Talk:International reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack

Have any African states/heads of state/organisations addressed the events?

It looks unusual for a global reactions page to include over half of Europe's heads of state and not have a single thing from Africa. 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:F827:82A7:F25C:6226 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's only been a little less than 24 hours since the event happened. I expect some African countries will make statements in due. I'm sure many already have but those are harder to find sources on as they're likely less publicised by major news outlets. "Europe reacts to Storming of the Capitol" is a much more likely to be clicked headline than the same but with Africa. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion, but I've added reactions from Nigeria, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. I think all three are quite interesting. I'll keep looking for others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I myself was looking for more reactions from Africa yesterday as the comments from Zimbabwe’s leader really piqued my interest. But I think it’s a combination of 1) Africa’s leaders aren’t commenting on it as much, and 2) Those who do aren’t getting as much coverage as Europe’s leaders, or even Asia’s and South America’s. I really thought I would find prominent people from Egypt and Morocco for some reason, but I haven’t. With all this said, note that there is some precedence for this: On the page detailing reactions to 9/11, the only African countries listed are Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Egypt, Libya, and Morocco. So we’ll likely only be able to add a small handful of countries in the future. — GreenFlash411

Relevance of Certain Comments and Flag Usage

@Erzan: The argument has been made that Scotland should not be mentioned as it is not relevant to the article. However, Scotland is technically a dependant nation of the United Kingdom and this article also features people who are no longer in office as well as high-level diplomats and international organizations. Please discuss here before editing. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a page for elected officials of soverign states, not their sub-administrations. Which Scotland is. Adding the First Minister of Scotland is like adding the Governor of California. Foreign policy is an exlucsive right of the UK government, not the First Ministers of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Let's treat each soverign state equally on this page. Erzan (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I created the page and there's no rule on it stating it purely has to be sovereign states. It's simply "International reactions." Further, Taiwan is mentioned despite not being considered a sovereign state by the international community. Perhaps it's best to wait until consensus can be found. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, this is intenrational reations, which is the exclusive right of the UK government and so it's misleading. The overall design of this page is the vast majority of politicians mentioned are or were members of their sovereign states governments. UK/Ireland/Germany. So why treat the UK different? No other politicians from sub-regions/governments are mentioned. Nothing from California in the US or Bavaria in Germany, why? Erzan (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

California is part of the U.S. so by any definition it cannot be part of an "international reactions" list. I have no issues with subregions of other states appearing if their comments are relevant enough (such as Scotland). The page International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election even features a reaction from the Governor of Sao Paulo and also includes reactions from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales as well as from the Chief Ministers of Guernesey, Gibraltar, Jersey, and Northern Ireland among others. This page was made using the 2020 elections reactions page as a template so I think adding Scotland fits. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we please agree to apply the same logic? it's only fair and I think it will help.

1. California is part of the U.S. so by any definition it cannot be part of an "international reactions" list.

and also...

2. Scotland is a part of the U.K. so by any defintintion it cannot be part of an "international reactions" list.

I am thankful you created this page and we're now trying to reason this out but even using your own logic, Scotland and California should be treated equally. So using your own logic, Scotland cannot be a part of an international reactions list too. Erzan (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at but I think you're misunderstanding my reasoning. I'm not saying the fact that California is part of the U.S. means it shouldn't be on the list. I'm saying that the fact that California is part of the U.S. means it cannot be on the list because this article is covering reactions from places outside of the U.S. to the events at the Capitol. If California was, say, part of Canada I would have no issues if it was included as it would technically be an "international reaction." Since California is part of the U.S., any reaction from, say, Gavin Newsom would be a "domestic reaction." Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Erzen, California cannot be included because it is not international, not because it is not its own country. Reactions of any figure from California are not "international" reactions. For the record, I believe it's appropriate to include the reactions of a major Scottish leader. Builder018 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh I totally understand your reasoning and thank you for explaining it to me. I don't understand why the UK is being treated differently still, so is it not possible we could come to some compromise, where each Sovereign state is given the same layout in terms of number of flagx, so no extra flags per Sovereign state but we still mention the reactions? I just made an edit to demonstrate my example. Erzan (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If all you wanted was to remove the flag then I see no issue. My main focus was on the inclusion of important reactions. I'm glad we were able to come to a good compromise. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was just the layout differences between the sovereign states that was all. I am sorry for my part in this and thank you for taking your time to explain yourself to me. Erzan (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erzan: Can you please refrain from deleting the reaction of the Welsh First Minister (leader of the devolved Welsh government) from the page? Thanks, Domeditrix (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: The First Ministers are not part of the UK government & this ia section about the governments of Sovereign states. Why should the First Minister be even mentioned & not the UK foreign Cabinet Minister? The UK should be treated like the other countries on this page. It's turning into the UK reaction page, which is messy. Erzan (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erzan: I really don't understand where you've got this impression that only the comments of members of sovereign state governments may be included. As @Krisgabwoosh: has already noted, non-UN countries (such as Taiwan) are included, as are politicians that are not in ruling parties (many leaders of opposition). I would suggest waiting for others to chime in before editing again as it is better for us both for this not to devolve into an edit war. It would certainly be bold to strip all reactions from anybody that is not a leading member of a ruling party from the article. Domeditrix (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: Taiwan is a disputed state, the United Kingdom is not. I have added a mention of the Cabinet Ministers and First Ministers with a reference to a BBC article that includes comments from major politicians of the UK. We do not have to make this page messy and include every elected person from the UK. When it's not done for other states and since Cabinet Ministers like Patel outrank First Ministers in international affairs. Why? Because Foreign policy is the exclusive right of the UK government. Erzan (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erzan: Foreign policy is also not the right of former heads of state nor of leaders of the opposition, yet their comments are still included throughout this page. Furthermore, the BBC article you hastily used to replace the previous content makes no mention of the Welsh First Minister's comments. Domeditrix (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: There is no need to have every person mentioned, it's not been done for other countries so there is no real need for the UK. Erzan (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix:@Erzan: I have gone through and reformatted the page. Political Parties and Organizations now have their own header and comments by leaders of opposition political parties will now be placed there. Further, if comments from the Premiers of Canadian provinces can be included then I am re-adding comments by the First Ministers of the U.K.'s constituent countries with respective flags. I should note, and this is for you Erzan, that the usage of flags is not to somehow separate that region from its mother country but to point out that the comment is from a leader of a sub national region so that it is not lost among the many other comments. This is not directed purely at the U.K. as comments from the Premiers of Canada now have the flags of their respective provinces. I am considering adding another header for comments from leaders who are no longer in office (E.G. Former Presidents) but I feel there is no need. The list is not restricted to people who are in office and it never was. It is simply a list of international reactions from notable members of the international community around the world whether they hold office or not. Furthermore, continued disruptive editing will result in this page becoming restricted or the disruptive editor losing editing power for some time. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh: You agreed to a consesus on not having flags for sub-regions. Before this agreement, I did ask why there is no flags for other sub-regions and requested for the UK to be treated equally. So I very confused why after the growing consesus you would ignore your own words. Nevertheless, you have add sub-regions for another country so I will be logical. Now the UK is being treated equally, which was my original request. Carry on. Erzan (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erzan: I apologise for the change in tone but I worried that if I didn't put a stop to things quickly then the page would devolve into an endless edit war. But yes, as you correctly stated, I chose to readd flags now that comments from the Canadian subregions were also added meaning the U.K. wasn't singled out. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reactions of leaders of major Canadian political leaders

While the reaction of Justin Trudeau has been included, other Canadian politicians have also reacted to the event both in official and personal capacities; Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole called the event an "astonishing assault on freedom and democracy", New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh called it "frightening" and said "it was incited by Donald Trump", and François-Philippe Champagne, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, said "The peaceful transition of power is fundamental to democracy - it must continue and it will." Are these worthy of being included? Builder018 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Other countries include the reactions of several prominent politicians, and this seems like a good list of the relevant Canadian leaders. I'd say go for it. Recursive backspace (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added the three I've laid out above, if anyone wants to add more that are referenced in the sources go ahead, if there are any objections they can be brought up here. Builder018 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Regarding the statement of Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia)

Should [sic] be added to the adjective "insightful"? Perhaps the Malaysian politician meant "incendiary" because "insightful" has a rather positive connotation, but it's clear based on the context that Ibrahim is not praising Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I imagine he meant "inciteful", as in "provides incitement"? Either way, I believe a sic is appropriate. Builder018 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, "inciteful" is indeed more likely to be closer to what he meant. We are in agreement! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Better Source found for Mikhail Gorbachev's statement

A primary source for Mikhail Gorbachev's statement was found, the prior source was "https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/07/putin-silent-on-washington-unrest-as-russian-foreign-ministry-calls-us-electoral-system-archaic-a72549" however after some searching, closer source of "https://www.interfax.ru/world/744285" due to my newness to Wikipedia, I do not know if or how I should implement it. Emerycole237 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and welcome to Wikipedia! I have found Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to be a useful guide. The most commonly discussed sources are embedded in the page, and the search box can be used to take a closer look at all relevant discussions from the noticeboard archives. It appears that Interfax is at least as reliable as the moscow times, so I will add it alongside the existing citation. TimSmit (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Strangely organised content

Potentially related to the discussion above, but I'd prefer this point not to be lost in the noise. Could someone clarify the difference between the "Sovereign states" section and the "Political parties and organizations" section? Is the former designed for heads of state/government only? FDW777 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Sovereign States section is for comments from government officials. The Political Parties section is for leaders and members of opposition parties. I am considering adding a separate section for former politicians (Former Presidents) but for the time being they're under the Sovereign States category. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan

Hi Muinax: See Sovereign state#De facto and de jure states. Please reach consensus first before making any more edits. Normchou ^💬 04:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Added supplementary notes for clarification. Normchou ^💬 04:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

International media reactions

We don't have a section about international media reactions yet. If we want to add one, these sources might provide an overview / starting point: Irish Times, BBC, CNBC. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)