Hi @ MJL: I noticed that you placed a {{ notability}} tag on the article. Would you please elaborate on how this article may not meet our notability guidelines? Perhaps it might be helpful to discuss at WP:AFD, if you plan to submit a deletion request. Edge3 ( talk) 02:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashli Babbitt was shot at the capital and her article did not meet the threshold of notable persons. Brian Sicknick died of a blood clot leading to a stroke a day after the storming of the capital and meets the notable threshold. That should not be seen as an endorsement for the deletion of Brian Sicknick's article, but there is a double standard here that does not align with neutrality or impartiality, since deletion of the Ashli Babbitt article can be seen as attempting to memory hole by a subversive element. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C3:5500:C026:F6ED:36A:EBEC ( talk) 03:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Since it came up here, Ashli Babbitt certainly merits a page in the same vein as others killed by the police, as in Breonna Taylor, et al. Sych ( talk) 02:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Sych ( talk) 03:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Converted from a redirect by Edge3 ( talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC).
There were articles claiming he died from blunt force trauma via being hit in head with fire extinguisher. That seems to have been abandoned now but shouldn't we be explaining that period of reporting? WakandaQT ( talk) 07:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the earlier reports of him getting hit with a fire extinguisher have since been withdrawn, but it's still worthwhile to include in the article. Edge3 ( talk) 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
It's now been confirmed that he was not hit by a fire extinguisher, we absolutely need to change the wording as it leaves it to be open-ended when we know that turned out to not be true.Also using "reportedly" is a weasel wording it is factual. Could a more experienced editor fix this? I think something along lines of:
"Early reports stated the cause of death to be due to blunt force but medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma."
Here is the quote from the article: "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true." https://www.kcra.com/article/investigators-struggle-to-build-murder-case-in-death-of-us-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick/35397426# Pformenti ( talk) 08:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I would love to but I get reverted and accused of vandalism when I take the initiative and fear having my edit privileges removed. Pformenti ( talk) 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The video that shows a fire extinguisher being thrown onto the heads of Capitol Police officers outside shows that they were wearing helmets. So one would not expect to see scrapes or bruising. It's reported that three officers were hit by it. There were also at least another two violent incidents inside with fire extinguishers. Two law enforcement officials told the AP and the Times (presumably the same officials, but not necessarily) that he was struck with a fire extinguisher. One official says there's no autopsy evidence of blunt force trauma. So what makes the case closed? What warrants saying he wasn't, in our article, without a source? ABC reports one protester who threw a fire extinguisher is in jail [1]-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I believe at this point it's fair to say he died of a stroke following exposure to pepper spray. I know there hasn't been anything official yet, but we know he had a stroke and then died. I don't think it's rocket science to say the two are connected somehow. -- Kendrick7 talk 23:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
why is there so much qualitative injection RE "rioters Khater and Tanios"? what relevance do they have in light of the cause of death? surely the presence of insurrectionists would have encompassed the job of the capitol police; why is there a need for this asterisk? are our men in uniform not heroes?
I deleted the sentence in the article that said "and medical examiners found no signs of blunt force trauma." That is not true and it is misleading to readers. The CNN article linked to that sentence actually says, "In Sicknick's case, it's still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner's review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process." The article goes on to say "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma." In our wiki piece the person who wrote the sentence I deleted did not mention "According to one law enforcement official..." but instead left the reader falsely thinking the medical examiner issued a report that said that. BetsyRMadison ( talk) 01:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Added a new section in the article "Homicide Investigation." I also moved a sentences from "Storming of the Capitol" that begins with "On February 10, it was reported that the..." into my new section to make the article flow better. I feel the reader must be told there is an ongoing homicide investigation and that is the reason the cause of death is not publicly released at this time. BetsyRMadison ( talk) 05:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s relevant that the officer’s mother had made a public statement that she believed her son died from a stroke when NY Times and other media outlets were stoking false stories. Later the UK Guardian reported this:
“The mother of the US Capitol police officer who died following the riot on January 6 believes that her son succumbed to a fatal stroke - that he was not bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher as reported.”
It tells people just how this was reported by the media, which itself is part of the incident. It deserves its own page really, but that’s another issue.
Sych ( talk) 02:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Could someone fix this please? "Could not find lack of evidence" is a double negative, which states the medical examiner found evidence. "On February 2, CNN reported, citing a law enforcement official, that since medical examiners could not find lack of evidence of blunt force trauma in Sicknick, investigators concluded that being struck with an extinguisher was not the cause of death;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:B95B:6A67:98DC:B1EE ( talk) 15:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
@ Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks for your suggestions! I think I've addressed most of them, and left comments for two items that I had questions about. Let me know if I missed anything on your list, or if there are other suggestions that you have! Edge3 ( talk) 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 22:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Brian Sicknick → Death of Brian Sicknick – Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. He is only notable due to a single event involving his death and the reaction to his death, and our usual article naming convention is to have the title reflect that. Rreagan007 ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
|
We need to make clear that Brian Sicknick died from natural causes in the lede as there are conspiracy theories still being pushed by some that he was killed by the actions of others. From the CBS cited article: "The "natural" classification is used "when a disease alone causes death," the medical examiner's office said in the summary. "If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural." There is no other interpretation required here [Lede 1] 118.208.30.208 ( talk) 05:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Everyone can see your "User Contributions" history, you know. It's pretty clear what you're trying to do. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:D20:DD2E:EE0B:A291 ( talk) 19:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Neutrality and Terjen: Looks like we have a potential dispute—see [2], [3], and [4]. I know that you two have also submitted edits previously regarding this statement. Do we actually need to include in the article a comparison between bear spray and pepper spray? Ultimately, Sicknick appears to have been killed by a chemical irritant, and I'm not sure that it helps the reader to know which one was stronger. Plus, we are already providing wikilinks to pepper spray and bear spray. Edge3 ( talk) 13:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
With the Sickinck death narrative having pivoted multiple times, a media critical perspective is gaining prominence: Terjen ( talk) 22:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In related news, Ashley Rindsberg has a new book on "how the New York Times’s misreporting, distortions and fabrications radically alter history". On May 8, New York Post (not WP:RS) published an article/interview based on the book. Rindsberg sees the Sicknick story as an example of narrative construction at the Times, saying "When a symbol fits their narrative, they just cannot let it go." Terjen ( talk) 00:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
NYT was the origin of serious Sicknick related incorrect claims. There were multiple origins. As I show in this Wikipedia article, WSJ and AP independently reported the incorrect claims. They were not parroting the NYT. So did WUSA9, perhaps other outlets as well. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Sicknick, 42, was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during a struggle, two law enforcement officials said, although it was not clear if he was the officer shown in the video. The officials could not discuss the ongoing investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.That's independence. The sources may have been the same people, but the outlets were doing their own investigations. Furthermore, the WSJ and WUSA9 quoted different number of sources - if they were parroting NYT (
according to two law enforcement officials) or AP, they would have said two, but WUSA9 says
three sourcesand WSJ says one source (
a law-enforcement official). Later on [6] WSJ says
That official said Capitol Police officers had initially shared that description with colleagues, so clearly WSJ has its own access to this source - independence. Let's flip it the other way - do you have any proof that AP/WSJ/WUSA9 got their information solely from NYT? starship .paint ( exalt) 02:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
following the lead from NYT and only independently verified the statements? Isn't that communicating with the sources? starship .paint ( exalt) 04:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Terjen: - how about Soon after, the
Associated Press and the
Wall Street Journal issued similar reports quoting anonymous law enforcement official(s).
Hope this will clear up the wording issue.
starship
.paint (
exalt)
08:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Why is this such a long and prominent section in this article? I'm sure everybody was excited to include as much detail as possible when it looked like Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, and when that didn't pan out, then the bear spray, but all this doesn't have much to do with Sicknick or his death. It's off topic and needs to be moved to the article on storming of the capitol. Or else just removed. P.S. I don't see any reason to include the opinion of CNN's expert that the medical examiner's decision was wrong, either. I know people hate to give this up, but you can't change the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
I have removed some content cited to Glenn Greenwald and a commentator at Reason magazine. I do not think this is particularly encyclopedic material or that it meets the due weight test. Neutrality talk 22:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Any highly-discussed murder case is inherently notable for an article on Wiki. When Officer Sicknick was talked about as a 'victim of pro-Trump violence', his 'murder' was notable, first, in the context of everything else happening at the Capitol, and second, in the official reaction to his "sacrifice", with a hero's honors and burial, which certainly elevated the notability of the events. But now we know that the death was natural. For three months, the facts of the 'murder' as reported by supposedly 'reliable sources' didn't exist, and the factual story now has to include the original 'rumor' and how the rumor snowball started rolling. All the initial notability is now of secondary importance, I think, and the primary notability of Sicknick's death has changed. I've prepared a full restructuring of the current text, leaving in the Bio and Memorial material, out of respect, but moving the Bio down, and putting the primary focus on the reportage and discussion of Sicknick's death. The investigation into events at the Capitol is incomplete and the facts can only be reported as allegations and interpretations. The reference sources are essentially the same (although I've re-organized most of the Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). and cleaned up some typos). For such a politically 'hot' story, almost every source is a 'primary source', not an expert analysis, and each primary source has to be cited "according to what it says', not as if 'everything it says is a fact'. I could post my revision as a draft page for comments. Any takers?
Horsense (
talk)
15:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.(emphasis mine). It's pretty clear that nothing enduringly significant can happen - as opposed to, say, the death of George Floyd that sparked protests and an entire movement - based on this person's death. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If Officer Sicknick wasn't murdered, what was his "ultimate sacrifice"RSes and Capitol Police report Sicknick died in the line of duty after collapsing in the capitol during a shift where he was assaulted. To cite a famous (but very different) case: in 1981, John Hinkley shot at Reagan, missed, and injured a man who ultimately died of homicide. Despite this, the victim was not 'murdered' because Hinkley was never convicted of that offense. Feoffer ( talk) 10:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
(1)Your lead asserts: "...[Sicknick] collapsed while guarding Congress ". The word "while" suggests he was actively engaged. Do you have a source for this? ...from the Cap Police statement of Jan. 7: "He returned to his division office and collapsed." The source does not say how long it was after he returned to his office, so he may or may not have been 'on duty', but he certainly was not 'engaged with rioters' or 'guarding Congress' at the time of his collapse.
(2)He died one day after he collapsed, so he didn't die 'during a shift' on duty.
(3)Sicknick's death is a pivotal part of the Capitol riot story because everyone assumed contrary to actual evidence and without a doubt that he collapsed because of his injuries, and that he subsequently died also because of his injuries,
even though a Jan 8 story already mentioned the stroke! (ProPolitica). Your lead affirms the false impression, in agreement with the Cap Police statement, but the Medical Examiner's statements contradict that interpretation of events.
(4)The major controversy arises from other sources asserting exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims, not only that Sicknick was 'murdered' (not just an act of homicide), but that he was "bludgeoned over the head with a fire extinguisher while battling rioters" (Sisk, Jan. 11, attributed to New York Times); and if he wasn't murdered that way, then by spray...
(5)Your lead removes a quotation from the source (Sisk, Jan. 11) that put most of those claims together and linked them to Sicknick's "ultimate sacrifice" in the belief "[he] suffered fatal injuries while defending the U.S. Capitol against a pro-Trump mob", which ultimately justified his receiving honors. The source language is plainer than your subtle argument, and the fact is that he suffered no blows and no fatal injuries.
(6)You also say: "Sicknick's death was cited in the second impeachment"; The actual impeachment source, again quoting the NYTimes, says: "The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher." I think the readers deserve to be told what the sources say, not what you, or I, would like them to mean. Horsense ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
So the on-going notability of the 'official' story is about the killing of a police officer - and Sicknick's name doesn't matter...Horsense ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice that these claims continue to be reported in the media, including most recently by President Biden during his European summit trip. Should this be covered in the article? 73.120.83.182 ( talk) 12:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What's the new lead all about? I think it's in a minimalist news article style, almost bullet-point, that goes too far in trying to shorten the lead. It's not for an encyclopedia, I think, and not all correct either, even though it's sort of based on the existing article contents - which only shows what's wrong with the article (trying to be a biography, and to emphasize the crimes of the riot). There's nothing there to suggest notability, or controversy, or anything to get excited about. The new lead was deliberately edited to ignore the issue of a hyped-up, faulty story that Sicknick was 'killed by the mob' with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick was injured (uh, slightly or severely??? ) and collapsed 'on the job' (erroneous), and then died; he had a life, got assaulted by chemical spray, and was given high honors for some "ultimate sacrifice" (what sacrifice? ); his "death" was "cited" during impeachment (it's his "killing" that was cited...!). The doctor eventually figured out what he died of, and nobody has been punished for 'causing his death' (uh, for 'killing' him?). This all suggests that, since the original story is not true and never happened, there's no point in troubling readers with all that confusing stuff. Is that what the new lead is aiming at? Horsense ( talk) 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
collapsed 'on the job' (erroneous)if you have reliable sources that he was not on the job when he collapsed, we should incorporate that into the article. Feoffer ( talk) 22:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ MJL: I noticed that you placed a {{ notability}} tag on the article. Would you please elaborate on how this article may not meet our notability guidelines? Perhaps it might be helpful to discuss at WP:AFD, if you plan to submit a deletion request. Edge3 ( talk) 02:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashli Babbitt was shot at the capital and her article did not meet the threshold of notable persons. Brian Sicknick died of a blood clot leading to a stroke a day after the storming of the capital and meets the notable threshold. That should not be seen as an endorsement for the deletion of Brian Sicknick's article, but there is a double standard here that does not align with neutrality or impartiality, since deletion of the Ashli Babbitt article can be seen as attempting to memory hole by a subversive element. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C3:5500:C026:F6ED:36A:EBEC ( talk) 03:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Since it came up here, Ashli Babbitt certainly merits a page in the same vein as others killed by the police, as in Breonna Taylor, et al. Sych ( talk) 02:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Sych ( talk) 03:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Converted from a redirect by Edge3 ( talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC).
There were articles claiming he died from blunt force trauma via being hit in head with fire extinguisher. That seems to have been abandoned now but shouldn't we be explaining that period of reporting? WakandaQT ( talk) 07:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the earlier reports of him getting hit with a fire extinguisher have since been withdrawn, but it's still worthwhile to include in the article. Edge3 ( talk) 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
It's now been confirmed that he was not hit by a fire extinguisher, we absolutely need to change the wording as it leaves it to be open-ended when we know that turned out to not be true.Also using "reportedly" is a weasel wording it is factual. Could a more experienced editor fix this? I think something along lines of:
"Early reports stated the cause of death to be due to blunt force but medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma."
Here is the quote from the article: "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true." https://www.kcra.com/article/investigators-struggle-to-build-murder-case-in-death-of-us-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick/35397426# Pformenti ( talk) 08:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I would love to but I get reverted and accused of vandalism when I take the initiative and fear having my edit privileges removed. Pformenti ( talk) 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The video that shows a fire extinguisher being thrown onto the heads of Capitol Police officers outside shows that they were wearing helmets. So one would not expect to see scrapes or bruising. It's reported that three officers were hit by it. There were also at least another two violent incidents inside with fire extinguishers. Two law enforcement officials told the AP and the Times (presumably the same officials, but not necessarily) that he was struck with a fire extinguisher. One official says there's no autopsy evidence of blunt force trauma. So what makes the case closed? What warrants saying he wasn't, in our article, without a source? ABC reports one protester who threw a fire extinguisher is in jail [1]-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I believe at this point it's fair to say he died of a stroke following exposure to pepper spray. I know there hasn't been anything official yet, but we know he had a stroke and then died. I don't think it's rocket science to say the two are connected somehow. -- Kendrick7 talk 23:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
why is there so much qualitative injection RE "rioters Khater and Tanios"? what relevance do they have in light of the cause of death? surely the presence of insurrectionists would have encompassed the job of the capitol police; why is there a need for this asterisk? are our men in uniform not heroes?
I deleted the sentence in the article that said "and medical examiners found no signs of blunt force trauma." That is not true and it is misleading to readers. The CNN article linked to that sentence actually says, "In Sicknick's case, it's still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner's review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process." The article goes on to say "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma." In our wiki piece the person who wrote the sentence I deleted did not mention "According to one law enforcement official..." but instead left the reader falsely thinking the medical examiner issued a report that said that. BetsyRMadison ( talk) 01:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Added a new section in the article "Homicide Investigation." I also moved a sentences from "Storming of the Capitol" that begins with "On February 10, it was reported that the..." into my new section to make the article flow better. I feel the reader must be told there is an ongoing homicide investigation and that is the reason the cause of death is not publicly released at this time. BetsyRMadison ( talk) 05:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s relevant that the officer’s mother had made a public statement that she believed her son died from a stroke when NY Times and other media outlets were stoking false stories. Later the UK Guardian reported this:
“The mother of the US Capitol police officer who died following the riot on January 6 believes that her son succumbed to a fatal stroke - that he was not bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher as reported.”
It tells people just how this was reported by the media, which itself is part of the incident. It deserves its own page really, but that’s another issue.
Sych ( talk) 02:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Could someone fix this please? "Could not find lack of evidence" is a double negative, which states the medical examiner found evidence. "On February 2, CNN reported, citing a law enforcement official, that since medical examiners could not find lack of evidence of blunt force trauma in Sicknick, investigators concluded that being struck with an extinguisher was not the cause of death;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:B95B:6A67:98DC:B1EE ( talk) 15:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
@ Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks for your suggestions! I think I've addressed most of them, and left comments for two items that I had questions about. Let me know if I missed anything on your list, or if there are other suggestions that you have! Edge3 ( talk) 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 22:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Brian Sicknick → Death of Brian Sicknick – Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. He is only notable due to a single event involving his death and the reaction to his death, and our usual article naming convention is to have the title reflect that. Rreagan007 ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
|
We need to make clear that Brian Sicknick died from natural causes in the lede as there are conspiracy theories still being pushed by some that he was killed by the actions of others. From the CBS cited article: "The "natural" classification is used "when a disease alone causes death," the medical examiner's office said in the summary. "If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural." There is no other interpretation required here [Lede 1] 118.208.30.208 ( talk) 05:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Everyone can see your "User Contributions" history, you know. It's pretty clear what you're trying to do. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:D20:DD2E:EE0B:A291 ( talk) 19:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Neutrality and Terjen: Looks like we have a potential dispute—see [2], [3], and [4]. I know that you two have also submitted edits previously regarding this statement. Do we actually need to include in the article a comparison between bear spray and pepper spray? Ultimately, Sicknick appears to have been killed by a chemical irritant, and I'm not sure that it helps the reader to know which one was stronger. Plus, we are already providing wikilinks to pepper spray and bear spray. Edge3 ( talk) 13:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
With the Sickinck death narrative having pivoted multiple times, a media critical perspective is gaining prominence: Terjen ( talk) 22:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In related news, Ashley Rindsberg has a new book on "how the New York Times’s misreporting, distortions and fabrications radically alter history". On May 8, New York Post (not WP:RS) published an article/interview based on the book. Rindsberg sees the Sicknick story as an example of narrative construction at the Times, saying "When a symbol fits their narrative, they just cannot let it go." Terjen ( talk) 00:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
NYT was the origin of serious Sicknick related incorrect claims. There were multiple origins. As I show in this Wikipedia article, WSJ and AP independently reported the incorrect claims. They were not parroting the NYT. So did WUSA9, perhaps other outlets as well. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Sicknick, 42, was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during a struggle, two law enforcement officials said, although it was not clear if he was the officer shown in the video. The officials could not discuss the ongoing investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.That's independence. The sources may have been the same people, but the outlets were doing their own investigations. Furthermore, the WSJ and WUSA9 quoted different number of sources - if they were parroting NYT (
according to two law enforcement officials) or AP, they would have said two, but WUSA9 says
three sourcesand WSJ says one source (
a law-enforcement official). Later on [6] WSJ says
That official said Capitol Police officers had initially shared that description with colleagues, so clearly WSJ has its own access to this source - independence. Let's flip it the other way - do you have any proof that AP/WSJ/WUSA9 got their information solely from NYT? starship .paint ( exalt) 02:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
following the lead from NYT and only independently verified the statements? Isn't that communicating with the sources? starship .paint ( exalt) 04:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Terjen: - how about Soon after, the
Associated Press and the
Wall Street Journal issued similar reports quoting anonymous law enforcement official(s).
Hope this will clear up the wording issue.
starship
.paint (
exalt)
08:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Why is this such a long and prominent section in this article? I'm sure everybody was excited to include as much detail as possible when it looked like Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, and when that didn't pan out, then the bear spray, but all this doesn't have much to do with Sicknick or his death. It's off topic and needs to be moved to the article on storming of the capitol. Or else just removed. P.S. I don't see any reason to include the opinion of CNN's expert that the medical examiner's decision was wrong, either. I know people hate to give this up, but you can't change the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
I have removed some content cited to Glenn Greenwald and a commentator at Reason magazine. I do not think this is particularly encyclopedic material or that it meets the due weight test. Neutrality talk 22:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Any highly-discussed murder case is inherently notable for an article on Wiki. When Officer Sicknick was talked about as a 'victim of pro-Trump violence', his 'murder' was notable, first, in the context of everything else happening at the Capitol, and second, in the official reaction to his "sacrifice", with a hero's honors and burial, which certainly elevated the notability of the events. But now we know that the death was natural. For three months, the facts of the 'murder' as reported by supposedly 'reliable sources' didn't exist, and the factual story now has to include the original 'rumor' and how the rumor snowball started rolling. All the initial notability is now of secondary importance, I think, and the primary notability of Sicknick's death has changed. I've prepared a full restructuring of the current text, leaving in the Bio and Memorial material, out of respect, but moving the Bio down, and putting the primary focus on the reportage and discussion of Sicknick's death. The investigation into events at the Capitol is incomplete and the facts can only be reported as allegations and interpretations. The reference sources are essentially the same (although I've re-organized most of the Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). and cleaned up some typos). For such a politically 'hot' story, almost every source is a 'primary source', not an expert analysis, and each primary source has to be cited "according to what it says', not as if 'everything it says is a fact'. I could post my revision as a draft page for comments. Any takers?
Horsense (
talk)
15:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.(emphasis mine). It's pretty clear that nothing enduringly significant can happen - as opposed to, say, the death of George Floyd that sparked protests and an entire movement - based on this person's death. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If Officer Sicknick wasn't murdered, what was his "ultimate sacrifice"RSes and Capitol Police report Sicknick died in the line of duty after collapsing in the capitol during a shift where he was assaulted. To cite a famous (but very different) case: in 1981, John Hinkley shot at Reagan, missed, and injured a man who ultimately died of homicide. Despite this, the victim was not 'murdered' because Hinkley was never convicted of that offense. Feoffer ( talk) 10:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
(1)Your lead asserts: "...[Sicknick] collapsed while guarding Congress ". The word "while" suggests he was actively engaged. Do you have a source for this? ...from the Cap Police statement of Jan. 7: "He returned to his division office and collapsed." The source does not say how long it was after he returned to his office, so he may or may not have been 'on duty', but he certainly was not 'engaged with rioters' or 'guarding Congress' at the time of his collapse.
(2)He died one day after he collapsed, so he didn't die 'during a shift' on duty.
(3)Sicknick's death is a pivotal part of the Capitol riot story because everyone assumed contrary to actual evidence and without a doubt that he collapsed because of his injuries, and that he subsequently died also because of his injuries,
even though a Jan 8 story already mentioned the stroke! (ProPolitica). Your lead affirms the false impression, in agreement with the Cap Police statement, but the Medical Examiner's statements contradict that interpretation of events.
(4)The major controversy arises from other sources asserting exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims, not only that Sicknick was 'murdered' (not just an act of homicide), but that he was "bludgeoned over the head with a fire extinguisher while battling rioters" (Sisk, Jan. 11, attributed to New York Times); and if he wasn't murdered that way, then by spray...
(5)Your lead removes a quotation from the source (Sisk, Jan. 11) that put most of those claims together and linked them to Sicknick's "ultimate sacrifice" in the belief "[he] suffered fatal injuries while defending the U.S. Capitol against a pro-Trump mob", which ultimately justified his receiving honors. The source language is plainer than your subtle argument, and the fact is that he suffered no blows and no fatal injuries.
(6)You also say: "Sicknick's death was cited in the second impeachment"; The actual impeachment source, again quoting the NYTimes, says: "The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher." I think the readers deserve to be told what the sources say, not what you, or I, would like them to mean. Horsense ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
So the on-going notability of the 'official' story is about the killing of a police officer - and Sicknick's name doesn't matter...Horsense ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice that these claims continue to be reported in the media, including most recently by President Biden during his European summit trip. Should this be covered in the article? 73.120.83.182 ( talk) 12:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What's the new lead all about? I think it's in a minimalist news article style, almost bullet-point, that goes too far in trying to shorten the lead. It's not for an encyclopedia, I think, and not all correct either, even though it's sort of based on the existing article contents - which only shows what's wrong with the article (trying to be a biography, and to emphasize the crimes of the riot). There's nothing there to suggest notability, or controversy, or anything to get excited about. The new lead was deliberately edited to ignore the issue of a hyped-up, faulty story that Sicknick was 'killed by the mob' with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick was injured (uh, slightly or severely??? ) and collapsed 'on the job' (erroneous), and then died; he had a life, got assaulted by chemical spray, and was given high honors for some "ultimate sacrifice" (what sacrifice? ); his "death" was "cited" during impeachment (it's his "killing" that was cited...!). The doctor eventually figured out what he died of, and nobody has been punished for 'causing his death' (uh, for 'killing' him?). This all suggests that, since the original story is not true and never happened, there's no point in troubling readers with all that confusing stuff. Is that what the new lead is aiming at? Horsense ( talk) 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
collapsed 'on the job' (erroneous)if you have reliable sources that he was not on the job when he collapsed, we should incorporate that into the article. Feoffer ( talk) 22:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)