Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 3

5405:. Instead of just quoting his words from the video, we can insert it as media - at least five other language versions of Knowledge (XXG) have - for encyclopedic documentation of 1. the response and 2. the video which has taken on notability of its own for being removed by all social media. One editor objected to its inclusion - and tried to delete it - by saying it's inciting violence. Well, we've got the speech in quotes already in the article and I'm sure you can all see it's not an incitement to anything, not that such would preclude inclusion at all per the fact we're documenting its existence and significance, and the video caption came with a disclaimer. As there was one unfounded objection and plenty of support, I feel it would be beneficial to the encyclopedic coverage of the article to include the video ( 5041:"Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal?" This person clearly was saying that this one guy brining the flag in was an act of rebellion that somehow called for military action. Absurd since not only is the confederacy been dead for more than 150 years, but in more recent times in 1968 riots attacked government buildings with North Vietnam flags, an actually real country the United States was fighting at the time and they were not subject to this action, so no what the original poster put out is meaningless here. 3777:- that "other user" was me, I'm afraid. I intended to make a simple one-word change to a different section to improve readability, but there was an edit conflict. I cancelled it completely and made my tiny change again, and I have no idea how it picked up this other material. By the time I was alerted to what happened, it could not be undone because there were almost a hundred other changes in the meantime which overlapped. Then I had to go to work and I have only just seen your note as well. So I am happy to fix it if there is agreement on what should be changed. And please accept my rather confused apologies for the problem.-- 5502:"two reverts before bringing it to discussion" I made the last revert AFTER I posted on this talk page discussion so check your clock before you try taking that route against me again. I saw on your previous discussion you can be rather snarky in your responses, which I am not tolerating. Anyway, to answer your question, my "sole" opinion should be considered, yes, as any editor's. This is an invite to a greater, dedicated discussion on the topic to hopefully secure a final, lasting consensus, unlike the prior discussion. If every single editor agrees that the current Twitter-style "disclaimer" is suitable, then so be it. 2139: 2056: 31: 4252: 3248: 3226: 3198: 4333:

the reasons you note. However, we don't have a magic picture fairy who can just wave their wand and make images appear. A real live person has to 1) take the picture 2) agree to license the image for uses compatible with Knowledge (XXG)'s license 3) upload the image to Wikimedia Commons so we can 4) add it to the article. If you can help with ANY of those steps, it would be most appreciated. --

1944: 1290: 5294: 5082: 2670: 2482: 2331: 2191: 2091: 2005: 1896: 1819: 1716: 1621: 1480: 1183: 1024: 743: 4309:

imperative that this page thoroughly debunks any falsehoods and presents sufficient evidence to unequivocally put such conspiracy theories to rest. There are numerous photographs and videos that clearly indicate the political affiliations of the perpetrators, including Trump flags and items of clothing prominently displaying the Trump name. These need to be included in the article.

4236: 1674: 5465:

saying in the caption what the video is, and what happened to it, should suffice; I see no reason why the disclaimer is necessary as it is currently worded and it will only invite future edit warring for its lack of a neutral presentation. I also disagree that there's any real, settled consensus on this yet (as insisted by Kinsif), considering the age of the article.

5229: 5165: 5136: 2831: 2722: 2395: 1122: 829: 784: 1533: 5381: 5343: 2531: 2246: 1776: 1554: 1237: 1139: 4734:

going to have a country anymore,' Trump had told the crowd, urging them to head to the Capitol" . I can't and won't edit, but that seems far too weak a source to start the entire article with such a disputed/unclear/open-to-interpretation statement. (It should obviously be discussed in detail in the remainder of the article.)

458:

the United States Capitol" etc). We call it the 'Storming of the bastille', not the '1789 storming of the Bastille'. For a recent event, we call it the 'COVID-19 Pandemic', not the '2019-2021 COVID-19 Pandemic'. We need to make sure that this wikipedia article is easy for people to access in the future.

5550:

I agree that the video doesn't directly incite violence. If it did, I'd push for its outright deletion regardless of alleged historical significance. However, I don't think its inclusion on the article adds anything that can't be expressed solely through prose in a sentence or two. If a video needs a

5516:

Oh but you still re-reverted before it was discussed, no? No need to shout. If I'm snarky to people making ridiculous accusations of inciting violence then I'll be snarky to them and it's not your place to say you won't tolerate me when I've been nothing but polite to you. It's also not your place to

4989:

And it is still meaningless. This just personal opinion, but this was not a coup, but a protest turned riot. The confederate flag was tolerated by both the federal government and both parties till really the late 2010s, it was not uncommon to see at events celebrating the union. Using the term (enemy

4651:

After looking into it more, it seems he did say "i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today", however he did not tell them to storm the capitol. Just to protest there. Also that quote was not present in any

3515:

Should we start a new page dedicated to the efforts to remove Donald Trump? Even if these efforts are unsuccessful, articles of impeachment are already being drawn up by Ilhan Omar, and I would say it would be likely they will be voted on tonight, which would warrant a separate page. A vast number of

956:

I believe this article is premature as Articles of Impeachment haven't even been introduced. Until a formal impeachment inquiry is passed or another action like invoking the 25th Amendment happens this article is pure speculation and should not warrant a separate page. Some members have said they are

4591:

I'm not sure this is factual. I watched the original sources, and he claims, of course, that the election was stolen and that there was fraud. But from what I saw he never actually told anyone to go to the capitol and certainly never said to storm it. I think this is a bit too inflammatory and NPOV,

4332:

If you have access to such images (which are compliant with Knowledge (XXG)'s image use policy) can you include them here so we can see them? Also, as a side note, we don't include images merely to "identify perpetrators". I agree some better images of the actual event would be useful, but not for

4257: 4253: 3980:

Seems like an aspect of this event that isn't well covered in the article. Much of the controversy has been over the lax response of law enforcement, in comparison to other demonstrations, potentially due to demographics involved. Anyone got any good sources? I'm thinking specifically of things like

3159:

May I on behalf of all readers express enormous gratitude for the contributions & editing here. A hugely impressive page on an ongoing event. Wikipedians at their best. I really hesitate to clutter this page even with this note, so feel free to remove :) Perhaps there is space in the wiki model

5595:

I think it's important to mention the fact that coverage of the riot on Fox News had a largely positive tone, at least until the violence ramped up. This is especially important given the sharp contrast with other networks. The Daily Beast article seemed like a fairly reliable source, and I thought

5464:

I agree that the video should be included for its historicity but strongly disagree that the disclaimer is needed. The current disclaimer comes across as overly concerned with challenging the points made by the subject of the video instead of simply informing the reader of what the video is. Simply

4513:

Explicitly described the protests as illegitimate,unlawful, as an insurrection, threat to democracy, etc: Canada, France, United Kingdom Germany, Israel, India (yes: both Israel and India), Austria, Bahamas, Trinidad, Estonia, Iceland, Lux, Slovakia --- relevant in the context of the "free world"

457:

Is the '2021' in the title necessary? There isn't really an event like this ever in history, and no media outlet or source is calling it "the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" (Or "The 2021 Siege of the United States Capitol"/"The 2021 Coup of the United States Capitol"/"The 2021 Riots of

5015:

Nobody said that carrying a confedarate flag at a protest is an act of war. But not inside the US Capitol, during an attack. I agree that there are ot too much sources that mention it as an act of war. But I think that here we have all the proves we need to talk about an act of war. In this case,

4966:

Their point is specifically about carrying a flag of the Confederacy (i.e. an enemy state to the Union) during a coup d'etat attempt against the United States government. This could theoretically be interpreted as a nascent act of the Civil War performed by militant advocates for the (now-defunct)

4255: 4150:

May well be more trouble than it's worth, but I wondered what others thought of including a further reading section to collect some of the longform narrative pieces like the following. (I saw one last night from WSJ too, but I don't have the URL handy.) There's a zillion news articles around and I

4068:

I don't think it's a stretch to say that a lot of comparisons have been made between the police response to the BLM riots and this event, yet there's nothing about this in the article. I've seen some news coverage doing these comparisons, so there's definitely sources. It seems pretty important to

412:

per DividedFrame and Kingsif. "Insurrection" was used more by sources than "breached", and the proposal to move to "insurrection" was unsuccessful. The current title is good enough; let's hold off on starting more proposed name changes unless and until one of those proposals emerges as the obvious

3139:

I don't think that this event could be considered a coup, the thing is too unorganized. I was sure that Trump, despite his questionable actions, I don't think that his real intention was to block in this illegal way the certification of votes. In my opinion, it lacks the assumptions to call this

1055:

The first sentence of the third paragraph, which states "The demonstration culminated in a violent attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters." The word "violent" in this sentence should be removed for two reasons. First, it is a fluff word which serves no purpose, as the word "attack" necessarily

876:

I agree. So many across the political spectrum in America, and everyone else in the world, has certainly described it in more stark terms than merely "protests". So many public officials and experts in America, and leaders around the world called it an "attempted coup", "storming of the Capitol",

4733:

Agreed, or rather: none of the three cited sources actually support the claim that Trump ordered them to storm the Capitol. They all report that he told his supporters to march there, but clearly that's not the same. The closest quote is from Times: "'If you don’t **fight** like hell, you’re not

3443:

I wish it was enforced too, but it seems that there are far too many edits, making it too difficult to enforce. Due to the high likelihood of edit conflicts, edits were making their edits smaller and more numerous, which creates more edit conflicts and increases the difficulty in identifying and

4883:

Actualy, if somebody carries a Confedarate flag outside the Capitol isnt't an act of war. But if they are armed and cause damages threatening people at the sanctum of democracy, mayby you are right. This is an act of war. Finding sources to prove something that all planet saw with their eyes is

4494:

So now there is a separate page, obviously we can and should summarize here. However the current summary is vastly inadequate and borders on disinformation. It is not sufficient to say outside observers expressed concern and were shocked as if that's all there was. The current version goes even

4308:

The photographs and videos currently included in this page do not sufficiently reflect the identity of the perpetrators as Trump supporters. Given that there are now conspiracy theories indicating that the ANTIFA incited the storming which are being circulating in the right-wing media, it is

4259: 4258: 3406:

If edit wars aren't considered disruptive, then I disagree. There have been silent edit wars on this article, where the same content has been added, removed and re-added multiple times. This is allowed due to the significant amount of edits being made, which makes community enforcement of

4566:

Hey, does anyone know if any public domain images of the incursion into the Capitol itself exist? The current infobox images seem a tad detached from the subject at hand since they're from the rally earlier in the day. If such images exist, I think they'd be well placed in said infobox.

4256: 3756:, but I don't think PolitiFact is probably sophisticated enough to have landed on that word yet; maybe they will in a few days. I don't say that disparagingly, just that their writers don't have any real expertise in this area and seem to be learning on the job at the moment.) 2803:

There's no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol. ... Philips, a computer programmer who founded a social media website for Trump supporters and coordinated transportation for several dozen people, arrived in Washington with the group around 10:30

4242: 4241: 4238: 4237: 3520:. So I think we should make a page now, and if it turns out to not happen we can just merge it back into this page as its not really that notable (members have called for trumps impeachment and removal 100s of times, not really that notable unless at least there is a vote). 1075:

I disagree with this amendment. "Violent" is an adjective, "attack" is a verb. The adjective in this case better puts forward gravity of the situation. If the sentence is not a quote, then I don't think the point of the article not using that one specific point is relevant.

4243: 1269:

Maybe include the link under the words "second time" at the end of the second sentence there as such: ("House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on Pence to formally invoke the 25th Amendment, while threatening to impeach Trump for a

4994:

no one calls for a return of an independent south. One guy holding a flag now deemed political incorrect while at a protest turned riot by people who pride themselves on not being political correct is a pointless side note in comparison to what actually happened.

4947:

members carrying flags of the Soviet Union or 1960s protestors who had North Vietnam flags, were insurrectionist or enemy combatants. All evidence points to this being handled by the DC police not the army so none of the three things you mention apply here.

4389:

IMHO, we will need to rely on fair use here. Some of the most gripping images are owned by Getty (I've seen their watermark clearly on them), as well as other for-profit groups. They might permit CC-NC relicensing, which I believe falls under fair use. --

4240: 1783:— The new wording you suggest doesn't improve the sentence. Putting the "During the evening," first as an introductory adjunct clause informs the reader of the time change regarding the information presented as well as frames the circumstances well. 5117:

because this IP have adding info about Gunpowder Plot II in the article. I tried to revert that IP's edit, but it deems inssuficient due to article being semi-protected. And please restore the previous text about planning of storming or elsewhere.

329:. I have no problem with the current title but it does seem more that credible sources use the term "breach" rather than the term "storming". However, two title changes in two days seems like a lot so we should be patient and wait to change again. 4503:

The following blamed Trump for the crisis (relevant to how they treat him as a legitimate or illegitimate interlocutor for the American people in the two weeks he is still President, if he remains so): France, Germany, Ireland, Nigeria, Sweden,

4514:

relying on other members of the "free world" to maintain democracy in their country should it be challenged, and the US' history of intervention in the internal affairs of country's facing challenges to democracy, especially in Eastern Europe.

4592:

and should be replaced with something like "after being inflamed by unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, a mob of armed rioters stormed the United States Capitol, breaching security and occupying parts of the building for several hours"

810:

Minor nitpick, but I think the following words found at the beginning of the article should either be lower-case or italicized if being emphasized. Capitalized words almost always lead the reader to reading them first and can be distracting.

3261:'s fair and extended engagement with various editors on the talk page, as well as their quick handling of some minor bits of disruption. I was going to leave something saying as much on their talk page, but I might as well leave it here. 5055:

The confederate flag symbolize an ideology that support slavery and it's considered a symbol against democracy. Invading the building that represents democracy itself, holding theese flags and armed it's obviously an act of war against

4843:

Since many of the people in the insurrection were carrying a confederate flag or other confederate symbology, shouldn't this be viewed as an act of war, with the individuals tried as enemy combatants before a military tribunal?

3353:

I too am mightily impressed by the work of my peers. I have started several breaking news articles during my 200 years on Knowledge (XXG) and know how frustrating and exhilarating it can be. Brilliant efforts all round today.

941:. Multiple, credible sources (CNN, CBS) have reported both Trump's cabinet and multiple senior Republicans are calling for his removal. So I've put my draft in the main space. Put the link in the main article if you want to. 5487:

Do you think your sole opinion - and two reverts before bringing it to discussion on what I expect is a 1RR article - trumps the pre-established views of those that discussed it before? I'll be waiting on your self-revert.

5525:

continuing to force it, and self-revert until then. P.S. And don't think that calling someone out for being "snarky" in a different situation makes your opinion superior or whatever your intention in doing that was, okay?

4271:(R-Ill 11): one of his speech when the House returned to debate, and the other of his Twitter video today as the first GOP lawmaker to call for 25th amendment removal. Either of these might be good to use in the article. 2122:"mob of rioters" is awkward and redundant. Change to just "mob". Also, "rioters" and "mob" may violate NPOV. Why are they not "protestors"? "Mob" seems most NPOV to me, unless we'd like to go with "group" or something. 533:

as a redirect there. Multiple sources have described this as the first time the Capitol was stormed since 1814. Even if we don’t have a page just about the 1814 storming, we still need to distinguish this from that.

1652:

Change "while condoning the insurrection with false claims of election fraud." to "while reiterating false claims of election fraud". The former interpretation is not directly supported by the sources and violates

1511:

Change "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." to "Several media outlets accused Trump of inciting the riots by his comments at an earlier rally.". The first version violates

3061: 4903:

perhaps. The US government can act against domestic terrorism, but "war" indicates there is a defined enemy. I would think it would be unConstitutional to designate any one political party as the enemy.

2291: 4290: 5187:

References 154 through 178 are broken entirely. I assume this happened when someone moved around sources, or deleted "extra" sources, and did not notice that the reference was used by name elsewhere.

5016:

are the sources necessery? Only the picture shows people with confedarate and other alt-right flags INSIDE the US Capitol attacking at police officers, is enough to talk about an act of civil war.

4510:

Russia made a cryptic statement about Maidan (i.e. the Ukrainian protests that toppled a pro-Russian head of state) that may be interpreted either as mocking American democracy or... something else.

4254: 2616:

Being reported by Reuters. As of right now, the headline on the home page and the URL give the updated information, but the article itself still makes the claim, so may just be a case of waiting.

4735: 4151:

thought it might make sense to highlight, for our benefit and for posterity, the ones that describe the whole event and not just episodes that are part of it. FYI, the below are collected at the

2229: 1857: 2253:- The lede is a summary of the body, which already states "Among the protesters, Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran, died after being shot by law enforcement inside the Capitol. 2790: 1550:(the crime). They mean it, they mean "to stir up or excite; to rouse or goad into action". That is indisputable given the sources. I understand the murky nature of this. However this was also 5479:

The isn't a real consensus, but there was overwhelming support at the last discussion linked at the top of this section. Some said it should only be included if there is a strong disclaimer.

2538:

There has been an extensive RfC on this topic, and the consensus was not to refer to them universally as rioters, but rather on a case by case basis reflecting what the reliable sources say.

1928: 4123: 5402: 4667: 4607: 3810:

There should be a separate but linked article for this attack, as it is an unprecedented in modern US history. News sources such as NYT are calling it an attack... and that’s what it is.

567:

This is good info for the article. Has any President ever been banned, especially for this long? If so, Mr. Facebook is stronger than Mr. Trump. All the pleading in the world won't help.

2226: 1854: 5597: 4587:"t the behest of United States President Donald Trump, a mob of armed rioters stormed the United States Capitol, breaching security and occupying parts of the building for several hours" 210:. But Storm? Given that it appears that the QAnon nutters appear to use "Storm" as a codeword for their takevoer ... the use of Storm is very concerning, and should be quickly changed! 155:– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOL. Using "Storming" kinda has an alarming sound that comes across as not totally neutral. Additionally, breach has been commonly used in reliable sources. 4350:

You're not wrong, but I don't know if it will accomplish what you think it will. These people will just as easily believe that "antifa infiltrators" put on some MAGA hats to blend in.

4239: 3099:

Shouldn’t there be a separate but linked article entitled “2021 Attack on US Capitol”? Why does this specific event not have its own article? It is unprecedented in modern US history.

1056:

implies violence (unless you're talking about a verbal attack, which this article very clearly is not). And second, due to the loaded nature of the word, it should only be included if

4967:

Confederacy. While the attempt to violently disrupt democracy has been recognized as sedition and domestic terrorism, but currently no reliable sources recognize it as an act of war.

3496:

I've just read the entire article and am greatly impressed with it. Even if many conflicts had to be undergone by the editors, this is an astonishing production in a very short time.

89: 2986:, you are correct. However, if people are mistakenly typing it often looking for this article, then it is a good redirect. Unless it was referring to a different incident? Thanks, 1591: 1747:

Please change: "During the evening, riot police and protester outside United States Capitol" to: "Riot police and protesters outside the United States Capitol during the evening"

81: 76: 64: 59: 2617: 1431: 4415:

Many sources are providing proof - more of which will be forthcoming - regarding Antifa's obvious roll in the violence at the Capitol. This was clearly a democrat putsch.

3374:

I don't think page protection is an appropriate solution to edit conflicts. If more protection is needed to avoid edit wars, sure, but this would be unnecessary otherwise.

702:) conflate "removal from office" with "no longer being the Acting President", and the functional difference is so small that this sentence doesn't strike me as inaccurate. 2281: 4943:

No, rioters carrying confederate flags, which really from 1896- till the late 2010s, were often prompted by the federal government is not insurrection. By that reasoning

2292:

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2021/01/protest-set-for-oregon-capitol-as-trump-stages-dc-rally-lawmakers-convene-to-confirm-electoral-college-vote.html

4194:

Buchanan, Larry; Gamio, Lazaro; Kelso, Christina; Khavin, Dmitriy; Leatherby, Lauren; Parlapiano, Alicia; Reinhard, Scott; Singhvi, Anjali; Watkins, Derek (2021-01-07).

3748:

and, throughout the article, the author hedges his bets, never coming right out and saying yes or no. (In any case, if it could be defined in these terms it would be an

2037: 646: 5596:

the implication was pretty clear. But, fair enough. Should there be a section of the article describing news coverage of the event, and how different networks reacted?

3149: 3114: 3075: 2870: 1214:

In the sixth paragraph of the introduction, when mentioning the removal from office demands from Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi over the event, include link to <

3279:

I am more mixed on this. There have been far too many edit conflicts, and clearly there is need for a type of protection that has a higher requirement than 500 edits.

4522:

Stated that the protests damaged the ability of the US to criticize other governments or governing systems, or of double standards: Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, Russia

4499:. But there is a wide diversity of responses, all of which are notable and who says what has deep implications, especially once the next administration takes power: 169: 3606:

It is far too premature to create a new page until actions are taken toward impeachment beyond just an introduction of a resolution. This should be a new section at

4115: 699: 4464: 2276: 207: 4663: 4603: 2222:

Change Ashli Babbitt, to Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed U.S. Air Force veteran, a married business-owner from San Diego who’d reportedly served four tours of duty,

1850:

Change Ashli Babbitt, to Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed U.S. Air Force veteran, a married business-owner from San Diego who’d reportedly served four tours of duty,

1411:, I see no clear evidence that the officer on life support and Sicknick were the same person; Sicknick is mentioned as joining the Capitol Police in 2008 here: 979:– Trump has been called out many times before; this is stronger than usual, but not unique. The responses should be noted, just not on their own page for now. 204: 5600:

additionally mentions how Fox News, at least initially, was very much happy for the rioters, backtracking once they realized the mob was far from peaceful.

1090:"Attack" necessarily implies violence of some nature. Saying "violent attack" feels like too much puffery for this controversial article. Edit implemented. 564:

Twiiter 12 hour ban and threatened longer unless Trump complied and removed 3 tweets. What did those tweets say? Twitter ban reported to have been lifted.

47: 17: 3965: 5304: 5092: 3997: 3052: 2927: 2923: 2918: 2914: 2744: 2680: 2492: 2455: 2341: 2201: 2101: 2015: 1906: 1829: 1726: 1631: 1490: 1329:

I removed the no longer linked citation "LifeSupport" because the original citation for that is currently broken. It was placed on the article as shown:

1193: 1034: 753: 481: 467: 148: 2227:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/07/trump-supporter-reportedly-killed-by-capitol-police-was-us-air-force-vet-family-distraught-and-confused-1013485/

1855:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/07/trump-supporter-reportedly-killed-by-capitol-police-was-us-air-force-vet-family-distraught-and-confused-1013485/

3819: 3102: 2702: 2166:

Please see the extensive discussions about which term to use to describe the group elsewhere on this talk page. We go with what source material says.

1412: 2779: 4166: 3558: 363:

let's wait a few days for what the public reflects this as before considering another move. The last request was literally just closed an hour ago.

4376:. While there is some call for due weight and balance, we should just follow reliable sources, and the cultural consensus will make it to the top. 4863:

that show that the insurrection is an act of war, then it will be added to the article. Knowledge (XXG)'s job isn't predicting what might happen.

1060:

are also using that word. However, the source cited for that sentence does not include the word "violent." Therefore, the word should be removed.

200: 911: 886: 4180: 2618:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-capitol-police/u-s-capitol-police-say-reports-of-officer-death-not-accurate-idUSKBN29D00G?il=0

5586: 5260:

Thanks! This has been bugging me, but I've fixed this sort of thing on previous breaking news articles, and it's a pain to do. All the best:

5119: 4845: 4416: 4005: 3487: 174: 4757: 4638: 3874: 2123: 2040: 1762: 618: 430: 290: 3954: 4053: 3523:

I would make it myself, but it would likely get deleted or by the time I was finished writing it there would already be another page lol.

115:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

4119: 3906: 3257:, and by that I mean those contributing in good-faith, which is the majority. I'd also like to say that I'm particularly impressed with 3167: 2282:

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/pro-trump-protesters-gather-near-oregon-capitol/283-9d75e29c-d3d8-4b48-8818-054a7ff54282

1561:

because the suggested replacement you have is NPOV given the controversial nature of the page because it frames the issue in a way that

938: 907: 2761:

Note: This source is already used as a reference for a statement in the "Casualties and losses" section in the civil conflict infobox.

2743:

Ben Phillips was one of the three people who died from a medical emergency. The following information might be worth mentioning in the

2602:

Source? Multiple credible sources are saying that a police officer died, with some saying that there may have been two officer deaths.

1680:

The wording was a bit NPOV and a little SYN, so I reworded it to suit the sources and NPOV better. However the facts remain unchanged.

5365: 4787: 4739: 3589: 2705: 2514: 2418: 2233: 2038:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/a-capitol-police-officer-dies-from-injuries-sustained-during-the-pro-trump-rampage.html

1966: 1861: 1799: 1696: 1581: 1381: 1359: 1312: 1260: 1163: 1106: 379: 4111: 3707:

a citation of a PolitiFact article claiming that what occurred can be reasonably considered a coup, but this citation was removed in

5582: 5023: 4885: 3730:

It was probably an edit conflict—I've had a handful of my edits mysteriously go missing just because the page is so heavily-edited.

3562: 3160:

for an additional tab to allow readers to express gratitude. Thank you all contributors for your diligent work. A European reader.

1932: 265: 181: 4715:

I see, maybe they could use the edit request function then, with a specific request for how to cure this allegedly faulty wording.

3820:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title

3333:, Fair enough, I'm just giving you a hard time. Happy editing! (I'll give another thanks to editors who've helped out as well!) --- 3103:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#%E2%80%9C2021_Attack_on_US_Capitol%E2%80%9D_should_be_the_title

872:

Mitch McConnell and a number of other Republicans have described what transpired as a Invasion by insurrectionists not protesters.

170:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-breach-security-failures/2021/01/06/e1e09b80-5061-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.html

5521:

disagree when multiple other users have already agreed on doing it. Do you understand that? Get a consensus for your choice edit

4364:

While I do agree that visual parts of the articles could be improved, you're coming to it from a wrong angle. Knowledge (XXG) is

2158: 4127: 4001: 3867:

Twitter had a big role in the storming of the Capitol. Multiple high ranking GOP members went out and disavowed trumps actions

3483: 2277:

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/01/06/pro-trump-election-rallies-close-oregon-marion-county-offices/6558277002/

1244:. Current Lead wording wouldn't be a good fit. However it would be perfect for linking in the body section if it isn't already. 530: 164: 5631: 5437: 4872: 4526:, China (bonus: South Africa advocated that Americans should "follow the example of great democratic states like South Africa") 4430: 3607: 3566: 3434: 3383: 3129: 2062:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

4659: 4599: 2286: 152: 4900: 4222: 3588:

I would support you to write a draft, but only publish it until the articles of impeachment are official. It should be named

3266: 5641: 918:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an exercise in bipartisanship. We chronicle what RS reported whether both, one, or no parties agree.

4838: