Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Interim report December 17, 2024

    On page 69 it says that Miller disobeyed an order from Trump because Miller did not want the public to view him as a "Trump crony." I think this may be relevant enough to add to the article, but I'd like to know what others think.

    https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/6/d/6dae7b82-7683-4f56-a177-ba98695e600d/145DD5A70E967DEEC1F511764D3E6FA1.final-interim-report.pdf#page71

    The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Describing the riot as a "coup" may not be the best thing to call it.

    Yes, this was a violent attack on the US government and there are many sources that support the characterization of the event as a coup, but not many of these sources are of high reliability or high neutrality, and some seem to just say that the labeling of the event as a "coup" has been popular (not saying that that's what the event actually was). If you need me to show some reliable sources of my own, here are some that call the "coup" term into dispute or use the word "riot" instead: https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/news/article/was-jan-6-an-insurrection-a-failed-coup-cleary-discusses-with-politico https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/04/a-look-back-at-americans-reactions-to-the-jan-6-riot-at-the-u-s-capitol/ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/19/jan-6-coup-authoritarianism-expert-roundtable-00052281 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67889403 

    LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A source not saying coup, is not the same as a source saying it was not a coup. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source did not describe a self coup. We should not be putting words into sources. Slothwizard (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they did say that the classification of the Jan. 6 riot as a coup is in dispute. The article should say that some/many have described the event as a coup, though this article shouldn’t state that clarification as a certified fact. LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to this article after seeing the Wikipedia blurb below a YouTube video stating definitively that it was a "self-coup d'état". I really don't think the events of January 6th, while deplorable, fit that definition and we need to be aware that statements made on Wikipedia end up in very prominent places and are treated in those contexts as matters of fact.
    I think it's perfectly fine to include the characterization in the article somehow, since there are multiple reliable sources using the term "coup" in their coverage, but stating in the voice of Wikipedia that "it was a coup" is not appropriate. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We go by what RS say, RS have described it as one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all RS say that it's a coup (see the sources in my talk page as an example). LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep this article safe

    Please keep it here. Correditor56 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    it's not going anywhere EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the above, it ain't going anywhere. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but protect it from any vandalism Correditor56 (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't protect pages preemptively. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the page should be protected from vandalism. I would suggest entering a ticket at the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection I don't see why the consensus would reject this but I would still go ahead and submit the ticket. Butterscotch5 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already put in a ticket. Correditor56 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Size of Crowd?

    The article has the number of arrested and those that entered the Capitol building, but it doesn’t have the size of the initial crowd. The Congressional report has an estimate of 53,000 at the rally, with 25,000 inside the security boundary and 28,000 outside the magnetometers. I didn’t see a number for how many moved to the Capitol.

    Mdnahas (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Protestors weren't armed

    The lede states "As Congress began the electoral vote count, thousands of attendees, some armed, walked to the Capitol, and hundreds breached police perimeters". This gives the impression that some of those who reached the Capitol were armed. It is my understanding from searching the web at the time that all of the protestors had to go through airport-style security checks before they got close to the Capitol and indeed this was the main reason that the outcome was not more serious than it was.

    The references for the above statement only talk about armed mobs approaching Washington and the like. Clearly some protestors had banners etc. which they turned into weapons, but there were no firearms or knives or other lethal weapons. Can someone find the references I found at the time? Chris55 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Armed doesn't mean firearms or bladed weapons. They did use weapons (chemical spray, batons, etc). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "gives the impression" and stand by that. I read about chemical sprays: was this a failure of the security system or a conscious decision? Chris55 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were firearms at January 6. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump claimed there was "not one gun" amid Jan. 6 rioters. Here are some of the guns at the Capitol that day | CBS News – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting article. But it's not clear in most instances that the weapons were actually carried into the Capitol. e.g. Banuelos is photoed against the background of a spectator stand. Was this inside or outside? And remember gun laws are much tighter in DC so the arrests could have been made outside. Chris55 (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Missouri Man Sentenced on Felony Weapons Charge for Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach | DOJ
    Texas Man Convicted of Carrying Firearm onto Capitol Grounds During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach | DOJ
    California woman stormed Capitol during Jan. 6 riot with sword, steel whip and pepper spray, FBI says | CBS News – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that makes my point. "Mares was observed on January 6th with an object consistent with that of a firearm on his right hip underneath a camouflage shirt while in the District". Bargar's case is clearer. But all the same, no weapons were actually used in anger in the building apart from banner-poles. Even Babbitt's knife (which might be hard to spot on x-ray). And given the number of guns in the US, that is worth a mention. Chris55 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL you said This gives the impression that some of those who reached the Capitol were armed as though none were armed in the Capitol, I demonstrated that people brought weapons into the Capitol, and you think that "makes your point"? You were trying to make the point that we were erroneously making it seem that weapons were brought into the Capitol, when it is a fact that weapons were brought into the Capitol. What does no weapons were actually used in anger even supposed to mean? Nevermind, don't answer that, I'm not replying to this any longer. Weapons were brought into the Capitol, full stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't read very carefully. The quote said "District" not Capitol. I'm not denying there might have been a couple of minor exceptions, but the article fails to point out the almost complete absence of weapons and their use. Chris55 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Chris55[reply]
    Didn't Babit have a knife? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She did. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask a stupid question? What is "capitol" in this context? Is it United States Capitol or United States Capitol Complex? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a stupid question, but in this case it's moot because weapons were brought into the Capitol building itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1268645222"