Jump to content

Talk:2021 United States Capitol car attack/Archive 1

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

Proposed merger: William Evans (police officer)

[edit]

An editor has proposed that William Evans (police officer) be merged into this article. I have no strong opinions at this time, but I'm just starting the discussion here so that others may provide their thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:SNOW I have been bold and merged the content into the main article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME

[edit]

Putting this here because I don't doubt that within a week or so, names of victims and the suspect will be released. NONE of those names should be added to this article without prior consensus here - and any addition of them is in direct violation of WP:BLPNAME and can be reverted outside of WP:3RR as such. I am posting this reminder as this was a big problem on the original riot/attack/storming/whatever you call it article - and as such merits this reminder and request that anyone seeing names being added without prior consensus here revert such additions per BLP. Thanks all -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also now had to remove a victim's name per the same policy. BLP explicitly also applies to recently deceased, which "day of" or "week of" certainly qualifies as. Please stop adding names - see also WP:RECENTISM. We are an encyclopedia - not a news ticker - and the names add nothing to the understanding in this article - thus BLPNAME says we do not include them without substantial consensus otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus should be had I agree, typically in article where there are deaths, the suspect and responding police officers names often are usually less contested than the names of other that were killed. In this situiation the only two deaths were the suspect and an officer at the scene. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, according to MSNBC and Post Millennial (is it RS?) the suspect has been identified as 25-year-old from Indiana. Sokuya (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read WP:BLPNAME - being identified in news sources is explicitly not enough to merit name inclusion in a WP article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never once seen an article where there wasn't a serious, long discussion about inclusion of names that were associated with the crime (victims/suspect) before inclusion. If other articles aren't "seen enough" to invoke BLPNAME, then they're wrong, not this one - BLP is a project-wide policy. I will not allow additions of names prior to clear consensus here that the high barrier of BLPNAME is met for each individual name desired to be added here - and right now, I hold the opinion that it doesn't even come close for any name. I encourage you to start a subsection under this section if you wish to discuss the suspect's name specifically (maybe title it "suspect's name" or similar). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Also the Capitol police issued a statement on the victim name. Sokuya (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't saying there wasn't discussion or there shouldn't be one I said it was less contested. All I am saying is I don't think their will be many arguments against including either the officer or the suspect. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to both WVC and Sokuya: Doesn't matter. BLPNAME says that if individuals are only notable for their involvement in a singular event, we err on the side of not including their names - unless there is extremely good reason to include. The onus is on you or anyone proposing inclusion to provide such extremely good reason and get consensus for that reason being supported by policy before inclusion - until such time, BLPNAME is policy and overrides singular opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The assailant and the dead cop are dead, and WP:BLP isn't generally applicable to dead people. Per WP:BDP, it only applies to particularly contentious questionable material about them. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it also applies equally as BLP to "recently dead" - it specifically says the policy extends for an "indeterminate" time after death - which is certainly more than one day. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jonathan Dienst; Leigh Ann Caldwell; Dareh Gregorian (2 April 2021). "U.S. Capitol Police officer dies after attacker rammed car into checkpoint; suspect also dead". NBC News. Retrieved 2 April 2021. The postings do not indicate why Green, who is Black, would target the Capitol.
  2. ^ Ben Decker; Adam Goldman; Zolan Kanno-Youngs (2 April 2021). "Suspect in Capitol attack appears to have been a follower of Louis Farrakhan". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 April 2021. The suspect, Noah R. Green, 25, was identified by two law enforcement officials and a congressional official.
    • XavierItzm, You may note, if you actually read WP:BLPNAME, that "being named" in news sources is explicitly not enough to be named on Wikipedia. We err on the side of privacy here, and that's a project wide consensus that's lasted years (if not over a decade, I can't be sure). As such, until clear consensus forms here that the name meets BLPNAME, it isn't included. I'll note that your comment just now has provided no evidence at all that it meets BLPNAME for inclusion - again - news sources are irrelevant for inclusion of a suspect's name on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The man is dead. He no longer has any affordance of privacy. Love of Corey (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the name back - The perp is dead; there's no BLP concerns or denying that he did what he's accused of doing. We've had and continue to have many articles that identify suspects that are still alive without any BLP concerns either. Love of Corey (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Love of Corey, BLP applies to recently deceased persons for an "indeterminate" time after death - that is certainly more than a "few hours". This needs to be discussed in depth before addition per BLPNAME. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, give me a break. All very recent articles, including the guy who killed 1 white woman, 1 white man, sent 1 Latin man to the hospital, and killed other 6 massage parlour employees who happened to be Asian, has the name of the perp. The article about the guy who killed 10 white people in Boulder has the perp's name, too. Why should this latest one be exempted? Why are you deviating from the standard? XavierItzm (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That legit doesn't make sense. Then how do you explain articles like Poway synagogue shooting, 2019 El Paso shooting, 2020 boogaloo killings, 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, 2021 Boulder shooting, etc., where the still-alive suspects are identified by name without any controversy from the community? Love of Corey (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name of assailant. It does not meet the requirements of WP:BLP for exclusion because he is now deceased, so BLP and BLPNAME no longer apply. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. It amazes me that this many established editors are ignoring the blatantly clear statement in WP:BLPNAME (and BLP in general, since BLPNAME is just a link to a section on that page) that BLP applies for an indeterminate time after death, usually a few months at least. Jeez. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about WP:BDP, not WP:BLPNAME. Love of Corey (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Love of Corey, funny how WP:BDP is on the same page and states explicitly clearly that it applies all BLP policies to those "recently dead". Maybe you should re-read it if you missed that the first time. BLPNAME is a BLP policy on the BLP page, thus BDP applies BLPNAME to recently dead persons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've heard of this nonsensical practice. From what I've seen on here, numerous mass shooting articles have immediately identified the perpetrator as soon as the identities were made public, e.g. 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, Thousand Oaks shooting, Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting, 2019 Dayton shooting, etc. How do you explain that? Love of Corey (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Love of Corey, WP:RECENTISM is explicitly something we are not. If people have been contradicting BLPNAME in other articles just because they have a malformed representation of what WP is - that's not our problem here. We are not a news ticker or a wire service. We have no reason to include specific names until they are actually worth it - i.e. convicted - except in very rare instances. BLPNAME has been consensus for years, if not over a decade - so if people are violating it, that's an OSE argument, not a valid one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. The perpetrator's name is an IMPORTANT part of the story and we're not going to wait an unspecified amount of months to put it in. People are going to forget about this story, you know. Love of Corey (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me why it's important, in Wikipedia terms? What encyclopedic information does his name add to the article at this point. Though, to be honest, your last sentence makes it very clear - you're here for advocacy against the suspect - because you're only concerned that people see it before they "forget about this story". That's the entire reason BLPNAME exists - to counter recentism like yours. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing on and off on Wikipedia for a few months now, I have never seen this before. "What encyclopedic information does his name add to the article at this point?" Why are you concerned with doing the bare minimum? Why even mention that Officer Evans died? Why don't we say "one person died"? Your logic makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.194.41 (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you going to quote in bold BDP saying indeterminate, then you yourself determine a few months as "the usual" in bold. It can extend for a period of time, but there is no set time, and it specifically says can extend not must/will/has to extend. You claim a few months as the usual, can you actual show me one instance of a major crime being committed where sources knew the perpetrator and we didn't include the perpetrator for a few months? If your are going to claim this is the usual practice please show some examples. As I mentioned right away at start of this discussion, typically editors don't have a problem naming the subject once it can be verified and properly sourced. Other victims usually is very debated topic, slain officers at the scene typically will be mentioned before someone else that was slain. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiVirusC, maybe you should read the policy - because the policy itself says at least a few months. It's not my fault you haven't read the policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy clearly says "the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside". So even it cannot decide which is the proper standard of waiting. But we're not waiting that long. Love of Corey (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the policy, the "at least a few months" YOU added in when you quoted it. Here is the actual wording: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.. It does not say at least anything. As I said, it can extend, it doesn't have to extend. If it is decided to be extended they give a few options of 6, 12, 24 months at the outside(upper limits) of range. If consensus is not to extend it, then we don't. I am done responding to badfaith accusations, nothing I have said has implied I haven't read it. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong consensus here, and only one dissenter, to include the name of the perp. I am therefore adding it back. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB, 3 people, at least two of which misinterpreted BLP to not apply to any dead people at all whatsoever, is not "strong" consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Wikipedia article man, you're taking it too seriously; there is no problem in adding the name of the perpetrator. -148.75.194.41 (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name. I am consistently very cautious about this, and regularly insist upon ample, in-depth sourcing and clear relevance to the topic. Here, however, we have coverage (not passing mentions, but detailed in-depth coverage) from many reliable and independent sources. WP:BLPNAME is not an absolute bar to naming an individual. Rather, the policy instructs us to apply caution, and we should consider omitting names when (1) the name has "not been widely disseminated"; (2) the name only makes a "brief appearance" in news stories; or (3) the person is only peripherally involved in an article's topic. Here, of course, (1) the name has been widely disseminated, (2) the reliable sources devote significant attention to it, and (3) it is central to the article's topic. Because this information is clearly relevant (indeed, central) and can be properly weighted and reliably sourced, we should not withhold it from our readers. Neutralitytalk 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, with the caveat that we should wait at least 3-7 days before inclusion to see if this reasoning sticks, only then do I think that BLPNAME should be overridden. There's almost no reason (other than WP:RECENTISM which we aren't) to name someone sooner than a week. I presume, but ask you to clarify, whether your comment applies to the suspect only or to suspect and victims? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First it was six months, now it's 3-7 days? Make up your mind, pal. Love of Corey (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berchanhimez: Yes, to clarify, my opinion is that the names of both the suspect and the deceased victim should be included, with high-quality sources, given the factors identified above. [I'm not sure about the injured officer - while the deceased officer's name has been widely reported and officially confirmed by USCP, I don't know if that is the case with the other officer.] As to timing, I'm OK with waiting a few more days, if more sources are desired, but I really don't think it's strictly necessary. (I would also disagree with the "overriding BLPNAME" characterization - this is not a matter of "overriding" any policy, but of deciding how a policy should be applied in a specific case, given a specific set of sources.) Neutralitytalk 01:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But there are still some sections that need filling in with that info, just so you know. Love of Corey (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"People are going to forget about this story, you know." is a pretty strong indication of why its not relevant. If people are going to forget about it then its not encyclopedic. With that said, I respect Berchanhimez position here but they are fighting a fire with a squirt gun and any procedural delay to adding the name will last days at best. Energy of everyone would be better spent improving WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, and related policies to reflect actual practices of wikipedians and give better guidance to editors. Slywriter (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the article should be kept, then start an AfD discussion. Let's see what the community thinks about the policies you referenced in context to this case. Love of Corey (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ship has already sailed. Every mainstream media are posting his name. So there's no point in protecting something that's already been publicly exposed by the media. It wouldn't make any sense to adhere to impractical protocols. 49.180.150.145 (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The attacker's name should be in the article. If there's a policy/guideline which says that dead perpetrators shouldn't be named until a certain amount of time after their death, that needs to be changed. Jim Michael (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mapillary

[edit]

I added the current image, an awkward corner shot (it's cropped from a photo of some flowers). I've just noticed Mapillary on GeoHack providing free StreetView style imagery, which looks ideal. I don't have time now, but somebody else could look at the possibility of uploading one from there? Here's a rough location. Wodgester (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title change please

[edit]

The title should be changed to “2021 United States Capitol vehicular attack” not “April 2021 United States Capitol Shooting” just because the suspect was shout doesn’t mean it’s a shooting Marwato (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first title upon article creation was 2021 United States Capitol car attack, but the merge messed things up. Sokuya (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be a mention of the fact it was a car attack to avoid confusion with the capitol storming NotVeryGoodAtThis (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A knife was also used and an officer was stabbed, though. It should just be "attack" with a disambiguation template at best. Love of Corey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss before moving this page - one more page move that doesn't have clear consensus here (or a damn good reason) and I'll request this page be move protected - if this page is to exist, it doesn't need to be disambiguated past "April 2021... attack" - because the other storming did not take place in April 2021, thus it cannot be confused with this by any reasonable person. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move protection requested at WP:RFPP. Moves should never be made without consensus and a proper RM request where it is clear that disagreement exists for a proposed move. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a terrible title, but like with them all, waiting three weeks for a change would make the inevitable RM less terrible. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For an attack which included multiple methods, it's usual to have attack in the title. The month & year in this case are necessary for disambiguation. Hence the current title is best. Jim Michael (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen worse. But a better common name might emerge later. If not, we'll be wise to stick with what we've got. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Reignited debate"

[edit]

The Response section uses this phrase, which seems like hot air to me. I tagged it for clarity regarding who's hotly arguing, and Slywriter says I'm answered by Chuck Schumer telling a reporter about a bipartisan review. Plenty in the AP source says Congress is agreeing on the fence's future (it will fall). I know today is Easter, but is it Opposite Day, too? Less rhetorically, if we're implying things were said about the wall by "reignited debate", why not quote the people who said them, like normal? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add names for specificity (or remove the sentence completely). It was tagged, so I added clarity. If the tag was theatrics for a larger issue, then address that issue rather than using a tag about clarity. Slywriter (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was only asking for clarity. "Congressional members" partially cleared that up, thanks for trying. I think I'll remove it completely and let others pick which individual responses are appropriate. I can't keep straight which members are influential and which just show up. But as a wrestling fan, this controversy strikes me as forced. That bipartisan review was already in motion, not a reaction to this event so much as the omnipresent barricade itself. Anyway, not blaming you or any other editor, just comes with the territory, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the level of 'misquotes', it didnt even register. And think removal is right call as it has limited relationship to the incident, after all presence or absence of Nat Guard and a fence wouldn't change this incident, car barriers are a response to 9/11 (though guess some temporary ones have been erected at the fence line) Slywriter (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Suspect" Head to "Perpetrator" Head

[edit]

Green is dead and has been confirmed as the perpetrator, therefore I feel we should change the "Suspect" head of his biography to "Perpetrator". I'm only asking here because perhaps there is something I am unaware of as to why we can not. If there isn't, I think we should change it. -148.75.194.41 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even dead people are covered by WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME for an "indeterminate" time after death. It's simply too soon to label him anything other than a suspect at this time - we err on the side of caution and there's no deadline for the "truth", thus it should remain at suspect for now imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But he has been confirmed as the perpetrator; he is no longer a suspect in the case. There really is no caution when it comes to this. -148.75.194.41 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong - there is always an abundance of caution regarding living or recently deceased people here - and the day/week of the event is too soon to consider such claims. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We literally name him as the perpetrator in the opening paragraph and the shooting bio, I'm going to change it. -148.75.194.41 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. The dead are literally not suspects, suspects face trial, suspects have rights.vhe things to remember to apply to BDPs are sourcing well enough and not lying. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The implication just made here of "the dead... [don't] have rights" is absurd, and this is exactly the reason WP:BDP exists - to prevent people from gravedancing on recently dead people by applying labels as soon as they can possibly finagle a way to do so. There is literally no harm in waiting a week or two - there is no deadline. Furthermore, a suspect is the person suspected of committing a crime. Last I checked, the investigation isn't closed yet, and while I personally feel it's not going to resolve any way other than this person being the perpetrator, it'd be original research to claim such in Wikipedia voice prior to the police saying beyond any doubt that their investigation is concluded and this person was the only suspect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not gravedancing. Good people, bad people, none are people in matters of law once they die. Their cases are closed. The incident is still under investigation. The perp is beyond retribution or absolution. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is not suspected in committing the crime, he did the crime. Police have confirmed Green is the perpetrator and is dead, no need to refer to him as a suspect since that is not even correct titling. -148.75.194.41 (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Pussyfooting around the material just makes it more contentious and likely to be challenged. Now if you would, could you kindly explain why your timestamp is four hours behind everyone else's? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure IP is using a custom sig based on this: ([[User talk:148.75.194.41#top|talk]])
No idea if that anchor code is enough to cause a problem. Or if something else also in play. Slywriter (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't consider timefoolery a problem, just intriguing. But I was once indefinitely blocked by editors who considered it disruptive to the whole communal system. Take care, unclickable number, whenever you are! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Motive

[edit]

Most of this section seems improper. Its guessing. Guesses arent appropriate for a current event. Waiting until facts are released that identify a motive is the better approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousef Raz (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motive isn't really best subheading for this section. I have changed it to background because it covers different parts of his history and no one specific thing. The long title mentioning both mental health and NOI was too long and it covers more than just those two things. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological Cause or Movement

[edit]

Since this is being edited and changed, and I already changed it once today, can we get some agreement on wording to try and avoid WP:SYNTH

  • Source[1] says: Investigators believed that Mr. Green was influenced by a combination of underlying mental health issues and a connection to an ideological cause that, he believed, provided justification to commit violence. Prior paragraph is about how motive currently is unclear, next paragraph discuss mental health and possibility of drugs.
  • This edit[2] adds in: According to The New York Times, Green believed the Nation of Islam "provided justification to commit violence.
  • I changed with this edit[3] to this: According to investigators, Green believed an ideological cause "provided justification to commit violence.
  • Between these two edits[4][5] it was changed to this: According to investigators, Green was linked to an ideological movement which he believed "provided justification to commit violence.

I do not believe changing cause to movement is paraphrasing in anyway as edit note states. Source says ideological cause, so I say leaving as such is accurate. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly shouldn't he saying linked. NOI has issues of it's own but there is no evidence they encouraged, conspired or otherwise bear responsibility for his actions. Personay, I think mental health should be the focus with NOI association a result Slywriter (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times reports: "Investigators believed that Mr. Green was influenced by a combination of underlying mental health issues and a connection to an ideological cause that, he believed, provided justification to commit violence." So, the perp:
  • Was influenced by underlying mental issues; and
  • Was influenced by a connection to an ideological cause that, he believed, provided justification to commit violence
Now, if you look at a thesaurus, what do you find? "Connect" is a synonym of "link". So, "link" appears to be a fair text. Having said that, if people have issues with the word "movement" then they are welcome to use "cause", like the NYT does. XavierItzm (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If attributing to investigators, we can't quote the NYT writer, they're entirely different people. (So I paraphrased the snippet to "justified violence".) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back to ideological cause. In reference to the edit comment that says ideological movement(cause) is in the article, that is WP:SYNTH. They don't describe the nation as a cause/movement and that paragraph was 4 paragraphs/sentences prior to the investigator comment. And most of all the investigators made the quote, not the writers of article, investigators weren't talking about his justification in the sense of what might be written before it in a potential article. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"‎Mental illness and ideology" section

[edit]

The "mental illness and ideology" section should not be broken up into separate sections, as the sources clearly discuss Green's delusions/deterioration in mental health in connection with his religious/ideological affinity (Nation of Islam). The sources discuss these both in tandem, and they occurred at the same time. To separate the paragraphs creates an artificial division that is not supported by sources:

  • NYTimes: "Investigators believed that Mr. Green was influenced by a combination of underlying mental health issues and a connection to an ideological cause that, he believed, provided justification to commit violence."
  • CNN: "In another post on the Instagram account, Green wrote last week that he believed Farrakhan had saved him 'after the terrible afflictions I have suffered presumably by the CIA and FBI, government agencies of the United States of America.' Responding to a comment on that post, Green wrote, 'I have suffered multiple home break ins, food poisonings, assaults, unauthorized operations in the hospital, mind control.'"
  • Washington Post: "Green ... slid into deep religiousness and paranoia that left family and friends concerned about his mental state in recent years"
  • Associated Press: "[Green] had been suffering from delusions, paranoia and suicidal thoughts, ... In online posts since removed, Green described being under government thought control and said he was being watched. He described himself as a follower of the Nation of Islam and its longtime leader, Louis Farrakhan"

--Neutralitytalk 15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Them overlapping is not deniable. Whether the mental illness occurred a few years ago and the Nation of Islam is something more recent, I do not know. I see mental health concerns going back as far as 2019. I don't know dates on facebook Nation of Islam posts, but a reference to him saying Malcolm X as person he would most like to meet in college. Regardless I don't see why we can't just call the entire section background, and discuss it all. I changed it previously to background, because that covers everything and isn't something that is going to be contentious. Then it was shifted into multiple sub-sub-headings again, and then renamed multiple times, and we are here again. If we are going to discuss options on sectioning it up, I would say one section as in current revision[6] named simply Background. Any further breaking down could be discussed, but the article is about the attack not the shooter, having all the detail is fine, but breaking down his section so much, I don't see the need for. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Background" seems vague. How about "Years leading up to attack"? Neutralitytalk 15:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the literal phrasing does not imply anything, some may believe it is implying those years lead to the attack, which may or may not be accurate. "Years before the attack" would work better. Background could be considered vague in regards to the specific details we are discussing, but they all are part of his background. Background, History, or Profile could work, personally Background is still my preference. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously those years did lead to the attack - sources are unequivocal on this. That said, I am fine with "Years before the attack." Neutralitytalk 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "lead to" as in like a motive or things causing him to do it. This happened, that happened, and then those thing lead to him attacking capital. Your phrasing didn't actually say that I know, I was just worried people would read/interrupt it as "this is what lead him to do it". WikiVirusC(talk) 16:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll change to "Years before the attack." Neutralitytalk 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a section entitled "Mental illness and ideology" which includes two entire paragraphs about the perp's following the ideology of the Nation of Islam, a black institution.

Are we to believe belonging to this black ideology is a mental weakness? Would you characterise other followers of the Nation of Islam's ideology as being mentally ill? Might that be just a tad racist? The whole nation of Islam thing needs be taken out of the mental illness and I'll make the change. XavierItzm (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't copy-and-paste your comments over and over again in a way that's not responsive to talk-page discussion; that could be construed as spam or derailing conversations. No, the section title did not imply that NOI followers in general are mentally ill; that's why the section was entitled "Mental illness and ideology"—the NOI part referred to the "ideology." With respect to Green specifically, the sources discuss them together. Per the discussion above with WikiVirusC, I'm changing to "Years before the attack." That is clear, concise, and avoids making an artificial separation between his ideology and his paranoia/mental issues, which would be at odds with the sources. Neutralitytalk 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not make unwarranted and edit-warring like edits like you did here, without you ever addressing the most recent comment regarding the insult, which was here. That's not responsive to talk-page discussion; that could be construed as spam or derailing conversations. XavierItzm (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the sources and the content. There’s no “insult” here. But on the actual matter at hand: Do you have any problem with the subhead title “Years before the attack”? Neutralitytalk 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix the archive pages?

[edit]

The page moved serval times and not the archive isn't link anymore. Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 1. Sokuya (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moved it WikiVirusC(talk) 23:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An insult to the Nation of Islam

[edit]

There is currently a section entitled "Deterioration in mental health" which includes two entire paragraphs about the perp's following of the Nation of Islam, a black institution.

Are we to believe belonging to this black institution is a mental weakness? Would you characterise other followers of the Nation of Islam as being on a mentally deteriorating path? Might that be just a tad racist? The whole nation of Islam thing needs be taken out of the deterioration issue and I'll make the change. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good change. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask Jim Michael to discuss any further changes he'd like to make to this section header in this section itself, rather than impose his idea of proper Wikilinks and neutrality unilaterally through edit summaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Headings - even on talk pages - should be short & neutral. Jim Michael (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With you so far. But how does Wikilinking another guy's words help? How does saying you find the insulted group non-mainstream, "racist, supremacist, antisemitic, etc." help? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the group isn't someone else's words - it's useful to link to our article about the NOI, which says that the group believe that Allah will return on a spaceship to wipe out the white race. It also says that civil rights activists, the SPLC & ADL have said it's a black supremacist hate group which promotes prejudice towards white people, antisemitism & anti-LGBT rhetoric. I didn't say that I personally find those things - I said that many people/orgs do.
I didn't write any of the material in this article about the attacker, but the idea that the important thing is to avoid is risking insulting this group is bizarre. Which other extremist groups should we be careful not to offend? Jim Michael (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per various Wikipedia policy, the ones comprised of living people. As a general rule of thumb, the vengeful and powerful ones. Anyway, the whole point of the OP's proposal seems to be based on concern of undue insult, and that's not as clear when you remove the description. Plus, it starts arguments, bit disruptive. Next time, reconsider or ask the author if he or she would retract something that bothers you, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a section entitled "Mental illness and ideology" which includes two entire paragraphs about the perp's following the ideology of the Nation of Islam, a black institution.

Are we to believe belonging to this black ideology is a mental weakness? Would you characterise other followers of the Nation of Islam's ideology as being mentally ill? Might that be just a tad racist? The whole nation of Islam thing needs be taken out of the mental illness and I'll make the change. XavierItzm (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NOI aren't merely a black institution/ideology. They believe that Allah will return on a spaceship to wipe out the white race. They've been described by many mainstream groups as a racist, supremacist hate group. Why are you advocating for an extremist group on this talk page? Why are you trying to prevent such a group being offended? It's bizarre that you accuse the authors of that section of being racist, when the NOI are very often described by mainstream orgs as racist. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for William Evans (police officer)

[edit]

Now that it has been announced that Officer Evans will lie in honor at the Capitol, he needs to have a separate article again on the precedent of Jacob Chestnut, John Gibson (police officer) and Brian Sicknick. I will demerge the articles. Gildir (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This goes against consensus established at Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol attack/Archive 1, you will need a new consensus to overturn that decision. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let a new discussion happen before moving it again. Don't worry if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Last discussion barely lasted a few hours, so having a new discussion so soon isn't a problem. We can allow for more input this time around. WikiVirusC(talk) 02:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I appreciate it. Gildir (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that this likely requires a much larger discussion than any one page - while specific-page AFD/merge discussions are certainly viable, WP:BLP1E exists for precisely this reason - people who are victims of crimes are rarely notable enough for their own articles, even if they get a ton of coverage in the weeks/months directly following the crime. Take Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson - that article almost certainly shouldn't exist, as a quick search found virtually no recent coverage that would imply lasting notability. It's still too soon to determine for Brian Sicknick, however, it is likely that he would fall under the same thing. What appears to be happening is creating articles as memorials to the victims and/or because of the amount of temporary coverage they get after the event - not because of any truly lasting notability. I don't feel comfortable starting AFDs on the two that are almost certainly non-notable at this time, but I encourage everyone to hold off and think about the fact that we are an encyclopedia, not a directory, and unfortunately, even those who are victims of heinous crimes don't always deserve articles, especially if the only reason they would is "because they were killed in X event". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out again that the past justification for Chestnut, Gibson and Sicknick's separate articles was not how they died, but rather that they lay in honor at the Capitol, which will also apply to Evans. Gildir (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gildir, people do not become notable because of "things" - they become notable because of lasting coverage in reliable sources. Subject notability guidelines, if there is one that says that lying in honor = notable, are about presumed notability - and are intended to enable articles where sources may be hard to find - i.e. historical figures, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: You're more than welcome to open an AFD for the existing articles (Sicknick, Chstnut, or Gibson) to get community input on this. Currently, my opinion is based on the consensus previously formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gibson (police officer). Edge3 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus from 2007 has almost certainly changed. That being said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is explicitly not an argument for articles remaining. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: There's nothing in WP:OSE that prohibits me from citing a previous AfD. First, it's an essay, not a policy or guideline. Second, WP:SSE states that we can look to other pages and discussions, to arrive at internal consistency within Wikipedia. I think that applies here. I don't see a strong reason to treat Evans differently from the other articles (Sicknick, Chestnut, and Gibson). If the consensus from 2007 has changed, then anyone may file a new AfD for any of the existing articles. Edge3 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it nice to just WP:LAWYERUP while entirely ignoring the WP:PRECEDENT issue as if it didn't exist? XavierItzm (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
XavierItzm, there is no "WP:PRECEDENT" issue - that page is not a policy, and our notability policy applies. While "lying in state" may frequently suggest notability, it neither guarantees it, nor does it do so always. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does frequently mean the only five other people who laid in state at the Rotunda have their own page, except this one doesn't get to have one? I guess "nor does it do so always" means oh, yeah, of course, in all cases but this one. XavierItzm (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I love how some editors can't cop a different opinion to theirs without getting snarky. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add "William Evans" details to body, name to title

[edit]

Since we don't yet have a bio for him, what would people think about adding William Evan's name into the title? It's a poor analogy, but we used this solution with the Death of Brian Sicknick; a far closer parallel is the Shooting of Darren Goforth. What would people think about "Murder/Death/Killing of William Evans"? Perp's mental state not withstanding, murder seems most accurate. Feoffer (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per discussion and WP:BIO1E. (non-admin closure) Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 United States Capitol car attack → Death of William Evans – Add Officer Evans's name to title. Feoffer (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This article (and event) is about a lot more than just the death of the officer. While it is sad that someone lost their life during the event, I feel that WP:BIO1E stands in the way of making this article (title) specifically about his death. Had Mr. Green been targeting that officer for some reason, it might be a different story, but Mr. Evans just happened to be the officer on duty at the time. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BIO1E is satisfied: "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. ... The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." cf Death of Brian Sicknick, Shooting of Darren Goforth, Murder of Kyle Dinkheller, numerous other such articles Feoffer (talk)
Sicknick's is a separate article from the event, we did not move 2021 storming of the United States Capitol to Death of Brian Sicknick (which is the equivalent of what you are suggesting), and Goforth and Dinkheller's deaths were both isolated incidents (cop gets ambushed at gas station, shootout during traffic stop), not a consequence of an independently notable event. Arguing unrelated articles and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will not change the fact that I oppose this move, not to mention your quoting WP:BIO1E "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person" is the exact reason why I originally opposed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is we generally name these events after the officer-victim, and this convention is entirely consistent with BIO1E. Murder of Lauretha Vaird, Shooting of Brian Moore, Shooting of Benjamin Marconi, Murders of Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli, etc Feoffer (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All isolated deaths (ambushes, botched robberies, etc.) named so because the officer's death is the event, not casualties during independently notable events... nothing worthy of changing my mind... Do you plan on hounding all oppose !votes like this? What's the point of the RM if you're simply going to argue with anyone that disagrees? - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you felt "hounded" and obviously it's your prerogative to prefer the old title and not be open to changing your mind. When it was suggested the proposed title might somehow violate BIO1E, I wanted to make sure you and others know we regularly name articles in this manner. Feoffer (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the event itself is notable enough to warrant an article, but the person is not, we title the article based on the event instead of the person's name (which would make it a biographical article about the person). That is the point of BLP1E/BIO1E (Death of Mr. Nobody instead of simply Mr. Nobody, Killing of Mr. Unknown instead of simply Mr. Unknown, etc.). Considering that this article is already named after the event (the event: a person drove their vehicle into the barricade checkpoint, attempting to attack the capitol), this is the appropriate article title. What you are suggesting is to disregard the event itself and focus simply on the death of the officer as the only notable part of the event. As I previously stated, it is the equivalent of moving the entirety of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol to Death of Brian Sicknick, or moving Battle of Gettysburg to Death of (insert non-notable officer's name here) (obviously an exaggeration for effect). I wanted to make sure you know we have already properly named the article based on the event, and I oppose moving it to a more vague title based solely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems pretty clear the death of Evans was a side effect of the intended attack on the capital, and the notability of the event is in this case derived from the high-profile location/target (and timing), not Evans' death. Title should stay as is. BSMRD (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update to discussion

[edit]

Just as an update to this old talk page discussion, an article has been created on William Evans, the victim of the attack. Make what you will of this newest development. Love of Corey (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The article Billy Evans (police officer) should be merged/redirected to this article because it clearly does not meet WP:BLP1E (as recently deceased) or WP:BIO1E standards. As recommended by guidelines, there should not be a stand-alone article as the person has only received coverage for dying in the event, the coverage of their lives did not exist before the event, and the coverage of their role in the event was not sustained. --Jayron32 17:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why we should include Evans's name in the title. Feoffer (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_car_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1115162852"