen you refer to it before and after using various euphemisms, including on my own talk page, where you phrased it as "I have a history of taking of my shirt" in the edit

948: 373:

part of the "storm" which would make her casualty on the left side of the "tally marks" section. I wish I had better vocabulary, but as a donator to this site, I'd like to think it is accurately portrayed. I use it for information, and falsely labeled information causes a loss in faith.

4797:

Please. Some other possibilities: the New York Times are both using the words "riot" and "breach" as well as "storm"; CNN is using "riot" and "domestic terror attack"; Fox is calling it "Capitol riots". (I'd supply detailed references but I haven't got time to stay on this right now.)

1551:"After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol,... and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.” 3259:

Yes, agree, this is still a hot and developing topic. When the ECP expired I took the opportunity to try and make some edits I was just about to request. But now I realize it's really hard to collaborate on this without a lot of experience in applying NPOV to biased sources.

933: 792:

Just drop the fake S, people, we can tell it's incorrect regardless of any perceived political differences, just plain math and English analysis of existing police statements, presently appended inline. If my polite demand is not met within a very reasonable 72 hours, I

928: 931: 930: 926: 925: 2558:

Current version, lede, 2nd paragraph Following several months of false claims by Trump about voting fraud in the November 2020 election, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to protest the certified election results and demand

1052:

Hello. We have an ongoing discussion regrading the characterization of these events as terrorism on this page. Regarding "Nazi sympathizers", I'd find reliable sources that use that terminology. I think that characterization of the rioters as Nazi sympathizers gives

932: 3794:

I don't see how the word "storming" casts any judgement on the morality or ideology of the event. I personally don't like these people, but a group did storm the Capitol. Disagreeing with their motives does not affect whether the word choice is appropriate or not.

4733:

loaded term. At best, the cited sources indicate no more than equal support for storming and insurrection. It seems to me using dictionary definitions that storming is more appropriate - insurrection gives more political heft to what was simply rabble violence.

4207:

There's agreement that there's precedent for adding it, but the question is whether it's the correct organization. Given how long this article is becoming, it would be appropriate to move all the coverage and facts about the Babbit incident to a separate page.

3164:, there's a big line differing them. Though it will still be hard to clean the article, the event has passed, and it might be easier to do so. I tried to, but the high activity of the article caused several edit conflicts and I gave up in eventual. Using an 877:

one thing as an "obsession". It was from June 19, 2015, and the context is currently unmentionable but verifiable. I forgive you for misquoting me, so forgive me for carefully and politely requesting a math error in a Main Page lead be fixed per source.

929: 1553:

Perhaps the second part isn't so essential, but the first part seems highly relevant to the background to the rioting. (and just commenting that Trump did not go with them, but returned to the White House, I believe, to watch events unfold on TV).

2992:

citations in the lead? "The riots and storming of the Capitol have been described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism." currently has six references on it, this seems excessive as it's clearly explained later in the article, too.

1272:

Anotheranothername "Black Lives Matter Plaza" is the name of a public square in Washington, D.C.; the caption is merely stating that the depicted events occurred there, and is not claiming any connection to the Black Lives Matter movement.

1694:

In the spirit of encouraging bold editing, it wouldn't be terrible to put it in a section "Speculated Cooperation" with appropriate modifiers like "alleged", "suspect", and "stated", and explicitly name the persons making the statements.

3695:

Sentences like "The Department of Justice announced that charges are under consideration" do not belong in this article because they will be removed soon, and replaced either with "The Department of Justice indicted..." or the DoJ won't.

1995:

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said he wants to give police "the benefit of the doubt" and hopes they were attempting to de-escalate Wednesday's event when they appeared to let pro-Trump rioters inside the legislative

855:, this is a rather clear violation of your American Politics topic ban. I know you yourself have described your editing this topic as an "obsession", but that doesn't excuse the violation. You've been around long enough to know better. 3243:

This article was extended confirmed protected, but no longer has any protection. I think it should remain extended confirmed protected for the next two weeks at the very least, and at least semi-protected for the foreseeable future.

3202:

Anyway, I'm just somewhat opposed to slapping an ugly template on the page. At least, wait until the "recent event" template is removed and the page calms down a bit, meanwhile, having a few extra sources isn't really a big problem.

528:'s comment adds one to the list ("attack"). So, what would be the preferred term to center the title discussion around? a) "attack", b) "breach", c) "insurrection", d) "protest", e) "storming", f) "standoff", g) something else? -- 4878:: Out of all the terms I've seen to describe it (riot, mob, storming, sedition, coup attempt) I feel they lack the specificity of insurrection, a term with a dictionary meaning of "violent uprising against authority or government" 2291:

A criminal investigation might tie up Capitol police or Congressional video for a long time, so we should use what we have at this time, and then replace it - as was done with the Nashville bombing (see article page history).

2017:

Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”

2490:

There are conflicting reports about the fire extinguisher. I have not had time to do a chronology to see if this is the latest official statement, but the police statement about his death did not mention it. All the best:

1721:

I oppose these additions. Those are very, very serious allegations to make, which could border on libel. I say we need to have confirmation from many reliable sources (which Business Insider is not) to add this allegation.

4973:

were aware would have been outvoted anyhow. That did not amount to an insurrection event, nor a coup, whatever the intent of the wreckers may be supposed or hubristically self-declared to be. 09:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

3593:

I think its fair to say that Pence was a specific target for some of the protesters and I think the article should more clearly reflect that beyond mentioning him being evacuated with other members of congress. sources:

2618:

Rewritten: despite the current status, users have edited over one another. The consensus is that the rate of editing should be decreased (see comments about "waiting until the dust has settled") rather than increased.

3114:, problem is, nobody cares about citations in the lead. It is not current anymore, as it only occurs in Jan 6, so it is encouraged to have the least amount of citations, as they must be covered about in the body. 3870:

Crews also erected on the Capitol grounds tall, black metal fences designed to be impossible to climb. Similar structures have previously been used around the White House and in other cities that faced prolonged

1641:"Multiple European security officials told Insider that President Donald Trump appeared to have tacit support among US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex in Wednesday's coup attempt." 2600:

I second the above, and would like to further note that a legal judgment is not necessary for Knowledge (XXG) to say that certain claims are false. If it is documented in an appropriate source, it is included.

2000:"Sometimes when you don't have enough personnel, you can't stand and fight a large crowd like that," he said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, noting that there were not enough law enforcement personnel on scene. 4108:

Disagree. Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial nor a newspaper, and in the case of low-profile individuals whose sole notability is their death/injury as part of a violent insurrection, the article's text should

1093:

Facts do matter, which is why we rely on reliable sources. There certainly appears to have been some Nazi sympathizers in attendance, given the shirt and various other photos circulating, but we cannot call

3319:

It’s really a separate thought and it’s getting lost. I expect overtime that the bombs will expand. As an editor it bothers me to have the two things together and I was trying to fix it but I could not.

2046:

article about the death of the policeman who was struck with a fire extinguisher. However, the article does not mention murder specifically, and the New York Post is considered to be an unreliable source

1756:– leaving no contextual information, no sense of where or when the photographs were taken, nor who these people are or what role they played – plainly tell the reader nothing useful. They're also a clear 1662:, known to publish unvetted articles without distinguishing them from properly done journalism. I'd appreciate waiting for a more reliable source before including such information in Knowledge (XXG). -- 1406:… the Proud Boys openly supported the Capitol insurrection. "Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots." 4670: 3387:...Is that really a very necessary template? Seems to me like it basically functions as a "List of significant figures in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" article, but in template form. 4660: 2094:

Perhaps "Assault" would be a better parameter. Since the death was due to an assault with a fire hydrant. The rioter in question most likely had no intent to kill but that is speculation on my part.

944: 2881:, it is remarkable that Senate and House members seem to be willing to blame anyone but themselves for the insufficiency of the Police deployment to secure the Capitol from the riotous break in? 1342: 1253:"Top to bottom, left to right: Crowds gathered outside of the Capitol, President Donald Trump speaking to supporters at the "Save America" rally, protesters gathered at Black Lives Matter Plaza" 470: 766:, replacing "weather" as appropriate, I am confident that an objection to accusing multiple people of killing someone only one person is reported to have killed is not a TBAN violation. It is 332: 4192:

reliable sources, or if she is recognized as a police martyr, and her death sparks a movement in her name. At this moment, it's too early to tell, and we should err on the side of caution.

2896:

We could debate your sore misunderstanding of how police work, but since this suggestion is entirely OR, it's not going to happen. Closing per utter lack of any actual source + inaccuracy.

1979:

I propose that we revise the following line which implies a conclusion drawn on inadequate evidence (specifically the word "allowing" is an interpretation that has not been substantiated):

2213:

I’m not against it but in my opinion it’s trivial and a fluke; also doesn’t take into account people (e.g. myself) who were in public and watched it on livestreams rather than television.

4131:

may discover that the other 3 deaths are not notable but Babbit is notable because of much coverage in reliable sources. However, like Melania Trump, I don't care do u. Carry on with wp.

3296:(Comment from the protecting admin): There's currently 5 days of semi-protection and 10 days of move protection. Any admin is welcome to fiddle with these parameters as they see fit. -- 3595: 4494:, I don't think you need the title for it. Also, I am not so sure about the word storming. Riots seem a little better. I will hold off on a move request, but I think something like 927: 892:

Correction, found two more. In the summer of '14, I described a bunch of monsters' twisted desires; two summers later, it was related to AP2. But neither were about me, just by me.

97: 1186: 4176:

I think an unarmed protestor being killed by the police at a rally is an important part of this story, and including their new had been a Knowledge (XXG) norm for all protests.

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2403:. I did not perceive the additional questions that I should have asked, and for that I am sorry. I'm still new to editing, and I hope that this can be a valuable lesson for me. 561:

would have made sense if the protesters actually killed or tried to kill people at the Capitol or something like that. I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate here. By the way,

3464:, but there are limited mentions of the inauguration in this article, mainly a mini-paragraph related to Secret Service reviewing the overall plans for the inauguration. -- 1983:

Footage emerged on social media of police allowing rioters through barricades into the Capitol, and one officer was filmed taking a "selfie" with a rioter inside the building.

832:

You removed "officers" instead of explicitly relaying how it was just one. I formally accept this as "good enough, just less specific" and rest my case. Thank you, my friend!

1176: 4328:

I've removed this from the lede (at least for now). The term "sack" doesn't seem to apply here, and there's been violence (shootings and bombings) more recently than 1814.

4675: 1636: 2638:

The section "Identification of rioters" has severe problems. I have already removed a reference to someone being there when the source said "someone resembling foo".

3699:

There are many speculative sentences in this article that don't make sense in an encyclopedia. Before adding something, consider what it will look like in a few weeks

2176: 474: 4113:. Obviously it's important to note any deaths from this incident, but not to unduly publicize the identities of people who many sources would describe as terrorists. 4060: 3342:

I agree, the bombs are unrelated to the deaths. I have split it off several times but others keep reconnecting it, probably to reduce the number of lead paragraphs.

1171: 4528: 2418: 2400: 1959:

Note that “2021 US Capitol Storming” is as many words as “2021 US Capitol Siege”. It looks long only because of the "of the" and "United States" being spelled out.

2048: 4913: 1764:

doesn't cover it, but Knowledge (XXG) is not for aiding the police in their investigations (even if it appears they could do with all the help they can get!). –

335:, I would say that it is clear enough based on Contee's words. There are aspects that are unclear, but those will be dealt with pending their investigation. -- 2739: 306:

it says ...It is unclear who shot her.... with both being referenced. Until it is clear who shot the woman should this article read that it is unclear. Thanks

4647:

It should not be called storming, protest, or rally. It was an insurrection. Call it what it is, not what you want it to be. Sources calling it insurrection:

1218:

describing them all. If the facts and reliable sources show that some, yet not all, of the rioters were neo-nazis, then that is what this article should say.

685:

one can have more than one injury from a single gunshot. At close range, an entry and exit wound is, I imagine, likely, and damage to multiple organs/systems

4690: 2877:

Is there a place in the article to mention that, given that Congress is the exclusive source of authority for the Congressional officials who constitute the

566: 506: 2457:

Have there been any reports that have given details about who it was that hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher? Like a description of the attacker?

524:

As I stated in the page move debates above, the debate over the title of this article needs to center on the descriptive term for what happened yesterday.

2021:

Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat.

47: 17: 3866:

I might just be unable to find it, but should security preparations for the upcoming inauguration directly caused by this event be included? For example:

3020:

This is a recent and controversial event, so erring on the side of caution by adding citations is probably the smartest move, at least in the short term.

3499: 2956: 2920: 2817: 2781: 2746: 2533: 205: 125: 4968:

The main point is that the disorder and rampage, including riotous conduct, criminal assault, malicious damage to property and theft within the Capitol

4110: 1879:

I don't think that this the appropriate article for the proposed section. Perhaps a section in the articles of those groups would be more appropriate.

4086:

I think it's important to include the names of the protestors who were killed at the rally. Maybe not full biographies, but definitely include them.

1988: 1787:

purity', a whites only America), the use of the 6MWE slogan (6 million wasn't enough, referring to the wish for a second holocaust) and QAnon signs.

1181: 3596:

https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/details-emerge-trump-instructed-mob-lynch-vice-president-mike-pence-not-overturning-election/

721:

Because I was advised to not post here, but was pinged for comment, I believe saying I have no further comment at the moment is a proper compromise.

2277:. Primary sources, such as the video linked, cannot be used to advance a point or position, unless it is to supplement a reliable secondary source. 1760:

violation, explicitly linking low-profile living people who have not been convicted of crimes to criminal activity. It's such an obvious point that

4425:

Agreed. I see you trying to hold the line and want to thank you for it. When an article has a word like "overrun", you know it needs to be edited.

3274:

The page is now semi-protected until January 19; with diffs of new semi-confirmed disruption provided, I expect that a RFPP request will succeed.

1658:

The specific author, Mitch Prothero, seems legit, and has written for respected sources before, but Business Insider is a questionable source per

2641:

Other people in this section who are unlikely to have been in the building. And even people who were did not necessarily take part in the riot.

1797: 1680:

Second Jayron32's position to wait for a more reliable published source, as BI is questionable to use, especially in such a contentious article.

302:

In this article (compliments to all the editors) it states that the fatality ..."was shot by law enforcement "... whilst in the specific article

2143:

A federal murder investigation is going to be launched, but at this point it has not been officially named murder. Assault is more accurate. --

2013:

We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim.

1817: 1187:

https://plus.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/veteranin-neo-nazi-abgeordneter-q-glaeubige-das-sind-die-menschen-die-das-kapitol-stuermten-86918.html

4685: 4566:. My NPOV objections re: Stormfront, Daily Storm, and QAnon stand -- this language is not NPOV, even if some of the media are also using it. -- 2181: 1941:. Straightforward, fits the dictionary definition better than any alternative, is supported by sources. Adding a date not required (for now). 1489:

Doesn't look like they're destroying the capital. Looks like they're liberating it," the group wrote. "God bless America and all her patriots.

4600: 1469:

For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified

1191: 974:, that first video with Trump looks seriously doctored. Do we know if that first video is a legitimate video? I suppose I could go over on 997:

this video was posted by Trump's official Twitter social media account yesterday (U.S. time), so I'm entirely sure that it's legitimate. :)

4650: 2171: 1177:

https://www.spiegel.de/stil/jake-angeli-was-ueber-den-qanon-schamanen-aus-dem-us-kapitol-bekannt-ist-a-be3f2bb7-6b59-4e76-9ffd-9abedffe1c3a

1080: 3908: 4279: 3520:"...he regretted committing to a orderly transition of power" should say "...he regretted committing to an orderly transition of power" 3327: 1195: 417:

America will rebound from these events. The Union is stronger than a rabble storming a building, after all. Thank you for reading this.

2730:

I've added a minor section in the "aftermath" page but it should likely be expanded and possibly moved to a more appropriate location.

4780: 4698: 4414: 4339: 3285: 2134: 1346: 1038: 418: 2006: 3363: 2177:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2021/01/07/attack-on-capitol-pushes-cnn-to-its-most-watched-day-in-history/?sh=4695fe183121

601: 771:

my right to raise and respond to legitimate questions of fundamental importance herein, with or without express written permission.

1172:

https://www.mopo.de/news/panorama/bekannte-rechte-auschwitz-pulli---sieg-heil--rufe--das-sind-trumps-anhaenger-im-kapitol-37900312

349:

Thanks, a clear good reference. As the article Ashli Babbitt has been merged the problem (if there was one) no longer exists. Ta.

2360:

I also agree with your decision. That was absolutely inappropriate to have in the article, it's probably also a legal liability.

2023: 3067:

Perhaps they should be put next to the word they are backing up, then? Would be more useful to readers than a block of sources.

5003: 4812:

The reason I was fine with storm is because, in my opinion it can be either negative or positive, so I think it's pretty NPOV.

3212: 3148: 3076: 3043: 3002: 1288: 445: 4022:

The police officer who shot her has been suspended. Knowledge (XXG) needs at least a separate section on her in the article.

2320:

a grid of "Persons sought by police and the FBI in connection with the attack" and a "Photo of the suspected pipe bomber" per

2186: 4752:

It's claimed that the discussion has been closed, but I don't see where it was discussed or who decided it was closed. Given

1079:. Letting far right extremist groups run wild, emboldened by much of the Conservative leadership and the right-wing media. -- 860: 460: 4283: 3934: 1790:

Can anyone suggest a structure for a section like this or any iconography that should be included? Here are some references

1549:

section, which evidences how they were incited to leave the rally and 'progress' to the government buildings, seems to be:

1502:

While the Independent is generally a RS, we are not obliged to use them when their conclusions seem tenuous. All the best:

4485: