This template is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion
and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
I'm concerned that the use of the word "instigators" accepts the premise that Trump and several other Republicans incited the violence, which is currently a very contentious issue and one we should not take a side in per
The definition of "instigator" is "to goad or urge forward : PROVOKE"
Storming of the United States Capitol page, the first phrase in the second paragraph is literally verbatim "Called to action by Trump" which is the textbook definition of provocation and instigation. I remember that was a phrase of very heated debate on that talk page. I highly doubt people placed it there without the knowledge of the appropriate definitions and very contentious back-and-forth arguments for and against (similar to the argument you put forth) and edit consensus. Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Personally, I agree that it fits for several prominent Republicans, including Trump. However, as we've now seen,
That's why the section heading isn't "Inciters". Inciting is understood legally from speech. the definition of "instigator" on google is "a person who brings about or initiates something." It's already established that regardless of the incitement issue and what observers think of the "something", those people were responsible for initiating it Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point that they were responsible for initiating it is in itself contentious, and something we shouldn't take a side in.
Wikipedia users already verbatim stated that, the issue has already been decided. They've already asserted the textbook definition of the word as fact on the page, and the word is now contentious?Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is contentious, that is why editor consensus has put it there for others to use. They've asserted it as fact on the main page, so asserting it on the template shouldn't be an issue either, otherwise, we'd be rehashing the same arguments in the
2021 storming of the United States Capitol talk page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
I am not referring to an imaginary consensus. Anyone can access the edit history on the "view history" tab, so as for "calling me out" it's not some big secret. If you are interested in finding others' discussions on it, I think
here are some of them. There's probably more but those are the ones I found relevant to the lead section. You are right in that the word "instigator" isn't used, however, the definition "called to action" and "At his encouragement" was asserted as fact without quotation marks on the lead section after talk page discussions. I thought this was already resolved, but if you want to talk it out first, then I'll change it back. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
Should "oath keepers" and "proud boys" be included in both the "instigators tab" and the "participants" section, or one or the other? They helped planned the event, and numerous reports stated that members of their organizations participated in the storming. Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think for consistency "participants" should only contain individuals who were there (including people like Proud Boy
Alright, so the organizations should be removed from the "participants" section, and just leave individual persons? Or do you think a separate section titled "organizations" should be made? Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication
There is a similar template
is discussed at that template's talk page. --Distelfinck (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Antifa "conspiracy theory"
The generically-named "Conspiracy theory" link to Antifa is a little
@Elizium23: It isn't a link to antifa per se, but a link to Antifa - Hoaxes and conspiracy theories - Capitol attack (2021). So a link to the "Conspiracy theory that antifa instigated the 2021 Capitol attack", and that's currently the only major conspiracy theory concerning the event. I guess that "Conspiracy theory concerning antifa" could be better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion on the main article talk, images duplicated on both sidebar and infobox should be replaced. Neither the gallows nor the outdoor crowds are actually examples of the attack, the sidebar should feature at least one image of actual violence. The template was recently reverted to a version that doesn't show violence. I'll restore the image of attackers inside the capitol and chop the duplicate gallows image that's already used in the main article. Feoffer (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]