Talk:Ashli Babbitt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Problematic Intro

The current intro reads like she was a hero and makes no mention that she was storming the Capitol. I've tried to correct this multiple times but it keeps getting reverted. The fact that she was a rioter is essential information. Her service record, while important, doesn't seem relevant to the intro (although it could go under a background section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB10:7021:1:0:0:0:3957 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate this because User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 keeps reverting or overwriting my edits. Ashli Babbitt was not notable for her military service. She was notable for being a part of the group that stormed the Capitol building and being shot in the process. Please see the Manual of Style section on Leads. TooMuchMath (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:TooMuchMath, She's actually not even notable at all with capitol storming. Her name was because she was shot, but that's a debate for another time. And you refer to the MOS but one of our big pillars is neutrality which the original lead does. And the lead also provides quick information on the subject before clicking on the article. Your also turning this into a WP:Winning quarrel as you didn't choose to message me or start the talk discussion earlier but kept on reverting to your version even though they contain the same content but separated into section. But even if you are right, this is still a petty dispute a the same information is still exhibited either way. You also engage in the revert tug of war without first going to the talk page especially on the heavily edited political mess of a page you choose the latter. Y 17:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 - it takes two to play at tug of war. I understand the concept of neutrality (I'm not the one adding insurrectionist/terrorist) but this is about notability. Filling the lead with information that isn't directly relevant to her notability isn't making it more neutral, it's just bloating the intro. (If you recall you reverted one of my initial edits because you felt it was putting too much into the lead.). As you can see I had two entries (the first anonymous) that started almost immediately after you started reverting the article. It took you numerous edits to come here yourself to discuss. That said, thank you for taking it here.

In the interest of resolution perhaps we can keep both lines in the lead but swap them. That way the first thing users see is the relevant bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooMuchMath (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:TooMuchMath, You should stay logged in because with the amount of Ip users that were coming to vandalize and disrupt editing on this page, I probably bunched you in with the other hectic, politically driven IP users, so I apologize for that. But speaking on her matter I wanted to keep it the same to one show where she came from and her occupation as I've seen other similar articles that list the occupation before the event they were notable for. But I still think along with a background section the woman's occupation and her home state should be mentioned briefly in the lead Because I once was a normal not keen on wikipedia IP that usually read the lead to get general info of a person I didn't know. But with my addition of the Infobox, This should eliminate the need for a lengthy lead. This dispute should have never gotten pass the 3RR rule. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

P.s, Nevermind that as the article has been turned into a redirect. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP explanation

Although the article subject is now deceased, the events surrounding her death involve still-living persons so I imagine it would still apply for their sake. WakandaQT (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP also explicitly states that it applies to recently deceased people. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point too, thanks. WakandaQT (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist

She was shot while conducting a criminal act of insurrection. She should be called what she was - a terrorist. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some nameless contributor removes the factual statement that she was committing an act of insurrection when she was shot. At least have the decency to argue your case here before removing that. 82.176.221.176 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems ironic you complaining about a nameless contributor: and did you argue your case before adding it? WakandaQT (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You are notable for disruptive editing, so I recommend you don't talk too loudly. Are you denying she was involved in an act of insurrection? Code of the District of Columbia, § 10–503.16. Unlawful conduct. link: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/10-503.16.html 82.176.221.176 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Attempt to chill conversation noted: the issue here is that we don't add stuff to articles w/o sourcing it, so if you want to use the term 'insurrection' here you should probably fine and link a source that does so. WakandaQT (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

See under heading 'Sedition' below. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

She is an American patriot and martyr to our country. George Washington was called a terrorist too in his time. Let's simply state the facts without politicizing her article. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

lmao "Let's not politicize an article about this BRAVE MURRICAN MARTYR [cryingbaldeagle.gif]" Do you have any sense of self-awareness at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.108.203 (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The facts are that she was involved in a protest (which is a First Amendment right. I did not say that we should call her a patriot or martyr in the article, only that she should not be labeled a terrorist. Where is your self awareness? 47.137.184.131 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I recommend that this biography, along with any others made for the other protestors who died during the storming, should be merged into the main page for the Capitol protests. The individual(s) in question are not noteworthy enough to warrant their own individual article, and, as with several other pages documenting similar events, their biography could easily be made into a section in the page for the storming. That is all. --SgtShyGuy (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur, she's a minor individual in the grand saga Primus01 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not concur with you two: the other three deaths haven't collectively received anywhere near the same amount of attention as this one has. Can you even point me to a single reliable source that focuses on any one in particular? WakandaQT (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree this person doesn't meet notability guidelones and it's probably best not to amplify that notability into martyr status. Bkdb44 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The contrast in notability is incredibly obvious and I'm astounded on how people would put her on same level as other 3 deaths. Look at the WP presentation for example: "By day’s end, four people would be dead: one from gunfire and three from medical emergencies officials have yet to explain." with article title singling out "one woman killed". WakandaQT (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

only person to be shot and killed in the capitol building? since the british? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:65DD:5EE9:128C:B933 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fact-check such a claim, are any reliable sources running with that angle? WakandaQT (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

yeah i havent seen anyone state it as fact, but im sure we'll find out soon. seems note worthy?

found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_Capitol_shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:65DD:5EE9:128C:B933 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

this is kinda interesting too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:65DD:5EE9:128C:B933 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

found tweet but it was hard

So I've been digging to try and actually find the tweet which secondary/tertiary sources reported as saying "storm is here" the week of. I couldn't easily find an original tweet by the account at all since there just seemed to be a flood of retweets.

Using advanced search if you use "-RT" it excludes retweets from results (conversely adding RT only includes retweets) which leads to even more confusion:

• com/search?q=-RT%20(from%3AAshli_Babbitt)

This made me think the last tweet from her was October 2nd but that's just because it defaults to "Top", switching it to "Latest" fixes it:

• com/search?q=-RT%20(from%3AAshli_Babbitt)&f=live

This shows the last tweet was January 5th, meaning that she posted "storm is here" the day after the Jan 4th "storm is coming" from Woods and a day prior to retweeting the Jan 6th list from Woods. WakandaQT (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some information

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/pro-trump-woman-shot-and-killed-at-u-s-capitol-retweeted-attorney-lin-woods-must-be-done-list-before-she-died/

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/6/ashli-babbit-identified-air-force-vet-killed-capit/

She was 35 years old and the Capitol Police shot her. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done since the article was turned into a redirect. Majavah (talk!) 07:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Better sources

The article has some dubious refs like New York Post, Daily Mirror and Washington Times (See WP:RSP). Remember that WP:BLP applies per WP:BDP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who used Washington Times in the Talk page. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Qanon

It might be useful to document how Babbitt came to hear about and follow Qanon, if that is indeed the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

I don't know if there are any sources which explored that, the best guide might be looking at her Twitter timeline and when she began retweeting associated material? Hopefully some reporters are doing that. WakandaQT (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sedition

I don't think that anyone can argue that she was killed while committing the Felony crime of Sedition. The US Penal Code has the following definition <ref>https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384.html<ref>. Jaygeh (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

More info available

She was previously known as Ashli Elizabeth McEntee and served as an enlisted airman in the Air Force, both on active duty (April 2004 to April 2008) and in the Air Force Reserve (2008 to 2010) and Air National Guard (2010 to 2016). She worked as an active duty security forces airman. See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/07/dc-riots-ashli-babbitt-killed-capitol-attack-military-veteran/6577488002/ 37.152.194.162 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful information, thanks. Also helps establish what middle initial "E." referred to. I notice this source says "The article noted it was her eighth deployment" which is an interesting detail to supplement the "four tours", I take it to mean at least one tour is composed of multiple deployments in same region. WakandaQT (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)