Talk:2021 U.S. Capitol riot/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Suggested header[edit]

When sufficient perspective has arisen - 'Making capital out of the Capitol riot'

See the Wikipedia page on 'trial by battle' - US subsection. Anna Livia (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there some reason Hyasynthgirl removed a section I contributed in the Siege of the Capitol section? 2601:14a:602:3a60:94c6:6e19:16d3:2593

To whom were the hour-long phone calls made (or is 'nobody, nowhere' point?). Anna Livia (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Inauguration event[edit]

Will there be a part 2 come 20 January? Anna Livia (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible, but unlikely. Last I heard, some of them were planning another putsch attempt at the inauguration, but most of them didn't seem to know what day it was taking place on. Plus, security is gonna be much tighter (since the President is involved).TheEndlessVoid (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
They probably do not have the collective intelligence to make use of persistent unfocused disruption (let alone 'noise in the east, attack in the west.')
Dunning Kruger effect developed - whatever their opinion of facemasks they do provide some protection against ready identification. Anna Livia (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparison[edit]

Should reference be made to the Trafalgar Square, London, Poll Tax Riots [1]? Anna Livia (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes to self[edit]

Feel free to use these, or if not, I may integrate them after the page goes to mainspace.

Bongolian (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Infowars' organizational involvement[4]

Bongolian (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Brave Sir [Donald] ran away. Bravely ran away away. When danger reared it's ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled."[7]
  • "After this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you."[8]

Bongolian (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Technicality[edit]

I know that this is really splitting hairs. But wouldn't this technically count as an auto-coup? 74.103.249.13 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)astone

That's correct. I think the title should change to 2021 United States coup attempt. Bongolian (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Mainspace?[edit]

Is this ready for mainspace yet? It has lots of sources and content and some pretty good pictures. --Goatspeed. Happy Halloween!πŸŽƒCircularREmail2.gifasoningπŸŽƒSteal my ideas 04:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would wait a little while longer. Some of the sections are just started and will need cleanup. I also noticed that several other articles here have had a lot of material added to them that could be copied over and centralized. β€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Antifa isn't a group, it's a movement, and the term extremist is subjective and comes off as liberal editorializing. This isn't LiberalWiki. Try to be less inflammatory with your language when it comes to groups that we are largely aligned with. β€” Oxyaena Harass 03:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So, no, it's not whitewashing. β€” Oxyaena Harass 03:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
So this would be correct. Just as BLM isn't a singular group, but a collection of groups acting loosely in unison, so too is the case with antifa. That being said, the accusations are unneeded. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I take umbrage with the needlessly inflammatory language "extremist." It just comes off as POV pushing, as editorializing. Just because the editorializing happens to be liberal editorializing doesn't make it less editorializing. β€” Oxyaena Harass 03:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
While I disagree that antifa isn't extremist, upon seeing what you wrote instead I guess it's still a good description. --Goatspeed. Happy Halloween!πŸŽƒCircularREmail2.gifasoningπŸŽƒSteal my ideas 17:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone made another article on this...[edit]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/January_2021_insurrection_at_U.S._Capitol

β€” The π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I recommend merging this draft with the article that's already in mainspace. β€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
We should wait a bit before doing that. We should decide the article’s name in the Saloon Bar. I have moved the mainspace article to a draft. Aight imma gonna sleep now. β€” The π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this draft has more content in it, I think the new draft should be merged with this one. --Goatspeed. Happy Halloween!πŸŽƒCircularREmail2.gifasoningπŸŽƒSteal my ideas 19:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Unrest part 2[edit]

Will mention [9] - so be prepared.

And one hopes no Daleks were involved here Anna Livia (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

More duplicative material[edit]

A lot of content has been added to this section of the Authoritarianism of Donald Trump article. Wherever the merged article appears, we should move over most of the detailed information from the authoritarianism article and leave a summary there. β€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Known or charged participants"[edit]

We should probably establish notability guidelines. It's getting pretty out of hand. How many people named "Adam Johnson" live in Florida? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe require cites for each person? I can't find Charles Pellien, NY as one of the rioters. I'm removing him for now, add him back if we find a cite. CoryUsar (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

ATTENTION PLXORS[edit]

As these are real, living people, please please PLEASE. Do NOT add names to the "known/charged participants" section unless we have a good citation to go along with it. CoryUsar (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is important. Don't even bother adding citation needed tags. Any unsourced name can be sniped freely. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I have sniped every unsourced name. Readd these only with sources. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed people for lacking citations[edit]

Here's a list of people who are missing citations, feel free to readd them when citations are found.

  • Tim Edward David, Oregon.
  • Laura Daube Kronen, Georgia.
  • Brian Clowdus, Georgia.
  • Matthew Capsel (a.k.a. Mateo Q Capsel)
  • Edgar Gonzalez (a.k.a. Remy Del Toro), Illinois, Proud Boy.
  • Thomas Tanase, Connecticut.[1]
  • Damon Grant Hewitt, New York.

71.120.86.44 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, BoN. Twodots Annoy me Look, ma! 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Question: Is a video from someone's social media of them being in the riot a good enough citation? Here's a Tiktok of the "Mateo Q Capsel" guy: https://www.tiktok.com/@mateoqcapsel/video/6915060410001526021 71.120.86.44 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So apparently, a bunch of congressmen were shot...[edit]

...in 1954, by Puerto Rican terrorists. Surprised I never learned about this before, also, Carter commuting their sentences is another reason he can go fuck himself. CoryUsar (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Horribly disagree. Another head-up-own-ass post courtesy of everyone's favorite Dunning-Kruger dipshit CoryUsar. β€” Oxyaena Harass 07:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

'50 Capitols protest'[edit]

As this has made the BBC News - [10] a passing mention here? Anna Livia (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To what extent[edit]

Would the riot/civil unrest have happened in some form anyway?

IF there were not 'a lot of people who are dissatisfied for various reasons and willing to take violent action/cause chaos' Trump's comment would just have been treated as 'nasty sour grapes' followed by a minor demo.

What is the likelihood of another such 'event' occurring? I know 'the authorities' will maintain a police presence, monitor communications etc, but to what extent was there coordination/planning (which would make 'seeing what is going on' difficult)? Anna Livia (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: "It's not a coup" subsection?[edit]

I noticed GrammarCommie had commented out a section about leftists who are downplaying the incident, asking for a clarification and a rewrite. I'm not the original author, but I've excerpted it here:

A disturbingly common view among a certain brand of supposed American "leftists" went into the business of downplaying or outright denying that it was a coup attempt,[a 1] with some simply dodging the topic altogether in favor of criticizing the Democrats or Big Tech for their responses in the aftershock. You'll find many saying because the military wasn't involved or because it wasn't planned or organized very well, it's not a coup. Some argue it was just a rowdy mob and now there's gonna be Patriot Act 2.0 or some shit. Notable coup deniers include Tim Canova,[a 2] Jimmy Dore,[a 3] [a 4] Niko House,[a 5] Fiorella Isabel,[a 6] [a 7] [a 8] Sarcasm Stardust (real name unknown),[a 9] [a 10] [a 11] [a 12] [a 13] [a 14] Sameera Khan,[a 15] Socialist MMA (also real name unknown),[a 16] Richard Medhurst,[a 17] Bad Empanada,[a 18] Kyle Kulinski,[a 19] Krystal Ball, Bashkar Sunkara,[a 20] and Glenn Greenwald,[a 21] [a 22] [a 23] [a 24] all of whom are podcast hosts, YouTubers, and/or Twitter personalities with reach among leftists.

Now, I'm in agreement with Grammar that it needs a rewrite. I think that it's entirely fair to bring up the folks on the left who are basically "whatabouting" something this serious, but without focusing on/discussing examples and why they're issues (rather than dropping a long reflist), it doesn't come off well.

I figured we could discuss here rather than just leave it commented out without, well, comment on the main page though. β€”β„•oir LeSable (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be why I commented it out. Firstly, I hate the list. I hate listicles that don't inform anyway, and this one comes off as... Slightly hitlist-y. Secondly, it's pretty shallow in its depth of content and doesn't really debunk the claims being made. Thirdly, this is a real problem. This a good chunk of popular leftwing media personalities basically downplaying a serious attempt to overthrow the government. They should be criticized. However, I do not feel that the section in question does so adequately. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The primary fear I think seen among this side of "the left" is fear of aggressive, over-police / military / restriction of liberty in response to this (though I'm not sure what evidence they have other than feelings), plus in some cases they sympathize with those being deplatformed by Big Tech (which is a misunderstanding of how things work, do they want the government to tell Big Tech what to publish or something?). Take this Greenwald post. In Greenwald's case, it quickly led to some strange downplaying what the protesters did and some whataboutism in the form of BLM protests (apparently, Greenwald does not think it's possible for someone to *both* condemn any BLM protesters that escalated into violence *and* condemn the Trump cult insurgents). And such a take is pretty laughable considering how close Greenwald is getting to Russia these days. (He's stirring shit on Tucker Carlson's show, so is he really part of the left anymore?)
For another angle, the Bhaskar Sunkara take, rather than exploring a tweet that came from the Oklahoma City bombing days (sheesh), I looked at his magazine, Jacobin, for their current view. There's an article called "We Should Be Very Worried About Joe Biden's 'Domestic Terrorism' Bill", which is a weasel-y clickbait title that itself misrepresents some weasel-y statements Biden made while politickin', misrepresenting the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995Wikipedia back in the day. Other articles explore the theme where imaginary "people" are asking imaginary "questions" that threaten to (in their imagination so far) restrict civil liberty ("We Don't Need New Terror Laws to Defeat the Far Right" -- has anyone been asking for them? "We Can’t Fight the Far Right in Military Court" -- who's asking for the military to do so?). The common fear is fear of big authoritarian government. Jacobin fully acknowledged the right-wing shenanigans and called it a "radical right" "riot", that's not a terribly huge downplay.
One troublesome irony with the fear of authority on this left side is that the tunes tend to change when the person is sympathetic to the authoritarian style in question. As seen with Greenwald above. Jacobin had no problem calling an event a "coup" to describe when their leftist (and increasingly authoritarian in the end) Bolivian friend, Evo Morales, got caught doing a wee bit of vote rigging and had to resign. Also, according to Jacobin, Hugo Chavez was no dictator, which is a very laughable statement. Apparently this side of the left shares the authoritarian instinct also seen on the Trump-ian right that authoritarianism is wrong and horrible, unless your side is the one in authority. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I find it stochastically suspicious that every one of the journalists and twitiots in the above list can be connected to Russiagate denialism. My favorite example is

Sameera Khan who also tweeted praise for Joseph Stalin's Gulags. This was apparently too much even for RT, her Kremlin-friendly employer. DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!01:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I for one find it a little strange to consider this a coup attempt because nobody has really explained by what means these people actually tried to sieze control of the US government. Was this the stated aim of the entire group? Nothing I've read or seen would indicate this, as this wasn't a singular group unified in defined politics with stated aims on what their goals were that day. Yes, the event was obviously unusual. The Capitol Building isn't breached every day but the United States was in no danger of succumbing to the will of the mob, whatever their intentions actually were. Stuff was destroyed, offices ransacked. Was this really an event similar to Pearl Harbour as Chuck Schumer would suggest, or was this a large group of idiots who took a few hours to disrupt Congress and take selfies? Was this a show of right-wing authoritarianism? Maybe it was, but if you admit that you might as well admit that the proposed solutions like expanding domestic terrorism laws to be just as, if not more of a show of authoritarian power from the actual authorities. Is President Trump responsible for what happened? I can imagine he's responsible for gathering a large group of his supporters but he never told them to storm the Capitol either. Before we call this a coup or a coup attempt, let's explain how. Caseinpointfan2 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Petition to change the name[edit]

It wasn't a riot, it was an attempted insurrection. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes it as a riot. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The media is also describing the riot as the capitol Insurrection Ariel31459 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters. Yes, it was an insurrection, but the existing name is already linked to on a lot of pages. (It's worth noting that we'd also have to rename the recently-created category used for articles on people and organizations directly related to it, plus all category tags for said category on all the pages it contains.) Perhaps we could add a redirect like "US Capitol insurrection" or something? --Goatspeed. Happy Halloween!πŸŽƒCircularREmail2.gifasoningπŸŽƒSteal my ideas 01:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bigly perps[edit]

Given that the FBI has indicated that there could eventually be hundreds of arrests[11] from the coup attempt, we might think about doing something structurally similar to what was done on the QAnon page with the map dissection. That is, moving the perps to a footnote that has a page transclusion. Bongolian (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuck man we can't be listening everybody that was rioting, that's ridiculous. Trimmed.-Hastur! (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Big list[edit]

@Bongolian What is the purpose of the list? Who reads through it? Who recognizes the names they see on it? Who learns from the list?-Hastur! (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You could make an argument that it should be culled, but I don't think a wholesale deletion is a good idea. An alternative to culling could be to list some prominent names in the main body (Proud Boys, conspirators or other egregious characters), and then move the rest to a footnote, similar to what was done with the QAnon map dissection. Bongolian (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Suggesting keeping it or moving to to a subpage like QAnon map. It's well referenced and relevant enough that someone might go "hey I recognize them, they were my main source of getting QAnon shit, but this capitol shite went beyond what I was okay with, so it's starting a deradicalization process". I oppose nuking it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't nuke it. I culled it. Are we really operating under the assumption that people read lists like that? And let's be honest, if somebody is blogging about QAnon, they also blogged about participating in the riot. Your example isn't a very good one-Hastur! (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there were two BoNs who read it and added more names that were missing. So yes, someone's reading it. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Strong chance it's the same guy. We have a BoN with a fixation for creating lists. Look at the contributions, he tried the same thing with the TERF and Rockefeller Republican articles, among others-Hastur! (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
since when did rw suddenly not like unwieldy lists? you cant not keep adding to a list or making new ones. at this least this one is finite AMassiveGay (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, good point, those ought to be purged too-Hastur! (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You know a list has too many nobodies when you just write the name and the state of origin for a bunch of them. Who the heck cares? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I think there should be a list of those charged who were ring leaders, individuals seems a bit tedious when we're looking at 300+ people likely getting charged.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Especially those insignificant individuals who literally have nothing listed next to them save their state of origin. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Like, oh boy am I sure glad that RW makes special note of Ryan Mason who is from Maryland. That’s it, he’s just from Maryland. Aren’t you glad you know about him? He’s from Maryland! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Fuck Ryan Mason. We should remove everybody from the list but him. He is the worst. And so is Maryland-Hastur! (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, Mason appears to be an ordinary dickhead (curfew violation). Can we vote on/agree on criteria for inclusion that rise above simple unauthorized entry/curfew violation? Examples for inclusion could be 1) charges that include: weapons, violence, breaking and entering, theft, conspiracy, 2) membership in Proud Boys/militia/alt-right group, or 3) anyone who already has a webpage on RW. Bongolian (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜Also, if someone's thinking that this is going to be a huge cull of the 235 known arrestees, read this from The Guardian:[12]

β€œβ€As more has become known about those arrested, the strategy being pursued by the FBI has also revealed itself. In several cases, people who participated in the storming of the Capitol were picked up and charged with relatively minor offenses such as trespassing or theft of mail simply as a means to get them into prosecutorial clutches. Once in the system, more serious charges could then be added as intelligence came in. That pattern of escalating charges can be seen in the cases of Nicholas DeCarlo from Texas and Nicholas Ochs from Hawaii.

Bongolian (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this a variant on the 'Al Capone Manoeuvre' (where he was charged on tax evasion)? Anna Livia (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This is actually a very common prosecutorial procedure in the US. First charge someone with what you have very good evidence for. After you've got them charged, you can ask a judge for search warrants or comb through whatever was picked up when they were arrested. If you've also got their cohort(s) on charges, you can start squeezing them with the prisoner's dilemma. Often there are more serious charges that start coming out of this procedure. The difference with this and Capone is that it was widely known that Capone ordered his subordinates to commit a lot of nasty crimes, but the crimes could not be easily tied to Capone in a court of law (gangster code of silence, basically). Taxes were low-hanging fruit. If he had filed taxes, he would have had to have signed the tax returns (thus fraud because he couldn't state his actual sources of income). If hadn't signed them that would have still been tax evasion. Bongolian (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Barring any objections, I'm going to trim the list again. I don't see any point in naming so many nobodies, unless we're trying to encourage vigilante justice maybe?-Hastur! (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Do a short protection to autoconfirmed afterwards otherwise a BON will just restore it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, please trim the list, Hastur! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

'One month afterwards'[edit]

As one month has passed and the US hasn't gone into 'apocalypse scenario of choice' perhaps a review of the situation? Anna Livia (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump was impeached by the House on January 13th for his actions leading up to the insurrection. Many of the Republicans are split between their efforts for saving face: support pursuing justice and convicting him, or crying for "unity" so they aren't next on the chopping block. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) literally begged the House not to impeach him, partially because of his complicity in the conspiracy mongering. There is still a lot of bad blood between the Dems and the Republicans, especially the more progressive Dems and the Republicans who egged the rioters on. 45 of the 50 republicans in the Senate apparently believe Trump can't be convicted after leaving office, so it looks unlikely the Conviction will pass with the 17 republicans needed for the 2/3rds majority.
Joseph R. Biden Jr. was inaugurated President of the United States on January 20th, two weeks later. There remains a fringe amount of reality denying lunatics Trumpists who believe that Trump is still president. Not that "he deserves the presidency" or "he won the election"-- that he is the president. Others are still fearmongering about the impending collapse of the US into a Socialist Democratic People's Republic. SonOfStranger (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Republican Party[edit]

The section covering the Republican Party reactions seems very problematic to me. Not only it has no sources, but some of the statements look like futurology and wishful thinking. Saying that a party that got 75 million votes a few months ago is being "wiped out" is, I believe, too much of a stretch. Predicting that they won't be able to win an election that will happen only in the end of 2022 right now is at best, a risk that no rational person should take. GeeJayK (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole section is mostly crap. β€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree, and unless there is an edit conflict I shall remove it. EDIT-never mind, I think I was too hasty. On the other hand I still think the whole section should be removed as it is beyond the scope of the article.-Flandres (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we tend to shy away from prognostication in mainspace. Bongolian (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It looks better now after @CircularReasoning edit, but I'd still drop the Sonic stuff. Too early for that (and I would say, unlikely, even as an unfunny hyperbole). GeeJayK (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If we do keep it, methinks it would fit better if it was moved to the "aftermath" section. --Goatspeed. Happy Halloween!πŸŽƒCircularREmail2.gifasoningπŸŽƒSteal my ideas 03:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed it. If anyone wants to add it back, please add citations. Bongolian (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)